I noticed this today with Hawker748 and 67Poncho posting their GM documention.
Hawker748's lists F41 Suspension: Firm Ride and Handling, whereas,
67Poncho's lists F40 Heavy Duty Front & Rear Suspension.
Can anyone tell me the difference?
4SPEED427 said
Sep 20, 2012
I think only F41 had the rear bar is the most obvious difference.
seventy2plus2 said
Sep 20, 2012
Carl Stevenson wrote:
I think only F41 had the rear bar is the most obvious difference.
I figured F40 had the larger diameter front sway bar, and the F41 had the larger front sway bar, and the rear sway bar. But that's just my theory.
4SPEED427 said
Sep 20, 2012
Wish we could prove that. Andrew (2qwik2c) and I spent some time in that yard last year I had told you about. There's a few of the big bars there and seems to be no pattern.
And closer to home, the 66 GP I bought last fall has F40 and has a small front bar. It's a head scratcher.
4SPEED427 said
Sep 20, 2012
And to further confuse it, I've seen a big front bar on a 6 cyl car and a small front bar on a 396 car.
2qwik2c said
Sep 20, 2012
Springs and shocks were different from f40 to f41 aswell. I believe f41 cars had a lower ride height aswell. F40 was basically the station wagon suspension, in 67 f40 was not available on a wagon cause it already had it.
2drpost said
Sep 20, 2012
F41 had frt and rear bars
gparis7 said
Sep 21, 2012
Carl Stevenson wrote:
Wish we could prove that. Andrew (2qwik2c) and I spent some time in that yard last year I had told you about. There's a few of the big bars there and seems to be no pattern.
And closer to home, the 66 GP I bought last fall has F40 and has a small front bar. It's a head scratcher.
I think the front sway bar on 65 and 66 cars was smaller than on 67 to 70 with or without F40. My understanding of the differecnes between F40 and F41 are: spring rates (F40 are stiffer - larger wire) than F41, plus F41 has the rear bar. That's how my 68 Caprice is outfitted.
I've seen several 6 cyl & small block V8 Chev and Cdn Pontiac cars from 67-70 with the F40 large front bar, but in every case, without exception, those cars had a 12 bolt rear end. I also had three Canadian 67-68 wagons with the big diameter springs, but they each only 10 bolt rear ends. That was wierd to me.
66 Grande guy said
Sep 22, 2012
Carl Stevenson wrote:
And to further confuse it, I've seen a big front bar on a 6 cyl car and a small front bar on a 396 car.
Hey how come your stealing my car for your avatar!? It better still be at my place when I get home.
4SPEED427 said
Sep 22, 2012
'Fraid not Ken, don't hurry home!!!
427strato said
Sep 22, 2012
Its actually interesting about the ride height when discussing F41 suspension. When my Strato Chief came into the dealership in 1968 I hated the way it sat. The front end was very low, compared to the rear, and the style on the street at that time, in Ontario, was that the front end should be higher than the rear. I went to CTC and bought the spring expanders, (or whatever you would like to call them), and installed them in the front coils. You would adjust the nut in the middle of the expander which would enlarge the space between the two coils you installed it in, thus lifting the front of the car. A friend had a 68 Biscayne, also 427-385 hrs., with an F41, and he did the same thing. In retrospect, the ride height being lower for an F41 suspension vehicle is absolutely correct, at least in my opinion, as I thought at the time it looked wrong. By the way, even with me messing with the geometry of the front end by lifting it with those dumb CTC parts, the car at 120 plus miles per hour handled like a dream. I know by todays standards this would be considered extremely dangerous but you must remember 45 years ago there were a lot less cars on the road and the risks were not as extreme as today. Just as a matter of interest, I hope, when I ordered my car the heavy duty suspension was going to cost me $6.00, I think, and the special suspension (F41), cost me $24.00.
gparis7 said
Sep 22, 2012
That seems right about the ride height. My factory equipped F41 Caprice sits low relative to other non-F41 B bodies I own or have owned.
I noticed this today with Hawker748 and 67Poncho posting their GM documention.
Hawker748's lists F41 Suspension: Firm Ride and Handling, whereas,
67Poncho's lists F40 Heavy Duty Front & Rear Suspension.
Can anyone tell me the difference?
I figured F40 had the larger diameter front sway bar, and the F41 had the larger front sway bar, and the rear sway bar. But that's just my theory.
And closer to home, the 66 GP I bought last fall has F40 and has a small front bar. It's a head scratcher.
F41 had frt and rear bars
I think the front sway bar on 65 and 66 cars was smaller than on 67 to 70 with or without F40. My understanding of the differecnes between F40 and F41 are: spring rates (F40 are stiffer - larger wire) than F41, plus F41 has the rear bar. That's how my 68 Caprice is outfitted.
I've seen several 6 cyl & small block V8 Chev and Cdn Pontiac cars from 67-70 with the F40 large front bar, but in every case, without exception, those cars had a 12 bolt rear end. I also had three Canadian 67-68 wagons with the big diameter springs, but they each only 10 bolt rear ends. That was wierd to me.
Hey how come your stealing my car for your avatar!? It better still be at my place when I get home.
Its actually interesting about the ride height when discussing F41 suspension. When my Strato Chief came into the dealership in 1968 I hated the way it sat. The front end was very low, compared to the rear, and the style on the street at that time, in Ontario, was that the front end should be higher than the rear. I went to CTC and bought the spring expanders, (or whatever you would like to call them), and installed them in the front coils. You would adjust the nut in the middle of the expander which would enlarge the space between the two coils you installed it in, thus lifting the front of the car. A friend had a 68 Biscayne, also 427-385 hrs., with an F41, and he did the same thing. In retrospect, the ride height being lower for an F41 suspension vehicle is absolutely correct, at least in my opinion, as I thought at the time it looked wrong. By the way, even with me messing with the geometry of the front end by lifting it with those dumb CTC parts, the car at 120 plus miles per hour handled like a dream. I know by todays standards this would be considered extremely dangerous but you must remember 45 years ago there were a lot less cars on the road and the risks were not as extreme as today. Just as a matter of interest, I hope, when I ordered my car the heavy duty suspension was going to cost me $6.00, I think, and the special suspension (F41), cost me $24.00.
That seems right about the ride height. My factory equipped F41 Caprice sits low relative to other non-F41 B bodies I own or have owned.