Springs refresh (what are the options ?) / CC859 and CC240 review and possibles other matchs

gamefanatic

SHO Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
652
Reaction score
231
Location
Barstow, CA
Interesting correlation between the various springs and sway bars. I have a 19/26 setup on my stock suspension (can't remember the spring codes). I have my car down, but put a 23mm in the front for when I get it back so we will see how that works out. I know in my SLO the setup made things very stiff when going into driveways and over speed bumps around town, but was very nice on the road.

I have been thinking my next suspension will come from the Shosource Coilover package. As I want to control over height, stiffness, and alignment for moving between Street / Track.
Though I would much rather go with a MagneRide, but feel it would be too much work for the moment. Of course a setup like that would delete the need of various swaybars, possibly altogether.
 

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
It seems that other Ford Owners are making searches like mine... Old Gran Torino owners have problem to find part too. The very interesting part in this is that rear Gran Torino springs seems similar to our fronts. We can see the official front replacement 80108 in their list...Some have progressive rate ("CCxxx").

Spring # (almost all are Moog): Inside Diam. / Bar Diam. /Install Height/ Load rate (lbs)/ Spring Rate (Lbs/in.)/ Free Height/Ends Type (PP = Pigtail+Pigtail)/Loaded Height (installed)

5391 : 5.57 / 0.59 / 9 / 909 / 142 / 15.4 / PP / 9.05

CC253 : 3.86 / 0.58 / 11 / 492 / 221 / 13.25 / PP / 9.09

CC805 : 5.43 / 0.64 / 9.75 / 770 / 187 / 14 / PP 9.13

80108
: 5.73 / 0.61 / 9 / 950 / 169 / 14.5 / PP / 9.13

5375 : 5.57 / 0.59 / 9 / 933 / 137 / 15.82 / PP / 9.25

CC627 : 5.56 / 0.59 / 10.25/ 560 / 161 / 14.88 / PP / 9.26

5415 : 5.57 / 0.61 / 9 / 950 / 170 / 14.6 / PP / 9.26

5041 : 5.57 / 0.59 / 10 / 810 / 141.6 / 15.72 / PP / 9.36

CC665 : 4.33 / 0.64 / 11.5 / 371 / 252 / 13.06 / PP / 9.39

5381 : 5.55/ 0.61 / 9 / 972 / 169 / 14.76 / PP / 9.39

CC849 : 5.05 / 0.63 / 13 / 340.5 / 160.5 / 15.2 / PP / 9.56

8537 : 5.66 / 0.61 / 10 / 850 / 175 / 14.77 / PP / 9.58

5557 : 5.57 / 0.56 / 10 / 848 / 125.5 / 16.76 / PP / 9.61

CC507 : 5.53 / 0.61 / 10 / 849 / 158 / 15.38 / PP / 9.65

5387 : 5.57 / 0.61 / 8.5 / 1089 / 157 / 15.42 / PP / 9.66

CC865 : 4.54 / 0.59 / 11.5 / 620 / 163 / 15.25 / PP / 9.69

6381 : 5.53 / 0.66 / 9 / 1062 / 198 / 14.34 / PP / 9.73 8.976363636

CC801 : 5.43 / 0.64 / 9.75 / 870 / 192 / 14.5 / PP / 9.75

8307 : 5.66 / 0.61 / 9.75 / 907 / 158 / 15.49 / PP / 9.76

8161 : 5.53 / 0.59 / 10 / 875 / 130 / 16.73 / PP / 9.82

8805 : 5.05 / 0.56 / 12.13 / 650 / 122 / 17.19 / PP / 9.84

CC667 : 4.33 / 0.64 / 11.5 / 475 / 271 / 13.28 / PP / 9.85

CC841 : 4.30 / 0.53 / 14 / 482 / 101 / 18.69 / PP / 9.86

CC625 : 5.53 / 0.66 / 10 / 850 / 222 / 14 / PP / 9.86

8531 : 5.66 / 0.63 / 9.75 / 947 / 183 / 14.94 / PP / 9.97

from :
http://forum.grantorinosport.org/1973-gts-street-track_topic5075_page2.html
and
http://forum.grantorinosport.org/info-the-coil-spring-thread_topic2746.html
 
Last edited:

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
Updates :

For SHO :
I must say that these CC859 on the rear of the SHO are a lot more confortable after three months. I re-tryed this fall the same rought rural road (with same speed and tires) and almost all the small bumps were absorbed by the spring this time and the car keep his direction more easely. It seems springs are like shoes, it takes some times to be confortable. With this good rear behavior, I will install new springs on front because the ass seems a little stronger than the front. I will be very occupied this spring (we are buying a house) and I will not have too much time to fit springs not designed to the front of our car. Two pigtails is very complicated to fit (rather than tangential and squared ends). Therefore, I bought front Moog 80108 spring and try them with CC859 combo (169 lb/inch and 137 lb/ inch with 0.60 inch wire all around) and see how it goes. I must say that many sport lowering springs set only have progressive springs on rear too.

For SLO (and SHO maybe) :
My winter car a 98 Taurus LX had (again) a spring broken on rear and I'm very tired about this ass problem giving a bad behavior on emergency handling with the car. I put a rusted 21mm rear bar from a 95 SHO but it's not enought strong to handle all the bodyroll. I decided to use my springs researches to fit one progressive spring set to correct this problem. After many reflexions, I decided to go with Moog CC240. I bought them today and I will try them in the next weeks. They are stronger than stock but weaker than CC859 which are really strong (too strong for a confort/winter car on my opinion). I re-put the infos here to have an easier comparison :

Ford "KUM" (SHO 1996 rear springs) (same spring rate for SLO ?)
capacity : 567 lbs
spring rate : 100 lbs/inch
wire diam. (inch) : 0.50
1.34 cps
inner diameter : 5.22 inch
free height : 15.88
installation height : 10
ends : 2 tangential

Moog cargo coils CC240 (very near of stock specs too but progressive, originally for front Camry 87-89)
capacity : 450 lbs (same as CC859)
spring rate : 110-...(280 estimated) lbs/inch (start stiffness is like stock)
wire diam. : 0.56 (same as front springs stock, they will not broke)
? cps (1.30 estimated)
inner diam. : 5.43 (=interior diameter is only around 3/16 inch larger to sit on strut, 1/8 on each side)
free height : 15.09 (in between KUM and CC859)
installation height : 11 (in between KUM and CC859)
ends :1 squarred, 1 tangential (not a problem, will sit)

Moog rear cargo coils CC859 (progressive)
capacity : 455 lbs (and can handle probably more than 567 lbs, confirmed.)
spring rate : 137-349 (!) lbs/inch
wire diam. : 0.59 (0.60 measured, 0.50 stock)
1.57 cps
inner diam. : 5.22
free height : 14.50 (Ford stock is 15.88)
installation height : 11.25 (Ford stock is 10)
ends : 2 tangentials

I will let you know once they will be installed if some are curious, thanks for helping me guys by the way.
 
Last edited:

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
I received these Moog CC240 and compared side by side with a stock rear that I have already. At the first view, they are shorter by 1/2 inch and larger by around 1/4 inch (will probably fit on the rubber part of the strut). I took some photos that I will post here. However, my mechanic is still in your country (Florida) because he worked a lot, on my SHO...

I must also say in comparison with the heavy rear Moog CC859, the difference between the spacing of the turns (confort vs stiff zone) is less different than on the CC859. Therefore, the maximum stiffness of CC240 (110-... lb/i) will be a lot less than CC859 (137-349 lb/i) probably in the range of 250-280 lb/i.

You must be registered for see images attach
 
Last edited:

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
Here is a CC240 (black one) beside one of our stock spring for the rear (the greyish one). The paint on them is also better, they will rust slowly. I will put the rubber protections at each end to compensate the larger diameter of the new spring (to center it correctly when he will sit on other parts).
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach


My mechanic isn't back home but I will let you know when they will be on the car.
 
Last edited:

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
Hi, I'm returning with some additionnal infos.

After some months of reflexions, I recently changed my front springs on the SHO. I decided to put the Moog / TRW 80108 in the front in combination with the Moog / TRW CC859 (cargo coils) on the rear because the feeling before was the ass was stronger than the front by a good margin. These 80108 springs upgrade the stiffness from 155 lbs/inch to 169. This added stiffness in front suits very well with the stifness of the rear cargo coils CC859 (a lot more added there).

I tryed them on various situations. The car stay flat on curves and on hard braking (with 17 inches 235/45R17, it's just another car !) but they allow some confort too. On bumps lower of 1.5 inch (95% of the time), the response is the same front and rear. On bumps higher of 1.5 inch, we can feel the rear become stronger and stiffer but it's not enough to become annoying. EDIT : in northern areas, yes it's annoynig.

My most worry with them was the on/off SARC behavior was completely removed because these springs will be too strong. But the behavior stay there but will trigger less often as the springs handle the bumps slower, height sensors will not trigger the struts sometime and it's feels like the overall suspension is softer because the strut stay in soft mode. However, they will trigger as often on other situations. I saw on V8SHO.com that they will be closed (off mode or hard mode) if you go higher than 90 mph and I also remarked they trigger when IMRC opens. I tested one of these situations long enough to saw that there is a difference between soft and hard mode with SARC (for which a switch is still usefull then). The feeling on hard mode isn't more hard than the stock settup, maybe the struts are already a way stronger on hard mode. (?)

Note that the stores, at least Rockauto, doesn't list and sell these springs (80108 and CC859) for 96 to 99 SHOs, they only offert them for SLO or other SHO gens (1/2), even if they are stronger and are designed to fit on Gen 3 SHOs... (In fact, 80108 are sold for Gen 3/4 SLO and CC859 are sold for Gen 1/2 SHO and Gen 1/2/3 SLO. !?!)

They can be a real good maintenance upgrade (really cheap if you bought the TRW version) and can be also considered as a smooth performance upgrade (the overall car stiffness is higher by around 20%). The good point with this settup is you don't have to play with swaybars anymore to keep the car flat. No more SAS and bodyroll will be 5-10% of the stock feeling. :)

I give them 9/10, you will have a good sport daily driver with this settup. (My appreciation may vary over time as they are new on front, they can lose some stiffness vs the rear and a difference may occur between front and rear...Maybe 8.5, maybe 9.5.)

P.S. I haven't put my CC240 on my SLO at this time but I will put infos when it's was done.
 
Last edited:

stephen newberg

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
Messages
3,358
Reaction score
394
Location
Ladysmith, BC, Canada
I actually run mine with the struts forced to hard by the switch all the time. I find it simpler, but then again, I have not used the car as a daily driver for many years, but rather take it out in the summer when I want to have a fun day with it on back roads or take it to a car show.

pax, smn
 

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
Things are smoothering a little which isn't bad. I can feel some body roll maybe 10-15% of the stock config. I think I will let then the 21mm rear swaybar that I put there. We can also feel that 80108 are little bit more soft than CC859 (as 80108 become softer a bit). Even this, 80108 give me a better feeling than my old MAD springs and the camber is perfect.

I made a run with the car loaded (toolbox of 60lbs., 4 mags with tires and some others parts) and the bodyroll was more easy to feel, around 30-35% of the stock feeling. However, when the car is loaded, the feeling is practicly the same on 4 wheels (more rebound from the rear).

This let me think that a perfect config will be smaller rear springs (around 0.55 inch in wire diam.) bolted with a little bigger rear swaybar, like 23mm. (this purpose is for a sport daily driver, not track).

Maybe CC240 with a 23 mm rear bar...?

Final note : 8.5/10 (better than stock config which I will put around 6.5)

Note : If someone is tempted by this settup which can be a good replacement and upgrade, don't forget to bypass the rear brake bias valve because you will have only 50% of your brake power all the time.
 
Last edited:

stephen newberg

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
Messages
3,358
Reaction score
394
Location
Ladysmith, BC, Canada
I do not remember the dimensions of the Eibach lowering springs. They are only maybe half an inch lower or so, but were stiffer. I still have a big of body lean when cornering hard, but not much. Maybe 15% of what it was when the car was stock? But as there are other suspension changes also, its not easy to figure what part of the change is accounted for by which particular component.

pax, smn
 

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
Yes, I try to figure out as I didn't made all the changes in the same time (I had some time to observe the results between changes).

It's interesting to know that you still have some bodyroll with Eibach and a 23mm rear swaybar...
 

stephen newberg

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
Messages
3,358
Reaction score
394
Location
Ladysmith, BC, Canada
If there were none, it would be interesting but of concern. Remember, the energy has to go somewhere. If the body is completely flat, its very likely that one of the tires is no longer maintaining a proper contact patch. Having a little body lean is not a problem so long as the momentum in the lever can be recovered without causing control problems. Having a tire contact patch below its adhesion limit, however, is a problem as you are now likely going sideways instead of forward with the vector.

pax, smn
 

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
Then, having 235 rather than 225 can be a good combinaison with stiffer suspension ? Tire is absorbing some of this force. I suppose that 16 inches will be better than 17 inches because sidewall is taller and can absorb more of this force. (?)
 

stephen newberg

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
Messages
3,358
Reaction score
394
Location
Ladysmith, BC, Canada
To some degree, the first is true. You likely increase the contact patch with the wider tire. But nothing is free. Remember that a the same time, you are likely increasing hung weight, which has a direct effect on acceleration. On your second thought, again, nothing is free and tires are certainly not that linear. In fact, there is likely more sidewall, ration wise, for the 16 inch tire than for the 17 inch one, but the way to know is by getting the full number. Thus 245-45-17 has less sidewall than 225-55-16. Also keep in mind that flex in the sidewall is not going to be counteracted by the other suspension components, though some of them may prevent it from starting in the first place to some degree, but overall, it is going to increase body roll.

Suspension engineering is very complex.

pax, smn
 

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
Last week-end, I had a chance to drive a 2016 Mercedes C43 with the AMG kit (the owner said that the kit included all except the motor which remain the 2.0L turbo of 240 hp...!). Brakes (four pistons on fronts galipers...) and suspension were modified also (sadly I forgot to check what was the setup for this).

I must admit the suspension feeling is near that what I have done with my summer ride frankly. The balance between front and rear ends is better on the Mercedes as they are developped for this exact purpose but the stiffness and bodyroll seem almost the same when rolling and cornering. More precisely, the stifness on 4 wheels on Mercedes seems a in between in front and rear stiffness of the settup I put on mine (Moog 80108 and CC859).

Side note : Even if I like the look of news Mercedes (similar in some ways of a Gen 3 Taurus shape), I realize that I hate turbos, you have to wait 1-2 sec until the motor exit from is coma (2.0L on a car heavier than a SHO with no direct link to the TB) and then, he give you all he has. It's imprevisible and dangerous on sliding surfaces OMOA. Our motor has a power coming in a more progressive way in rpm and sounds a way lot better (on C43, we clearly hear the four cylinders motor).
 
Last edited:

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
Update :
I recently changed my front sway bar bushings which were badly worn and I replaced them by the polyeurethane (harder blue version) ones as I miss some stiffness on front. The result is that the front stiffness is almost perfectly balanced with the rear. Also the direction seems more precise.

Final note : 9.5/10
Real good sport daily driver, a little stiffer than stock with no more SAS. I will be very curious to know performance on a skidpad... in the range of 0.90 G maybe. Bodyroll is about 10% of the stock and seems very neutral for under/oversteer too.

Config details :
Front : 22mm bar with blue bushings, Moog 80108, SARC struts changed for lower mileage ones
Rear : 21mm bar with black bushings, Moog CC859, SARC struts still good there
(tires size is 235/45R17, Update : with 225/55R16, the ride is even better 9.9/10 a little bit stiffer than stock but not too much by around 10% with no body roll)

Notes :
All parts are easy to find and you don't have to replace the front bar which is a great job (and the rear one isn't useful to replace too as the rear springs are rock steady). I found used SARC struts with low mileage coming from a scrapyard from another province. Shipping wasn't too high because it was by bus.
 
Last edited:

GEN 3 SHO FAN

SHO Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
742
Reaction score
228
Location
Canada
I recently changed my tires and go back to 225/55R16 and I must say that the new is even more well with this tire size.

It's smoothering out the small stiffness difference between front and rear. (9.9/10) Also, I read somewhere that SARC was also designed to work with 16 inches tires (better behavior ?).
 

stephen newberg

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
Messages
3,358
Reaction score
394
Location
Ladysmith, BC, Canada
There is little doubt that your overall ride will improve if you stick with the stock tire size. Modern more low profile tires simply do not have the compliance that the suspension was designed to use. I note, however, that if you have already done other things to make the suspension stiffer as I have, you may not gain full ride benefits from returning to the OEM size tires.

pax, smn
 
Top