One thing has always puzzled me with the spring specs for the MGB and that
is the load weights for the front are in the order of 1030 to 1193 lbs
whereas those for the rear are 400 to 550. Given that the front to rear
loading is about 50/50 one would expect much the same loading on each
spring, i.e. about half that given for the fronts.
Does it make sense? Yes. Rubber bumper roadster front springs are shorter
but have a higher rate then chrome, the result of fitting these to my chrome
bumper roadster was almost the same ride height but significantly less dive
under braking and roll. Depending on the relative changes to length and
rating you could end up with either a lower or higher ride height under a
given load. That loading probably equates to the springs used on an RB GT,
so unless the unloaded length were significantly *shorter* than those then
fitting them on a CB car is bound to result in a higher ride height. Then
again, if 480lb springs are used and these are significantly longer, you
could end up with an even higher ride height, it all depends what
application they are for. The MGB front springs had a free height of 9.1 to
10.2 inches depending on application. As we know, there are many so-called
'OE-spec' rear springs out there that give huge rear ride heights, sometimes
so high that the weight of the car won't compress them enough to get the
rebound straps connected.
As another has said were the inner A-arm nuts tightened with the load on the
wheels? And unless you have driven it a few miles already they probably
will settle slightly over quite a short distance.
PaulH.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul M." <rowman22001@yahoo.com>
To: <mgs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:42 AM
Subject: MGB front springs
> My guess is that because of the increase in rate, the
> car is not compressing the springs down as much, and
> as a result, it sits up higher. Does this make any
> sense?
|