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

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

Maybe i wasn't enought clear. My goal with this post wasn't to improve handling but restore ride quality (it's why my post is in maintenance rather than upgrades).

The feeling and handling I have now are very silimar as I bought the car (and before the 2 rear springs broke...) but with a little more stability from the rear end.

The last change (passing the 9,5 to 9,9) is about improving confort lost with the stifness upgrade (of 10-15 %). 10 is a SHO with all his original working SARC suspension.

 

[stephen newberg]

Nope, you were clear. I was just indicating you were heading a good way for your stated goal, but that there were going to be limits as to what could be obtained short of going back entirely to stock.

pax, smn

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

Hi everyone,

I'm very busy these days and I'm not coming by often because I'm in the process of an acquisition of a new house since my separation (and the sale of the first house) some months ago now...

Tired of thinking all the time about houses however, I was able to find some time and money recently to test my old find and cheap acquisition : the Moog CC240 springs on the rear of my SHO !! I was tired of all these NHV coming from the rear end created by the Moog springs CC859 (even worst if used with 17 inches+ wheels) which were too strong for my taste.

I put here some infos on rear springs to help :

Ford (rear springs from SHO 1996)
capacity : 567 lbs
spring rate : 100 lbs/inch
wire diam. (inch) : 0.50
inner diameter : 5.22 inch
free height : 15.88
installation height : 10
ends : 2 tangential

Moog cargo coils CC240 (very near of stock specs, for front Camry 87-89)
capacity : 450 lbs (same as CC859)
spring rate : 110-... (280 ?) lbs/inch
wire diam. (inch) : 0.56
inner diam. : 5.43 (interior diameter is around 1/4 inch larger)
free height : 15.09
installation height : 11
ends :1 squarred, 1 tangential

I'm running them for some days now and they work great. No sassy ass. They are more stiff than original and they are progressive and don't allow many body roll. I must add that I'm running a 21mm rear sway bar however (rather than the stock 19 mm). They offert a very balance with the use of the Moog 80108 in the front. The car keep his stock height without cutting them.

We have to make some tricks to put them in place. In fact, they are a little bit larger than stock and they have 1 squarred end... For the larger diameter, only the lower end was a problem because the spring sat dangerously near of the side of the strut plate. We put the springs on a pneumatic pressing machine to reduce the diam. of the last spring's turn. The squarred end was also a concern because it's mean that the wire end stay staight for about 2 inches at the lower end of the last turn. We have to buff the side of the wire's end to help it taking the curve on the plate on about 1/2 inch. With these simple manipulations, we were able to put the new springs safetly on the SARC struts.

I will put photos of the process when I will have more time. Time needed : about 2 hours.

By the way, the Moog 80108 on front still work well after some years now. They bounce a little on large bumps like the original front spring but with a little more stiffness. The car kept his stock height over time.

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

Have a good day,

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

After many days, I checked the rear end height and the car sit lower than stock witout nothing in the trunk and a 1/2 tank of gas, the car is 1 inch too low and with some load in the truck and a full tank, the car can sit 2 inches lower.

I don't understand why they sit as is because they are more compressed than normally used and consequently they are stronger then. The rear end of our car is probably lighter than the front of a late '80 Camry too...

The behavior is really good however and I think I will live with this (in the hope the front springs will lowering over time too). The CD completely stopped to skip in rough bumps and without bouncing from the rear end.

 

[gamefanatic]

After many days, I checked the rear end height and the car sit lower than stock

Starting to work on my suspension setup. Whats your measurement of the stock height? Rear / front?

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

After some additionnals observations the height is almost the same with some load or not, it's stay 1 inch lower (than with the CC859).

Here is some photos of the process.

Before modifs on strut. Note that the right side of the spring is very tight with the plate side.


On the press. Beware doing this...


Once the lower end is buffed.


After modifs on struts. It's fit perfectly.


The result isn't so bad to look. These photos were taken with a 3/4 tank and my 55 lbs tools box in the trunk.



I will take the height measurements in the next days.

 

[stephen newberg]

By eye ball, that does not look like it is a problem.

smn

 

[luigisho]

By eye ball, that does not look like it is a problem.

smn

Yeah. I'm trying to remember if I ever had a perfect rake or an exact even look on my GenIII. I don't think so. Been a while since I had it.

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

By eye ball, that does not look like it is a problem.

smn

I'm a little bit perfectionist maybe...

Thank you for your advice guys. I must admit that the springs that were there before were the CC859 which keep the ass a little bit higher.

 

[gamefanatic]

Yes it looks good. Love the car. Looks about the same level in the front and rear.

 

[stephen newberg]

When stock and new, the car is dead flat. It has not rise at the rear or at the front. I think it can take a little rise at the rear and still look OK, but not at the front. Yours looks flat and fine to me. I would go with it and not worry.

smn

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

Thank you very much ! I spent A LOT of time on the computer to compare springs specs to find this new solution. I'm glad to have some posts confirming the time invested wasn't a lost of time.

Hope it will help others owners to keep their SHO and others Gen 1, 2, 3, 4 Taurus on the road.

Also, these CC240 were very cheap when I bought them (50$ CA /pair), now the cost is higher (150$ CA) but still cheap. Moog make them but also some others brands but they always have CC240 as part number and they are easy to find in store.

The ride is very good, with the progressive profile we have a good confort without almost no big body roll (maybe 15-20% of the stock body roll).

Edit : I check the springs sold for 87-89 Camry (on front) and they also use the CC242 which are very similars but have a bit stronger compressing ratio.

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

Last week I tested the capacity of my new rear springs. I put 6 bags of rocks of 60lbs each and 2 front brake disks for a total weight of 426 lbs. Their max capacity is listed at 450 lbs and I confirm this is for the pair...


Entering on a bridge, I heard a rear wheel touching the fender passing on the joint.

Other than that, they suit the car very well 99% of the time.