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

Discussion in 'V8 - Maintenance & Troubleshooting' started by GEN 3 SHO FAN, Jul 26, 2016.

  1. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    For his 20 years, I make a refresh of the suspension because he was in great need.

    I started with the rear ones as the 2 springs were broken in the top. :S No OEM can't be found anymore except used ones. I check on Rockauto and saw progressive Moog cargo coils (CC859) which it's said on V8SHO that they are an upgrade but will add a lot of stiffness to the rear and are a good answer for a SAS.

    Finally put them with the SARC struts but give me first a way too much HNV with my 25mm rear sway bar (but with 0% of body roll). Each rear wheel going on a bump can activate SARC on the 2 rear wheel at the time...(at least it's the feeling I had). I changed the bar for a 21mm and give a real great feeling, stability and some more infos from the road from the stock configuration (with maybe 10-15% of the stock body roll). The rear seems in a in between SARC on/off but can go in on off mode (stiff mode). Checked the car with a full load (3 persons and full trunk), it will lose only about 1 inch.

    My problem it's I like my new rear sping behavior but I made some searches and I don't find progressive springs for the front of a SHO or at least a SLO. On large soft bumps, the car will dive more of the front. I want the same behavior on 4 wheels if possible. My front ones the stocks "MAD" ones with almost no rust.

    Thinking about that, I come to 2 solutions but I'm not a veteran so I expect that someone had more experience than me here...

    1) Just put spring enforcer on the front ones giving a behavior close to a progressive spring (can I break my springs with something like that ?). I found big rubber rings (10$ each) cut in one place that can be put between 2 turns of the spring, rubber allowing some compression but with more force.

    2) Rockauto sell another strong Moog spring for the front of SLO (80108). I'm wondering if someone tryed them...? Some will say that they are too weak for V8 weight but if I compare numbers from stock rear springs and cargo coil from Moog, it's let me doubtful. Let's see.

    Ford (MAD front springs from SHO 1996)
    capacity : 1107 lbs
    spring rate : 155 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.56
    1.26 cps (cycles per second)

    Ford (rear springs from SHO 1996)
    capacity : 567 lbs
    spring rate : 100 lbs/inch
    wire diam. (inch) : 0.50
    1.34 cps

    Moog 80108 (front linear)
    capacity : 950 lbs
    spring rate : 169 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.60
    1.32 cps

    Moog rear cargo coils CC859 (progressive)
    capacity : 455 lbs
    spring rate : 137-349 (!) lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.59 (0.60 measured)
    1.57 cps

    At first sight, these numbers let me believe that they are weaker too, going down to 567 to 455 lbs.

    Also found these Moog more recently.

    Moog rear cargo coils CC839 (progessive, but have one end different that must be cut)
    capacity : 426 lbs
    spring rate : 141-? lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.59

    Spring rate and wire diameter are better on the Moog and could be a good solution maybe. The loss of total capacity on the rear didn't affect anything (height or stability). I'm wondering if they can be an ungrade or at least can be a good replacement part or the car will always be in a little "dive" position ? Also, I know that linear and progressive don't give the same behavior but my rear in hard mode can be a little stiffer and I just want same stiffness from the front end.

    Thanks for your help,

    Edit: I'm not doing any publicity, it's just the place where I found the infos.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  2. 98SF19

    98SF19 AlphaKennyBuddy

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    138
    Occupation:
    Civil Design
    Location:
    Florida
    I haven't read your whole post, but I bought 2 new LOW-code springs last year. They will be going with used Konis in the coming weeks. I thought I had 2 "RAN" springs on the way originally, but the warehouse selling them actually only had 1, so they gave me the same price for the LOWs.
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50438230/SPRING CODES.PNG
     
  3. LOUDSHO92

    LOUDSHO92 SHO Master Staff Member Sponsoring Vendor Club Mod

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    5,546
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Engineer
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA
  4. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    Thanks guys. But I don't want the lower the car because we have too many pot holes here in the North (even in summer), though they look awesome. They are progressive in front and not in the rear ? I thought that progressive is better in rear because the weight can change a lot on this end. (?) Edit : Ok, after a check up in their catalog, it's the rear that is progressive.

    I will check out what I can find with part number. I have some number missing on all springs listing. MAD = F6DZ-5310-F

    Rolling rapidly on rought road yesterday and found the rear isn't great after all... a little too stiff. Thinking about it, I saw a softer rear spring option. However, if I put those, I think I will have to replace my rear 21mm bar for the 25mm.

    Adelco 45H2095 (rear springs supposed progressive but not)
    capacity : 500 lbs
    spring rate : 94 or 100 (probably)
    wire diam. : 0.515 (0.50 measured)
    (FALSE INFOS, Rockauto is giving universal infos on Acdelco spring which is confusing)

    But it's hard to say when the rear SARC is in OFF mode with this cargo rear springs. Probably a good upgrade for a non-SARC car. On rought surface at high speed (75 mph) the rear doesn't absord enought bumps and have tendency to destabilize the entire car... Enough to correct that in the steering (and it was in straight line). Probably a good setup for southern regions but not that much for northern ones. All these small bumps become very annoying.

    An other thing I realized is that the rear end will just lowering a little with big weight on the trunk and that will mess with the rear brakes valve. The more the rear is lower, the more rear brakes you have, then you loss some brake power from the rear... I think I will put a bypass.

    Sadly, I just observed that yesterday. I will still try them some weeks as they are becoming softer with time.

    Edit : I have stock wheels on the car with 16 inches Kelly Charger tires which seems hard too. Slightly better with 17 inches Khumo tires strangly (softer tires ?).
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  5. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    Crap, I bought Acdelco rear springs (45H2095) from Rockauto and it appears after a visual check up that they aren't progressive and have 0.50 inch of diameter... Probably same spec as rear factory ones.

    The CC859 give great feeling with a 21mm rear sway bar (can be found on all Gen 1 SLO). The body roll is reduced by 85% and I can take curves on highway in a way that it's become inconfortable in the driver seat !!

    Without weight on the trunk, the rear is a little bit stiffer than the front (it's why I bought Acdelco). They create many NHV on rought roads and it can be it's more difficult to keep the car on the road on rought surfaces. However, I must admit that CC859 cargo coils give a better feeling with 100 pounds of stock in the trunk or with a full fuel tank.

    I think my only option is to stiffen up a little the front now... (Moog 80108 in front maybe ?) Anyone knows another option ?

    Maybe someone bought rear springs Moog 80093 ? They seem to have same dimensions as rears factory ones but with more turns... (strongers ?)
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2016
  6. sperold

    sperold Last to Know Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,513
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mech. Tech.
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    My memory is not perfect, but I thought there were new springs available from Australia that people were using with good results. I don't recall if they were lowering springs or replacement springs.
     
  7. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes, they are lowering (sadly for me).Too many pot holes here.
    (Also, I don't want to go that way because it will trigger the SARC which have height sensors on the four wheels.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2016
  8. stephen newberg

    stephen newberg Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    348
    Occupation:
    No Idea
    Location:
    Ladysmith, BC, Canada
    The other ways to stiffen the front box are to put in a cross tower brace or to shift the subframe bushings to more rigid rubber types or to solid metal. Either or both lets you keep the original springs.

    pax, smn
     
  9. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    The front softness I'm talking is the vertical move that coming from the front suspension when the rear do almost nothing (like a wave on a boat). ;)

    After some researches, it seems that we have only 2 choices (in normal height rear springs), those with normal factory spec (too smooth giving SAS after some years) and CC859 cargo coils and theirs copies (Acdelco, TRW, etc.)

    According to some on TCCA forum who have tryed these CC859, one solution is to smoothering the rear sway bar. Some just retreived it (like factory 2004+ Taurus) but I'm wondering if replacing the original 19mm can be better than the 21mm I put... Each rear wheel will work more independandly with a smaller bar.

    Another solution : I can put a 17mm bar from a SLO, maybe it will somehow compensate the bigger rear springs. The perfect solution would have been a little bigger springs and a little bigger sway bar.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2016
  10. stephen newberg

    stephen newberg Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    348
    Occupation:
    No Idea
    Location:
    Ladysmith, BC, Canada
    If you are getting actual bobbing in the front, are you sure that your struts are good? That sounds a lot like dead ones.

    pax, smn
     
  11. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    I changed them this summer, they are coming from a 112 000 km one. I carefully checked them before putting them and now in place, they absorb a bump and regain their place without any other mouvement, but it's one more move than the rear...

    But what do you think about replacing the rear with a smaller one ? Will it do less stiffness from rear ? I can tell changing from 25mm to 21 mm reduced a lot of NHV with these coils but I'm not sure replacing the 19mm will retreive enough vertical stiffness...
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2016
  12. stephen newberg

    stephen newberg Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    348
    Occupation:
    No Idea
    Location:
    Ladysmith, BC, Canada
    I would not expect them to bounce at all.

    I suspect changing the rear to a 19 will not solve your problem, though I suppose trying it cannot hurt as the switch is pretty easy and you can always just change back to the 21.

    pax, smn
     
  13. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    Someone on TCCA said that Moog 80108 can be a good combination with CC859. He spoke about frequency of springs (vibrations ?). I added it on each to compare. Cargo coil seems always more stiffer than these Moog (1.32 front vs 1.57 rear cycle per second).

    http://www.taurusclub.com/forum/118...brakes/245609-sachs-super-touring-struts.html

    http://www.taurusclub.com/forum/82-maintenance-repair/193418-g3-struts-finally-installed.html

    CC859 are very strong, I take curves at a good speed and the car will only incline around 1 inches on the external side (this is with a 21mm rear bar).

    The MOOG solution
    In fact Moog 80108 and Moog CC859 will be a good combo (80108 are a little stronger than 1996 MAD but a little less than CC859). With a combo like this, the rear sway bar don't have to be modified for a bigger one, the rear spring will give most of the stability (no great body roll). A rear 21mm can be added but a 25 mm will create a lot NHV.

    This combo will smooth out the on/off SARC behavior. This can be a great solution for a car with the SARC struds that are shot. If someone go that way don't forget to bypass the rear brake valve (driver side) which give more break power only when the rear is lower.

    The old timer solution (as everybody knows)
    If you want a smooth orinal ride, find Ford SHO front springs with factory spec rear springs (with no rust) and add a bigger rear bar to compensate the weakness of the rear springs to eliminate the body roll. A 23 mm will be easier to find as they were made in great number. Think about the fact that SAS will return in some years...

    I will take the winter to think about what I will do with mine personally.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  14. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    Someone have tryed to cut CC858 (front cargo coils for Gen 2) to fit them on a Gen 3 ? (Ok, the 2 ends are differents = impossible.)

    Or someone tryed the Moog 80108 front spring on a Gen 3 SHO ? I wrote to the guy who tryed these front springs on TCCA and he said that they are not lowering the front end at least. Hovever, he said that the car wallowed a lot on fast maneuver at high speed... but it was probably caused by the Gen 4 struts which are too mild.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2016
  15. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    After many comparisons, it's appears that Ford Contour front springs are very similar to our rear ones. They are stiffer with 120 lbs/inch and have 0.56 wire diam. They have the same free and compressed height. However, they are a little wider of 0.5 inch (int. diameter of 5,71 inch vs 5,22 inch) and have a different ends (1 square and 1 pigtail rather than 2 tangential). There is also Moog 80094 whose have a lesser capacity (615 lbs).

    Ford (SHO 1996 rear springs)
    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 80096 (Contour linear front springs)
    capacity : 680 lbs
    spring rate : 120 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.56
    1,40 cps (estimated)
    inner diameter : 5.71
    free height : 15.88
    installation height : 10
    ends : 1 tangential, 1 pigtail

    I think the only prob with these can be the pigtail end that cannot seat properly on the lower end of the strut but it will not go away of his place tought. Seem to be a good compromise between confort and handling if it's fit. Found others meanwhile.

    Moog 81115 (2WD Pathfinder linear rear springs, 2000-2004)
    capacity : around 700 lbs
    spring rate : 120 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.52
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.06
    free height : 14.31
    installation height : 10.55
    ends : 2 squarred

    Soneone have an advice on this ?

    Thanks guys.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2016
  16. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    Reading posts on suspension for Maxima cars (fwd car with a 3.5l motor) and it's interesting to see the evolution of aftermarket springs kit stiffness over time for their cars.

    Moog linear setup available for Maxima on Rockauto (80902+80555)
    2005 : 171 front / 331 rear (this setup have similar stiffness of the combinaison of Moog 80108 169lb/inch and CC859 137-349lb/inch)

    Canuck motorsports spring kits rates:
    04-... : 190 front / 340 rear (3.5l)
    00-03 : 125 front / 320 rear (3.0l/3.5l)
    95-99 : 125 front / 255 rear (3.0l)
    89-94 : 170 front / 170 rear (3.0l)

    All are in lb/in and progressive rate. Also the SE rear springs are the stiffer ones, the fronts are the same between models (they do differ between transmissions).

    Almost all aftermarket springs kits for Maxima are a lot stiffer on the rear. Not sure why, probably to eliminate body roll and understeer. (?)

    http://maxima.org/forums/advanced-s...ence-thread-spring-rates-all-generations.html

    Also :

    Moog for Old Aurora, a fwd V8 car
    1999 : 160 front / 194 rear (linear 60230+80659)
    1995 : 173 front / 194 rear (linear 81038+80659)

    Note : Moog 60230 are very similar to Ford Mad springs but have more capacity. Not sure if the pigtails are the same however.

    Possible front springs solutions (for front Gen 3 SHO) (must be verified)

    Ford (MAD front springs from SHO 1996 for comparison)
    capacity : 1107 lbs
    spring rate : 155 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.56
    1.26 cps (cycles per second)
    inner diameter : 5.73 (or 4.73 with a tangential end)
    free height : 14.50
    installation height : 9
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog 80108 (official linear replacement according to Rockauto)
    capacity : 960 lbs
    spring rate : 169 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.60
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.73
    free height : 14.50
    installation height : 9
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog 80158 (official linear SLO replacement according to some on Internet)
    capacity : 912 lbs
    spring rate : 142 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.56
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.74
    free height : 15.44
    installation height : 9
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog 60230 (front linear Aurora 1999, V8 4L)
    capacity : 1121 lbs
    spring rate : 160 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.60
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.65
    free height : 14.50
    installation height : 7.50
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog 7626 (front linear Intrepid 1994, V6 3.5L)
    capacity : 1098 lbs
    spring rate : 158 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.64
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 6.09
    free height : 14.44
    installation height : 7.50
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog CC695
    capacity : 729 lbs
    spring rate : 148 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.53
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 4
    free height : 14.88
    installation height : 10
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog CC670 (front progressive Gran Prix 2005 GTP, 3.8L SC) ***
    capacity : 776 lbs
    spring rate : 115 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.56
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.71
    free height : 15.75
    installation height : 9
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog CC651 (rear progressive GM G-bodies 82-00)
    capacity : 405 lbs
    spring rate : 116 lbs/inch (probably more because will have 2 more inches of compression)
    wire diam. : 0.59
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.54 (less than 1/4 inch of difference)
    free height : 14.63
    installation height : 11
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog CC627 *** ?
    capacity : 600 lbs
    spring rate : 122 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.59
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.53 (less than 1/4 inch of difference)
    free height : 14.63
    installation height : 10
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog CC503
    capacity : 1020 lbs
    spring rate : 170 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.65
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.53 (less than 1/4 inch of difference)
    free height : 16.38
    installation height : 10
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog CC807
    capacity : 1000 lbs
    spring rate : 180 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.64
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.43
    free height : 15.25
    installation height : ??
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog CC801 (rear Gran Torino 72-76, possible combo with rear CC859 ?) **
    capacity : 870 lbs
    spring rate : 192 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.64
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.43
    free height : 14.50
    installation height : 9.75
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog CC805 (rear Gran Torino 72-76, possible combo with rear CC859 ?) ***
    capacity : 770 lbs
    spring rate : 187 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.64
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.43
    free height : 14
    installation height : 9.75
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog 5387 (near to stock SHO) ***
    capacity : 1089 lbs
    spring rate : 157 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.60
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.57
    free height : 15.42
    installation height : 8.50
    ends : 2 pigtails

    Moog CC695, CC693 ?

    Note : Comparing to similar cars which have progressive springs available, a good one for us must have a 700 lbs capacity with a 0.60 wire.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2016
  17. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    Possible rear springs solutions (softer than Moog cargo coils CC859) (must be verified)

    Moog rear cargo coils CC859 (progressive and CC839 a longer version)
    capacity : 455 lbs
    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

    Moog 81115 (2WD Pathfinder linear rear springs, 2000-2004)
    capacity : ? (probably enough)
    spring rate : 120 lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.52
    ? cps
    inner diameter : 5.06
    free height : 14.31
    installation height : 10.55
    ends : 2 squarred

    Moog cargo coils CC697 (progressive, rear Olds Intrigue 2000, fwd 3.5l / Pontiac Grand prix 3.8l SC)
    capacity : 680 lbs
    spring rate : 122-...(300 estimated) lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.56
    ? cps
    inner diam. : 5.42
    free height : 15.81
    installation height : 9
    ends : 1 tangential, 1 pigtail
    Note : cutting the the pigtail end will be required (around 1 turn or a little more), it will shorten the overall height and capacity

    Moog cargo coils CC238 (very near of stock specs) **
    capacity : 390 lbs
    spring rate : 110-...(280?) lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.56
    ? cps
    inner diam. : 5.43
    free height : 14.38
    installation height : 11
    ends :1 squarred, 1 tangential

    Moog cargo coils CC240 (very near of stock specs too, front Camry 87-89) ***
    capacity : 450 lbs (same as CC859)
    spring rate : 110-...(280 estimated) lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.56 (same as front Gen3 stock)
    ? cps (1.30 estimated)
    inner diam. : 5.43 (=interior diameter is only around 1/4 inch larger to sit on strut, 1/8 on each side)
    free height : 15.09
    installation height : 11
    ends :1 squarred, 1 tangential

    Moog cargo coils CC249 (lowering ?)
    capacity : 433 lbs (near as CC859)
    spring rate : 120-...(200 estimated) lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.53 (0.50 rear Gen3 stock)
    ? cps
    inner diam. : 5.39 (= less than 1/8 on each side)
    free height : 13.75
    installation height : 10
    ends :1 squarred, 1 tangential

    Moog cargo coils CC254
    capacity : 265 lbs (really ?)
    spring rate : 105-...(200 estimated) lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.53 (0.50 rear Gen3 stock)
    ? cps
    inner diam. : 4.96 (too small ? -1/12 all around)
    free height : 14.59
    installation height : 12
    ends :1 squarred, 1 tangential

    Moog cargo coils CC691
    capacity : 523 lbs
    spring rate : 94-...(280 estimated) lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.54
    ? cps
    inner diam. : 5.42
    free height : 15.88
    installation height : 10
    ends : 1 tangential, 1 pigtail (must be cut)

    Moog cargo coils CC618 (front Cavalier 82, see also CC616 shorter) (finally not good because of the shape of the pigtail)
    capacity : 595 lbs (will be less after a cut)
    spring rate : 115-...(300 estimated) lbs/inch
    wire diam. : 0.56
    ? cps
    inner diam. : 5.31 (almost perfect)
    free height : 16.63 (will be shorter after a cut to 15-15.5)
    installation height : 11
    ends : 1 tangential, 1 pigtail (must be cut)

    For exemple (but must be verified) :
    A good variable rate combinaison could be Moog front CC805 187lb/in + rear CC859 137lb/in. ***
    A good variable rate combinaison could be Moog front CC670 115lb/in + rear CC618 115lb/in.
    A good variable rate combinaison could be Moog front CC670 115lb/in + rear CC240 110lb/in.
    A good linear rate combinaison could be Moog front 60230 160lb/in + rear 81115 120lb/in.
    A good linear rate combinaison could be Moog front 80108 169lb/in + rear 81115 120lb/in. ***
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2017
  18. stephen newberg

    stephen newberg Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    348
    Occupation:
    No Idea
    Location:
    Ladysmith, BC, Canada
  19. GEN 3 SHO FAN

    GEN 3 SHO FAN SHO Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    188
    Occupation:
    Records manager
    Location:
    Canada
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2016
  20. stephen newberg

    stephen newberg Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    348
    Occupation:
    No Idea
    Location:
    Ladysmith, BC, Canada
    That is too bad. Thanks for trying.

    pax, smn
     

Share This Page

If you wish to help keep SHOforum running, please click the donation button below