Suspension questions about springs options

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

Hi,

I'm a gen 3 owner and I'm searching (a lot) a in-between non-lowering solution for Ford rear springs that are too soft and Moog CC859 that are too strong for me. (Just want a little stiffer rear end and resolve SAS.)

I know for reading here sometimes that some Gen 1 and Gen 2 guys do good tricks with springs. On gen 3 section, it's very quiet on this side. Maybe someone here have the knowledge to verifying if Moog cargo coils CC697 can fit on our cars ? I tryed to put all necessary infos. Also, I'm not sure what small changes does on inner diameter, free height, installation height (what that's will do on spring behavior) if someone have some time to explain this.

Possibly a softer solution for cargo coils Moog CC859, the Moog CC697.

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
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 cargo coils CC697 (progressive, rear Olds Intrigue 2000, fwd 3.5l)
capacity : 680 lbs
spring rate : 122-....(300?) 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)

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

the link of all my searches :
http://www.shoforum.com/index.php?t...esh-what-are-the-options-cc859-review.133054/

Thanks for your help,

 

[LOUDSHO92]

I have not seen anyone try and fit any other springs as it is usually the CC859 or the 80093.

You could see what springs are being used in the Monroe 271616 taxi package.

I would suggest maybe going custom since you seem to be looking for a very particular setup. This would give the fastest results. There are still places that will bend custom springs if you send n a stock set.

I know you do not want lowering springs BUT I do have a solution. We do carry the King springs that are 85-120lb so it would be softer. You could slide the struts in the knuckle to overcome the 1" drop. We can do just the rears. We may be able to do a un-lowered version as well. http://www.shosource.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=61_3_31&products_id=691

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

I tought that some Gen 1 and 2 guys cut their springs more often than for Gen 3.

The price for custom will probably be high. (Do you have an idea ?)

I will pursuit my searches, some are very similar to the ones we use for Gen 3.

 

[LOUDSHO92]

Gen1/2 do cut the dead coils.

A couple of TCCA guys have done it and it seemed like it was around a few hundred for all 4.

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

Correct me otherwise but if I understand correctly, we can cut a squared end and made a tangential end with it ?

My goal is to have more in-between options for SHO springs (confort and handling) with the minimal modifications. (But it will need some however.) If I can find one that is fitting, I will let you know as you have a store dedicated to SHO.

It will be great to speak with those who have modified their springs, to know how to make it fit those I found (light differences in spec, see link at the top).

One link found :
http://www.shoforum.com/index.php?threads/cutting-springs.123820/#post-1371347

Ok, I think I found a part of what I'm searching now :

"I got GEN2 springs (progressive CC858) on my GEN4 (which is like a gen3.) You need the gen 2 top seat , paired with the gen3-4 upper plate (some mods needed to match these 2. Everything is seated in a gen4 strut. Note that you WILL have to cut springs, or it will look like a 4x4."

from :
http://www.shoforum.com/index.php?t...front-gen3-duratec-sable.122540/#post-1354689

 

[LOUDSHO92]

I am not sure what you mean by a square end.

The CC858 is the front springs but you were on the topic for the rear. So they will not work. Which springs are you looking to replace?

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

I'm searching for a Gen3 front and rear upgrade(s) between stock springs and CC858/CC859 spring stiffness. If some Gen1/2 guys can help me understand spring measurements and behaviors as we have the same springs for rear, I will have better knowlegde to find other options for Gen1-2-3 rear springs (and then, for Gen3 front springs maybe Gen1-2 front with a little luck). But I need some safety approuvals by people who have a good knowledge in suspension. If we find something fitting, I can let you and other people know here for sure. It's like some kind of suspension R & D for our cars... or holy grail quest.

I read a lot on this for a while and I came to some conclusions (correct me if I'm wrong as you are surely a mechanic). Springs have different ends types and it's one of the factors limiting our options.

Our rear springs (Gen1-2-3) have 2 tangential ends. Each end doesn't complete a turn "touching" itself. (rear stock and CC859 on photo)


The square (or squarred) end will have a complete (or almost complete) turn touching itself (not usefull for absorbtion). Front spring for Gen 1-2 have one square end. I think it's the "dead coil" term that some people here use. It can be cut without any spring change because it's not absorbing anything. The square end is the highest one on Gen1-2 front springs. Cutting a squarred end transform it in tangential end if a complete turn is retreived (or so). For exemple, if we found a good spring but with square ends for the rear of our cars, we can cut the ends to fit on our cars even if computer at store say no (in theory). (front Gen1-2 CC858 on photo)



Pigtail is another kind of end. (Lower end on last photo.) Gen1-2 front have the lower end in pigtail and Gen 3 front have 2 pigtail ends.Pigtail end seems it's more difficult to modifiy because it can't be cut without any change on spring behavior and more important, on how it sit on strut.

Let's compare these 2 springs from Moog. The famous cargo coil and another one I found this week. I put some infos in bolt which differ. I will be curious to have your advice on this. Can it fit ? If yes, it will be softer than CC859 and not giving SAS as it is progressive and more strong than stock ones, no ?

Moog rear cargo coils CC859 (Taurus official progressive rear spring)
capacity : 455 lbs
spring rate : 137-349 (!) lbs/inch
wire diam. : 0.59 (0.60 measured)
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 cargo coils CC238 (very near of stock specs)
capacity : 390 lbs
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 : 14.38
installation height : 11
ends :1 squarred, 1 tangential

Note : as you google some spring # parts, don't trust the photos, they are generic even if they are from Moog...

 

[LOUDSHO92]

Okay to be clear the Gen 1/2 and Gen3/4 front are not the same. The only way to get them to fit as previously stated is by mixing in Gen3/4 hardware.

Moog springs are stock springs. The only time they are an upgrade over stock is when the CC859 used in the Gen3/4 rear. They provide extra lift since they are longer then the stock springs and slightly stiffer.

SAS is more due to the springs wearing out over time. So a fresh pair of stock Gen3/4 springs in the rear will get the height back up and may get the softer ride you are looking for.

The CC238 look to be discontinued FYI. I don't think they will fit in the spring perch due to being larger. You need to match both top and bottom.

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

Yes, Gen1-2 front aren't the same as Gen3-4 front springs. Maybe I wasn't clear on that. But stock stiffness on the rear of this car seems too soft (or too much tuned for confort). I developed a love/hate relation with my CC859 because they create too much NHV but they stabilize the car like a train on rails on good surfaces (but destabilize the car on rought ones).

Ok, but for my personnal these Moog rear springs seem easy to fit as they will be 1/8 larger on each side of the strut assy... Isn't a big difference in interior diameter ? I think we have a small margin on diameter. (CC859 on photo)



But for this particular exemple, you're right, discontinued. Made for Toyota Camry 87-89 front... I will continue searching.

Humm, just found Moog CC240. These seem not discontinued and better than CC238 (for Camry too).

Moog cargo coils CC240 (very near of stock specs too)
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

 

[LOUDSHO92]

I think you might need to bite the bullet and get them in. Unless you can find some that match exactly you will need to get them in and try them out.

 

[GEN 3 SHO FAN]

As it's research and development, we cannot have a clear answer but we can target some with the best specs. I cannot try all. We have now many that can be a possible fit (at least for rear) and it's why I need some help from experienced people to eliminate some of them. I put another progressive batch I found on the first link even if CC240 it's one of the bests.

Some questions can help eliminate many of them :

1) Which modifications we can do and their consequences on the springs behavior except cutting a dead coil ? (more compression, less compression, larger inlet diameter, higher/lower total capacity, etc)

2) What we can do safely ? (cutting coil without damaging the strut, larger inlet diameter with no displacement of the spring on strut plates, etc.)

The answers for these questions will help me to spot with more precision springs fitting on our cars.

Considering that the target is a compromise between confort (stock rear springs) and performance handling (Moog CC859), I think, after checking a big batch of them, that a progressive one with a spring rate between 100 and 120 lb/inch will be great with a wire diameter between 0.52 and 0.56 inch. Then, they will give stock behavior with normal driving situation, firmness during emergency maneuvers and no SAS. In other words : a sport daily driver.

If someone have experience with modifying springs, I will be glad to read your experience.

(Thanks for your advices SHO Source guy, Matt?)

 

[LOUDSHO92]

1. Nothing that will not have negative impacts. You could maybe cut a coil if the diameter changes. You do not want to modify springs because you will changes the characteristics with no control. They are also a highly stressed part so most changes could cause them to snap prematurely.

2. Only cutting coils would be the safest option.

The King Springs are only 85-120lbs: http://www.shosource.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=61_3_31&products_id=691
They are lowered but either you can slide them up the strut or you can go custom. They have already done it for one customer. I am sure if you spell out what you need we may be bale to get the springs you need.