sorry for the kind of 'broad spectrum' statement.
the post 72 has various listings for different
springs. Yes the biggest difference was between the
CB RB models.
I've found listings for 9.1, 9.32, 9.1 and 10.2" free lengths
with free coils of 7.5, 7.2, and 9.
static load lengths of 6.6" to 7.5" at loads from
1030 to 1193 lbs.
There seems to have been a mixed bag around the '72
model years with CB roadsters and GTs.
(like they were experimenting or something)
If heard tail... of the extra spring height being used as a
way for them to compensate for the settling caused by
strap down on the boat during shipping to the states.
This probably (in my beliefs anyway) explains why
when people replace their rear springs we're all
coming up with different front/rear ride heights.
The same rear spring, installed on different cars seems
to give some of us different ride heights. The fronts will
sit lower because the rear is higher. Lift up or push down
on the rear and you can see the fronts drop/rise.
(and visa versa)
I just did this with a friends car. Installed the same leaf
springs I had on my BGT and his car sat 1." lower than
on mine.
I've come to the conclusion, either I have very weak front
springs (IE read lower and stiffer) or someone (a PO)
installed lower stiffer springs up front.
When I lift the front of the car 1.5" (floor jack) the rear drops
almost exactly 1".
So the moral of the story is if you install new rear leafs, don't
immediately blame the springs if your rear end sits too high.
Lift the front just a bit and see if it doesn't level out quite a bit.
If so... you probably need to replace the fronts as well.
more info to come (on my web site of course)
Paul Tegler ptegler@gouldfo.com www.teglerizer.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrie Alexander" <Lawrie@britcars.com>
To: "Ptegler" <ptegler@gouldfo.com>; <mgs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Front rides too low
Paul,
You ask a useful question but I am wondering about the data you quote in
your note.
Why do you say the '72 and later ride height was 1" to 2" higher? Didn't the
change in ride height occur when the factory followed U.S. Gov't regulations
with the introduction of the rubber bumper car in 74-1/2"? Are you saying
the 72 to 74 cars were 1" to 2" higher than the earlier ones, and then there
was another increase with the advent of the R-B cars?
Lawrie
-----Original Message-----
From: Ptegler <ptegler@gouldfo.com>
To: John Middlesworth <top_down@worldnet.att.net>; mgs@autox.team.net
<mgs@autox.team.net>
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: Front rides too low
>What is the ride height up front? rear?
>(measured from the center line of the axle to the
>bottom edge of the side chrome molding.)
>
>pre 72 should be roughly 13.5"
>post 72 should be abound 1-2" higher.
>
>...so is it the rear is sitting too high or is the
>front siting too low
>
>Paul Tegler ptegler@gouldfo.com www.teglerizer.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Middlesworth" <top_down@worldnet.att.net>
>To: <mgs@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 7:24 AM
>Subject: Front rides too low
>
>
>Since I'm new to the list I apologize if this counts as a FAQ. I restored
my
>'72 MGB about four years ago. I replaced only the rear springs at that
time
>and since then it has sat noticably lower in front. This past year, I got
>springs from Moss (later hearing that they have a spotty reputation). I
>noticed before installing that the Moss product and the old springs had
nearly
>the same height, and it was pretty close to the 9.9 inches mentioned in the
>manual. I installed the springs and increased my front end height by only
>about half an inch.
>
>I have since gotten another set of springs and sure enough, they have a
free
>height of about 9.9 inches. Is it worth it at all for me to try these
springs
>in the car? A friend told me that if one spring is the same length and
>diameter as another, then it's the same spring. Is my car perhaps missing
>something? Is there a reputable source for coil springs?
>
>John Middlesworth
|