Is "stance" important?

[XXXGoldL34M20]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZiggyL78</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't see it as being lower Dan.The rocker looks horizontal to the ground.If you make a print of your pic and draw a line through the centres of the wheels and the bottom of the rocker,you will find the lines are parallel.I think if you measure the front of the rocker and compare it to the back,they will be very close.
I always remember back in 70 that when my LS6 was loaded for the track that the back went down.2 slicks on steel wheels with a tool box and a 24 of &quot;50&quot; was too much for stock springs.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XXXBlackLs6M22</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stance is important to get it right if you are going for the original height on a 1970 Chevelle SS. The back was always lower than the front [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img] </div></div> </div></div>

Ken my car is about 3/4&quot; lower in the back. If you take a close look at that photo you can clearly see the shadow line sitting on each tire is much lower on the back then the front. Thats how the 70 Chevelle came from the factory.

[m22mike]

Sam, git back to work [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Steve Shauger]

.