I am wanting to get a feel for what would work out the best, I know all these springs have an 8.5" installed height, but which one would work, giving a close to stock ride height? Which one do you like the best for ride quality? Just looking for whatever input I can get from the Forum to make a well informed decision for my Skylark! Any and all input is greatly received! Thanks, Doug
OK, now your other thread makes more sense to me. Have you measured where the car sits now? Do you want it higher or lower? This is from a 66 Chassis manual.
Thank you for this Larry, I would think that the 66 info would be at least close to the 65, so that is a great start. My rear tire is covered just about to the top of the 14 inch rim, so the springs are shot, or the guy I got it from wanted it to be a "tail-dragger." It sits just a little too low in the rear for me. I want to put new rear springs in it and run 15x8 rims on it. Nothing special, just a little taller rim and tire combo, with a little wider tire. Thanks again for the chart! This helps me out more than you know! Doug
http://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/...300cid+v8,1319352,suspension,coil+spring,7512 The Moog 5231 and 5237 are constant rate springs meant to return the trim height to stock specs, http://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinfo.php?pk=200680&cc=1319352&jsn=393 http://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinfo.php?pk=200683&cc=1319352&jsn=395 Both have the same spring rate of 112 lbs/inch. Looks like the 5231 (803) has 100 lbs more load than the 5237 (703). I would think that all things being equal, the 5231 would have the rear a bit higher by about an inch than the 5237. They should ride the same.
Great info Larry, thanks! The majority of what I've seen and read in regards to the 64/65 guys are using the 5237 for their needs, but as you know a lot of the pertinent info is vague. Thanks, Doug
As mentioned in your other thread, I use the 6197's. Works well with 255/60-15's. Forget the station wagon springs unless you want it sitting sky high! Your choice depends on what you want.... if you are driving on smooth roads and want improved handling, a higher rate will keep the car flatter in hard turns. Lots of potholes? Less rate = more comfort. Putting 8 friends in the car? = stiffer springs for the extra load. You can also raise it a bit higher by putting spacers between the rear axle mount and spring.... 1/2" to 3" spacers are avail or can be easily fabricated. Want it lower? Cut the spring shorter.
Buick specs their springs at 8.5" installed height. Figure the base 5237 is at 8.5". To determine change in height while keeping load the same, take the difference in load weight and divide by spring rate: The heavier 5231 would be 100lbs/110rate= 0.909" higher 6197 would be 175/138= 1.268" higher than the 5237 5235 would be 401/143= 2.8" higher than the 5237 Cutting coils off of a spring will also increase it's rate. I don't know the math for that one!
Walt, Good methodical thinking on this! I had believed that the stock springs had an installed height of 8.5" but was really unable to confirm it in any documentation. Your previous post (in regards to spacers), was also informative. I want to try and stay away from them if possible, just to be less of a hassle during install and removal, but still a good valid point. In regards o cutting coils, I believe its best to start small and work up to what you want, takes more time but the results are usually better, at least in my experience any way! Again, great info! Thank you, Doug
The easiest one to get out of my warehouse is a 65 Special post coupe. It has the equivalent of 5237 with 2" spacers, sits nice, rides nice. I have a set of new 5235 for my 65 Special convertible. I may end up cutting them if it sits too high.
That's a problem I wouldn't mind having, owning so many cars I have to have a warehouse to put them in!! I don't want you to go to any trouble for pictures, just whenever you have one out and remember. I thought that the 5237 provided the stock ride height for the 65' coupes and hardtops? I don't have any real knowledge in regards to convertibles! Wouldn't mind seeing a pic of both though whenever you remember. Thanks, Doug
