Well, the difference between 9 and 5/8" and 9.9" is only about 3/8 of 1
inch, which means that if the ride height is changed (supposedly) by a full
inch, then something else is going on here. Are the new springs "stock" or
did you buy springs with higher numbers (e.g. special tuning springs with an
increased poundage rating)? Are you measuring "ride height" at the exact
spot to be able to make an accurate comparison? What was the "ride height"
prior to installing the new springs? Does the fact that the ride height is
an inch under "spec" cause any problems (e.g. clearance, bottoming, etc)?
just some thoughts/questions :)
~alan
'71B
Reply to:
Alan Lott
GTA, Auburn Univeristy
Department of Rehabilitation and Special Education
My Office- (334) 844-2092
Department- (334) 844-5943
Fax- (334) 844-2080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mgs@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-mgs@autox.team.net] On Behalf
Of Jason Dutt
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 10:16 AM
To: MG List
Subject: Silly Question (Front Springs)
The ongoing war with my suspension continues, but I think I've come across
some interesting information.
Remember: About the only challenge I have left is the fact that the "stock"
springs from Moss left my car at a rather low height...about an inch lower
than the 13.5 height recommended by Doug at www.mgbmga.com.
Here's the question: If the Bentley manual's specs for springs say a 9.9"
free height, why is it that the Moss springs are only 9 5/8" free, and this
fact doesn't seem to bother anyone?
I'm considering having a local spring shop custom wind a set of springs for
me to the Bentley manual specs, just as an experiment. They will do it for
a reasonable expense...
Best Regards,
=J=
|