Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Spring rates & drop - FYI

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    So. NH
    Posts
    2,014
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Spring rates & drop - FYI

    I stole this from somewhere - the front springs information should be applicable to our cars since '94-'04 are similar weight. The rear spring info is for informational purposes only as they are too short for our heavy rear cars!

    Last edited by Cougar5.0; 09-24-2007 at 01:30 PM. Reason: Make it clear that only fronts can be cross-referenced - rears for informational purposes only!
    11.96 @ 118 MPH old 306 KB; 428W coming soon.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Port Coquitlam, Canada
    Posts
    1,883
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    '94-'04 are similar weight.
    If only it was that easy.
    The chart doesn't mention the springs' heights (installed or not).
    Eg: Putting in a 500lb 18" won't lower a car that originally had a 500lb 15" installed.
    Death awaits you all with nasty, big, pointy teeth.

    1988 5.0 Bird, mostly stock, partly not, now gone to T-Bird heaven.
    1990 Volvo 740GL. 114 tire-shredding horsies, baby!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    indy, IN
    Posts
    2,180
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Default

    nice table. all the spring rate numbers i know off the top of my head look right, but i still wonder what sources they used to compile the info.

    AFAIK the KB rates werent published anyplace, and i never heard them give an answer when asked outright. the front drop wasnt 2" either, more like 1.5"
    gumby - beauty may fade, but stupid is forever!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    So. NH
    Posts
    2,014
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterBlaster View Post
    If only it was that easy.
    The chart doesn't mention the springs' heights (installed or not).
    Eg: Putting in a 500lb 18" won't lower a car that originally had a 500lb 15" installed.
    I should have mentioned that these would be V8 to V8 and reported drops on a SN95 Mustang. Drops may be similar on Fox V8 vehicles based on extensive research here and on CoolCats. I'll be reporting back on the Mach1 springs when I get them this Friday.
    11.96 @ 118 MPH old 306 KB; 428W coming soon.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,067
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default

    I don't know what rates came stock, but replacement Moog shocks are 249 lbs/in. Cargo coils are 340 lbs/in.

    Stock wheel rates are about 20% stiffer in the rear.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    So. NH
    Posts
    2,014
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeremyB View Post
    I don't know what rates came stock, but replacement Moog shocks are 249 lbs/in. Cargo coils are 340 lbs/in.

    Stock wheel rates are about 20% stiffer in the rear.
    I said I was talking about front only - the rears are for informational purposes only!

    I thought everyone understood that the Mustang rears are too short and bind up early.
    Last edited by Cougar5.0; 09-23-2007 at 04:16 PM.
    11.96 @ 118 MPH old 306 KB; 428W coming soon.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,067
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default

    Aye, I missed that part. I thought that would be in the title.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by JeremyB; 09-23-2007 at 08:43 PM. Reason: i am ultimate MSPaint hax0r!!11!1

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    So. NH
    Posts
    2,014
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeremyB View Post
    Aye, I missed that part. I thought that would be in the title.
    That's OK - I'm used to people yelling at me without having even read the entire post - lol

    BTW, I have an Excel spreadsheet that I made that picture from and I will be updating it as I receive more information. Your photochop is appreciated but will be superceded in the future. Also, I edited the O/P to make it clear that the rears are for informational purposes only. I won't be removing the rears info as some folks like me who are using adjustable rear lower control arms may still want to experiment with the shorter springs (i.e. - I can't get the fenders closer than 3.5" from the tops of the tires now!)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,067
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar5.0 View Post
    That's OK - I'm used to people yelling at me without having even read the entire post - lol
    Yeah, that's what I get when I try to apply presentation standards from work to internet forums.

    Graphics normally convey the main point of a slide (or post in this case), the text is complimentary. I still should have caught it. I'm turning to the person I made fun of when I started working.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Indpls, IN
    Posts
    8,080
    Feedback Score
    34 (100%)

    Default

    The "real" info that chart is also missing (aside from the heights) is load ratings.

    It is a good listing though.
    Long live the 4-eyes! - '83 Tbird Turbo

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •