Moog CC break-in

[SHO Dude]

Autozone. It's in the Ricer section............I kid.

 

[rissky_business]

that was nice

 

[SASHO91]

Here is a better pic of the car....
Fronts have 1.5 out and the rears have 1 out.

I'd like the front to be a bit lower.... but ****, as it sits i still need to drive the car up on piece's of wood to clear the jack...

 

[SmoknHondaOwnrs]

if you cut the tabs off the strut and drop it in the knuckle a little you would be sitting just like mine. Looks good like that too though.

 

[SASHO91]

Gets some pics of your's... take a pic like mine....

 

[shomesomesho]

cc839 / cc858. These are the same ones I usually get. I will go measure the coil thickness of new vs. old. Be back in a bit.

Measured coil diameter:

Moog CC858 (front) purchased 2 months ago: 16.5 mm

Moog CC858 (front) purchased 1 year ago: 17.5 mm

Uh-oh.

 

[SASHO91]

hmm... wonder why they did that...

Im pretty sure mine are the thicker of the two, as mine are over 2yrs old.

 

[SmoknHondaOwnrs]

here ya go...They are acctually not that much different.

 

[NotSoSlowSHO]

Measured coil diameter:

Moog CC858 (front) purchased 2 months ago: 16.5 mm

Moog CC858 (front) purchased 1 year ago: 17.5 mm

Uh-oh.

Noted.

I didnt realize you were talking about the overall diameter of the coil. I thought you were referring to the actual wire size.

Either way, we probably need to look into this.

 

[Sho Amo]

if the ride is softer it will probably not handle as well unless you cut them correct?

 

[Storm-Chaser]

I purchased a set of Moog CC's a couple months ago for my wife's car. I was surprised to find that the coils are thinner by about 1mm, compared to a set of Moogs I had bought a year ago.

Once installed, they settled an additional 1/4" within a few days. The ride is also noticeably softer than the stouter Moogs of old.

If you'll look closer at the coils, you will notice the older coil springs have a thick plastic-like coating, wereas the newer coils do not. The newer coil springs are now simply coated with a very thin layer of dull black paint, which looks to account for all of the 1mm difference.

The change occurred sometime after 2005, as the three sets of 858/859s I've bought, had the following dates on the bottom of the box:

CC858

07/14/05 - coated
05/09/06 - not coated
10/05/06 - not coated​

CC859

06/28/05 - coated
08/31/05 - coated
09/13/06 - not coated​

 

[NotSoSlowSHO]

If you'll look closer at the coils, you will notice the older coil springs have a thick plastic-like coating, wereas the newer coils do not. The newer coil springs are now simply coated with a very thin layer of dull black paint, which looks to account for all of the 1mm difference.

The change occurred sometime after 2005, as the three sets of 858/859s I've bought, had the following dates on the bottom of the box:

CC858

07/14/05 - coated
05/09/06 - not coated
10/05/06 - not coated​

CC859

06/28/05 - coated
08/31/05 - coated
09/13/06 - not coated​

Good to know.

Thanks for the input

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Maybe Howdy-doody can verify this, but I would venture to guess that Moog was having a problem with water getting trapped under the previous coating once it became cracked or was cut, accelerating the rusting process once it started.

I'm planning on pulling the latest set I've bought once they settle, cutting them, and then sending them off for powder-coating to inhibit/slow down the rust.

For anyone that's got an older pair with coils cut, please post the wire-diameter from the cut-end of your coils if you can.

 

[shomesomesho]

If you'll look closer at the coils, you will notice the older coil springs have a thick plastic-like coating, wereas the newer coils do not. The newer coil springs are now simply coated with a very thin layer of dull black paint, which looks to account for all of the 1mm difference.

The change occurred sometime after 2005, as the three sets of 858/859s I've bought, had the following dates on the bottom of the box:

CC858

07/14/05 - coated
05/09/06 - not coated
10/05/06 - not coated​

CC859

06/28/05 - coated
08/31/05 - coated
09/13/06 - not coated​

Ahh, that would definitely explain the change in diameter.

The newer non-coated coils do seem softer, though. I don't think it's my imagination. The car bottoms out much more easily over speed bumps than the other car with the older Moogs.

 

[DHMag]

hmm... wonder why they did that...

Im pretty sure mine are the thicker of the two, as mine are over 2yrs old.

they were installed in 2003, Josh. and you need a smaller jack, i never had a problem

 

[SASHO91]

yeah, i know, mines alittle on the tall side, but even still, the car is low.

Damn, these springs are 4yrs old.. still pretty dam firm too.

Allthough i have been thinking about picking up a set of Intrax and cutting them... wonder how they would compare?

 

[Yamaha V6]

I just replaced the Eibachs on the rear of my 91, the 245/45-17's on the 17x8's were rubbing even with trimmed & rolled flares.

FYI:
Started with Gen 2 rears, as I didn't want the "jacked" rake look if I didn't have to have it. On the bench, the Gen 2 rears were EXACTLY the same uncompressed height as the Eibachs. The Moogs initial rate was softer than the Eibachs also. On the car however, the Gen 2 Moogs did NOT rub, even with a full tank - loaded, they were stiffer.

Knowing they would compress some over time, and because it was SOOOOO close now, I ordered up Gen 1 rears, and I have a noticeable rake in the stance (look out the driver's window, the double yellow is farthest / outside edge at the rear of the window, closest inside edge at the front of the window). With the TPR bushings back there, the Moog / Tokico setup is very rigid. I have no rubbing (not even close), with 4 people & a full tank.

So, now I have a spare pair of Eibach & Moog Gen 2 rears to make a coffee table out of.