Steel head or aluminum head on the 496?
IMHO..
The rear shocks are currently on 2, and the thing is already porpoising pretty badly...Why would you want to go softer on the shock? I would tighten it if anything, to keep the tire planted. When I start to tune out a new combo, I start in the middle or at least close to it and work either way. Not sure why you're running so much preload in the top hole..Your nose heavy car might like the lower hole better anyway. There is no way you have over 5" travel with how high your car sits in the front..Did you measure correctly? Upper control arm snubbers should be removed completely, not just cut down. And the million dollar question..
I noticed that the body seperates some and then the tires start to spin what will correct that, more flats?
Pitch rotation! Unfortunately, with stock rubber bushings up front and an improperly setup rear suspension, this will not happen. You have a nose heavy car with a small tire...The idea is to get the car up on the tire quickly and efficiently. The stock stuff binds pretty badly, and if those Moroso springs are more then 6 months old they're probably junk already.
I'm not excited about your front shock selection, but they will work for you and at this point in time a better shock won't do much of anything for you. I advise replacing your front bushings with some sore of bind-free bushing i.e. AFCO/Global West, just stay away from polyurethane JUNK!
In conclusion..
-Better bushings
-Lower front/more travel
-Tighter rear shock
-Play with top/bottom hole, I advise the stop bar just touching the spring with driver weight in the car
It drives me nuts when I see people misinforming others on message forums. People spend countless hours/dollars on their rear suspension chasing traction issues, when the problem is usually in the front. The car very well MAY work on a good track...But an efficient 60 foot is something you will NOT have, and on a marginal track on a hot summer day, you are dead!
Joe