Does this car look squatted
You can put bigger tires on and make it look better. It does need springs though.
View attachment 1715383388
I'll disagree with saying it needs new rear springs based on the photo.
The rear should not be higher than the front for most uses.
The rear leafs should be flat at normal load. This provides the most lateral control of the axle and makes sure the axle helps the car turn.
This is how Chrysler designed 'em. Chrysler explains it in the
in this booklet about handling.
Increasing the rear arch can improve launch with sticky tires on the drag strip if anti-squat geometry is maintained or improved.
Trying to find the original rear ride height is difficult.
The only rear height info I've seen from the factory is at Hamtramck Historical.
For example this one:
The 1970 Hamtramck Registry "Chrysler Passenger Car Bumper Heights 1965 thru 1976" Page
Note that on page two that these are for fully loaded (5 passengers, full fuel) but does not say what options. Also the bumpers are somewhat adjustable and the body has some slop. So these are visual body related, not so much suspension setup info.
As mentioned early in this thread, the first thing to do is check the front ride height.
That is adjustable and the specs are in the shop manual.
As far as age and wear I agree. In general, I consider a rear leaf with 75K miles as getting into range of possibly needing replacement. It depends on its past use and abuse. The more times the spring has cycled, especially if cycled to extremes (drag race launches, carrying heavy loads, etc) there will be shorter life span. Occassionally you'll find a original heavier duty spring pack (like used on 383 cars, Formula S, special order) have kept their resiliance and shape surprisingly well. Rubber bushings, and the zince interleafs may still need to be replaced. Make decisions based on the condition of the spring, not some generalization.
