Don't want to hijack other current threads so need to ask it separately.
Who here is running progressive rate rate springs on the front end of their 57? They working ok? Specially would love to hear from anyone who ran stock springs first then switched over.
Looking forward to hear all observations and comments good ,bad or indifferent.
Zap- :unitedstates:
OK! If you're running Aerostar springs they are most likely "progressive" springs. Visibly spotted by tighter wound springs at one end. According to the guys at Eaton they won't work on 57 suspension. Not sure if they mean we wouldn't get total benefits normally associated with them or a step back for our suspension. Which is why I'm asking for some real world experience.
Well, I'm using the Moog Aerostar springs and a 3/4 spacer, 292 FOM, it has about a 1 3/4 drop in the front. It will have a alum. head 460+, fiberglass front clip, but I can stand on the frame horns, 200LB, and the frame doesn't move. Ride feels normal. This is a incomplete car, but it drives.
This is exactly what I want to hear. Latest answer from Eaton is that will fit our cars but raise front end 2.5 inches. Which makes me wonder if their springs are made for higher load rates than others.
And could explain why Rich ended up with his nose up gasser look.
Zap- :unitedstates:
Quote from: Zapato on 2015-09-04 10:41
This is exactly what I want to hear. Latest answer from Eaton is that will fit our cars but raise front end 2.5 inches. Which makes me wonder if their springs are made for higher load rates than others.
And could explain why Rich ended up with his nose up gasser look.
Zap- :unitedstates:
Zap, that sounds possible to me. Two different companies making the same replacement part could be very different in spec's. We are not talking about F1 spring and shock technology on these very common replacement parts. This is also the reason that springs are meant to be replaced "in pairs" to reduce the difference due to manufacturing tolerance, and vehicle wear.
It would be interesting to have a way of actually measuring the different spring weights "at the installed height", just like we do on valve springs when building a race engine.
"Raise the front end 2.5?"....that doesn't seem right. Our springs have a .70 wire size, the replacement that they said may work for me is an inch shorter, with a .672 wire size. He explained to me that the .028 wire size difference made a big difference in load rate. By comparison, an aerostar spring I looked up was about 4" shorter, but had a .80 wire size. So where does that put us?? seem like it would be lower but with a stiffer ride.
Zap...if you didn't see the reply, Hotrodprimer on the Hamb had the same experience in his '54 wagon. Rebuilt everything and added new 6 cyl Eaton springs and he said it looked like a 4 wheeler it was so high. Took them off and put his old ones back on.
Not to go off on a tangent, but.....ok, going off on a tangent:
Back in '57 the new theme out of Detroit was long and low. Look at old adds...most of them were artist renderings rather than photography. Back then, photography couldn't be manipulated, but an artist could make it anything. I think the cars weren't as low as we think they were. Forward 50+ years, and most of the old cars are low because the worn out springs have come into play. Put new springs back on and the cars raise back up to what they were in '57...it's just higher than what were use to seeing, but I'm not so sure that it's wrong.
Eaton's has been around longer than most of us, and they lay claim to having x number of thousands of factory blueprints that they manufacture springs to. I believe them.
Moog says there springs will drop you 2+ inches and Eaton says they will raise you 2+ inches. Hard to feature anyone would build a spring at anything other than OEM specs which one of these companies must be doing. This could be a real problem if you replacing the springs in your tired old Aerostar van. I think if I try a set, they are going to be from Moog. It,however, may be a while since my painter seems to be MIA and I really shouldn't be messing with greasy stuff while we are preparing for paint. Man if it ain't one thing its another!
I agree with Rich, when I checked the Aerostar springs the are shorter then the originals and I would have to add spacers so I scrapped that idea and used the original springs. I don't see how they could raise it if they are shorter to begin with. Every other post I have seen by people using them said it lowered their car.
There are factory spring specs in the Shop Manual, page 4-13. You will notice that there is an "installed height" (compressed length) at "normal load". The installed height is 9.60 inches for each of the EIGHT different factory srings. A coil spring is a long torsion bar. The force is generated by resistance to the twisting of the "wire". A long thick wire CAN deflect more than a short thin one for the same load. The point is that wire diameter is only one thing that determines the stiffness of the spring. The diameter, the number of coils, and the "free height" come into play. For the factory springs, the free height varies from as much as 15.55" to as little as 13.65", almost a 2" difference!!!! BUT the compressed heights are the same!!! To make things a little more interesting the amount of force on the spring depends on the length of the control arm and to some extent the wheel offset. These things are fixed and measureable so one can calculate. The amount that the car is lowered by changing the "Height at Normal Load" is not 1 to 1. In other words if the 9.60 inches were changed to 8.60 inches it will lower the car a whole lot more than 1". Just saying....
Quote from: hiball3985 on 2015-09-05 08:14
I agree with Rich, when I checked the Aerostar springs the are shorter then the originals and I would have to add spacers so I scrapped that idea and used the original springs. I don't see how they could raise it if they are shorter to begin with. Every other post I have seen by people using them said it lowered their car.
This continues to be so confusing, over and over on most car sites there are hundreds of postings on guys using the Aerostar springs on 49-59 fords and ending up lower than prior to that and surely they were replacing old possible original equipment. Eaton claims it will raise car 2.5 inches using their Aerostar springs. Obviously if your springs are totally worn out then replacing them with new it will/should raise the car.
I will also accept the owners reflection/observation that the ride improved by using the "A" springs. It had to replacing old with new regardless of height had to make a difference. In 1970 I had a 58 Fairlane 500 with the first year 352. Car was a gas sucking (10mpg) beast. Rode hard and fast nowhere as comfortable as my 57 business coupe. One day while driving it heard a loud bang thought I must have run over something but saw nothing behind me. Got home looked the car over and it was leaning a bit to the passenger side. Couldn't hardly see it but my girlfriend spotted it right away. Got to looking and found several coil spring spacers and there were 2 less on the pg side than the drivers. Took them all out and it lowered the car a bunch as the springs were shot almost no room between windings. Worse I've ever. No doubt in my mind any new ones would have raised the car. That I can accept.
We've all seen the before/after pictures with the Aerostar springs. With and without a tape measure. And again replacing old worn springs. So why are there the few that actually ended up raising the car? Were their springs not so bad before being replaced? We tend to replace everything on our builds and since we can really test springs rather than wonder we swap them for new.
Zap- :unitedstates:
My front springs was not wore out. I went to the Aerostar springs to lower the car. If I was to redo anything I would use a 1" spacer. There is no way the Moog Aerostar springs will raise the car without spacers. Hope this helps, Zap. Can email pics...........Rick.
Quote from: Zapato on 2015-09-05 09:41
This continues to be so confusing, over and over on most car sites there are hundreds of postings on guys using the Aerostar springs on 49-59 fords and ending up lower than prior to that and surely they were replacing old possible original equipment. Eaton claims it will raise car 2.5 inches using their Aerostar springs. Obviously if your springs are totally worn out then replacing them with new it will/should raise the car.
Zap- :unitedstates:
I'm wondering if Eaton did a correct calculation when the said 2.5" raised? I'm sure most people who used Moog found the car lower by about 2", seems like a big difference, almost 4" between manufacturers which seems really strange.
But why are people using Aerostar springs?
1. just to lower the car?
2. no one has an OEM type replacement?
Very confusing indeed. :dontknow:
quote from Zap:"So why are there the few that actually ended up raising the car?"
I'm not sure I've heard of anybody having their car raise up with the aerostars. The first I've heard of that was your quote from Eaton's. When you had that discusion with them, what years Aerostar did you inquire about...maybe a different vintage that is totally different from what the guys are using?
Jim...near as I can gather, guys are using the aerostars to lower their cars when they don't want to use a dropped spindle that will also convert them to discs and larger wheels.
I have not inquired, but I am sure Eatons could make a set of custom springs to drop your car a specific amount. With all the variations in drivetrain weights, and all other factors involving weight and it's distribution, I would think it wouldn't be feasible for them to come up with a premade solution that would work the same for everybody.
When I restored my wagon I wanted to have the front end a touch lower but found that the Areostar springs would dump the front end more than the 1" I was looking for. A little searching through a spring catalog and I discovered that Chevy S10 front springs looked like they would do the job. I purchased a set through my local autozone for $40.00 or there abouts and they worked perfectly.
I can supply the part # if anyone wants it and a picture of how the car sits as well
Pete
Pete, please post pictures and part #
Rich, all my contact with Eaton was by e-mail, fwd it to you last night.
I have no springs at all, car is sitting with 2x4 blocks in their place, I like the way it sits now with a slight rake and 3'' channel, would be ok with a slight hike upwards but definitely not 2.5 inches. The S10 springs might be just the trick even if I had to use a spacer.
Have to give the Ford engineers credit for figuring out all the different springs for 57 would love to see the formula they used and plugged into their slide rulers.
Thank you all again for contributing to this very worthwhile but confusing discussion.
Zap- :unitedstates: :002:
Pete...yes, please post pics, along with info on your suspension..stock spindles, etc?
Stock everything on the front end except the sway bar. Spring application is 1996 Chevy S10 P/U 2wd. Autozone part # FCS5662S current price on their website is $79.99 for a pair.
Car rides great with rpelacement gas shocks, no bottoming issues.
Quote from: Zapato on 2015-09-05 13:02
Pete, please post pictures and part #
Rich, all my contact with Eaton was by e-mail, fwd it to you last night.
I have no springs at all, car is sitting with 2x4 blocks in their place, I like the way it sits now with a slight rake and 3'' channel, would be ok with a slight hike upwards but definitely not 2.5 inches. The S10 springs might be just the trick even if I had to use a spacer.
Have to give the Ford engineers credit for figuring out all the different springs for 57 would love to see the formula they used and plugged into their slide rulers.
Thank you all again for contributing to this very worthwhile but confusing discussion.
Zap- :unitedstates: :002:
Zap, If you put a block in place of the springs that is roughly 9.60" long that will give you a "design ride height" assuming your bushings are good. You should adjust the length of the block to compensate for the fact it won't sit exactly where the spring sits, you want the spring seat surface to spring seat surface to be 9.60". You can play with the block after you "see" design ride height you can then figure out what spring to use. Simply cut the block to a length that puts the height where you want it and this will give you a new "Height at Normal Load" compared to stock. Then by looking at free lengths and spring rates you can figure out what will give you the desired "Height at Normal Load". This seems complicated but it is really not especially if you have a car with no springs.
Another note, because of the control arm acting as a lever on the spring, a small difference in compressed length is magnified in ride height.
I am going to assume that when ''height at normal load'' is achieved both a-arms are parallel to the ground. Or is that a wrong assumption ?
Zap- :unitedstates:
I will throw a fly in the ointment , on my 58 ranchero I have Eaton springs in the front with Granada brakes 1 1/2 drop and run a 215 70 15 tire in the front. The distance from the garage floor to top of wheel opening is 25 inches and from the floor to lower fender at rocker panel is 8 inches . I do have the original 352 in the ranchero and the springs have been in the ranchero for quite some time so that would account for some of my lower stance . The rear springs are also from eaton but I had eaton make them to sit 1 1/2 inches lower than stock.
Not really a fly in the ointment. I think it kinda confirms what I've been saying. Your tires are just slightly taller than mine, your spindle drop is an inch less (mine are 2 1/2), yet my rockers are at about 11". Yours would be at 7 if you had the 2 1/2 drop, so that's a 4 " difference one car to the next.
The differences have got to be in the drivetrains weights and distribution of the weight.
I know I'm making some assumptions here...like that we both have the same springs from Eaton, mine have not "settled in", etc.
Quote from: Zapato on 2015-09-05 17:05
I am going to assume that when ''height at normal load'' is achieved both a-arms are parallel to the ground. Or is that a wrong assumption ?
Zap- :unitedstates:
That is a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption. I would actually think that the a-arms would have a slight downward angle, (higher in the center). All cars have a factory "design ride height" so that specification is somewhere, that would be fun to know. The ride height, weight, and suspension dimensions determined that 9.60". All one needs to know that is missing for us is the actual weight on the wheels. If you know that you can take any spring and figure out the compressed length. In my case I am putting in an FE engine that is 100 lbs lighter than the stock one I removed. Most of that is on the front wheels.
Here is a picture of a lower control arm.... http://www.ebay.com/itm/ORIGINAL-OEM-1957-FORD-LOWER-CONTROL-ARM-RH-B7A-3078-A-SUSPENSION-/201409033899?hash=item2ee4e9f6ab&vxp=mtr
I am guestimating based on the sketch I posted that A/B ratio is 2.5, that is to say that the pivot to spring center is roughly 40 percent of the pivot to center of the tire distance.
100 lbs lighter total is 50 lbs per front wheel. That means that 50 x 2.5 = 150 lbs reduction of force on each spring.
Assuming I have a 400 lb/inch spring per the chart my spring will extend 150/400 = .375" Not much...but
This .375" spring extension will raise the car by roughly .375 x 2.5 = .9375"
My car height will go up almost an inch because I put aluminum heads, intake, and water pump on a cast iron engine!
This exercise is intended to demonstrate that a small change in weight can have a large change in ride height. That is why Ford had 8 different springs for our cars in 1957.
It is reasonable that Rich reduced the weight on each front wheel by 100 lbs or so. This would have raised the car almost 2".
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2015-09-05 18:54
Not really a fly in the ointment. I think it kinda confirms what I've been saying. Your tires are just slightly taller than mine, your spindle drop is an inch less (mine are 2 1/2), yet my rockers are at about 11". Yours would be at 7 if you had the 2 1/2 drop, so that's a 4 " difference one car to the next.
The differences have got to be in the drivetrains weights and distribution of the weight.
I know I'm making some assumptions here...like that we both have the same springs from Eaton, mine have not "settled in", etc.
Just looking at average engine weights since none are exact your 4.6 should be around 150 lbs lighter then a Y block. So climb in and sit on the engine while your wife holds a measuring tape at the front bumper :003: I'll bet the change isn't that much.
She would have to drive it to get it to settle!!! :003:
Quote from: lalessi1 on 2015-09-06 11:37
She would have to drive it to get it to settle!!! :003:
And with the advantage of the hood design he won't get bugs in his teeth :003: :burnout:
Zap, Y-blocks forever has a post in the tech section on the Aerostar springs. Just more info.......Rick
Ya, but I'll bet they all have Y blocks, lol
Moog CC850 is a replacement for the Aerostar spring, Rockauto has them for $47.79 for a pair. This is a link to the specs for Moog springs....
http://www.moogproblemsolver.com/moog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/MOOG_Coil_Springs_Spec.pdf
Here are the Moog CC850/Aerostar spring specs
Moog Part # CC850
Inside Dia 4.07
Wire Dia 0.75
Spring Rate 605
Spring Load 1825
Installed Height 8.75
Free Height 11.65
End 1 SQ
End 2 TG
Comparing these springs to the 57 "Green" spring:
Spring Rate 400
Installed Height 9.60
Free Length 14.80
The design load required to compress the "Green" spring from 14.8 to 9.6 is
(14.8 - 9.6) x 400= 2080 lbs.
Applying this load to the "Aerostar" spring will compress it to
11.65 - 2080/605= 8.21"
This compared to the 9.60" is a change of installed spring height of 1.39"
This translates to a ride height drop of almost 3"
A couple of notes, the Aerostar spring is "stiffer" (it has a 50 percent higher spring rate) and it has a lower maximum load rating (1875 compared to 2075).
I will look to see what other Moog springs may be options
3 inches is a little scary on my car. I have to go back to step one and loosen everything up and make sure nothing got tightened too soon With the spindles that are in it and the 1/2 coil out, it should not be sitting where it is. I can't get close to it with any kind of greasy work while the painter is working on it so the check out will have to wait. We made a run yesterday from the Tri-cities down thru Tigard Oregon and got some front bumper brackets at Clayton Bauer's then down to Eugene to get a windshield from Bob's Classic auto glass then out to the coast. We will be in Seaside for the fall car show this weekend. hopefully the car will be about ready for paint by the time we get back..
Why not just call Eaton, tell them what you want and let them make you a pair.
They have been making them for decades.
Ron.
Quote from: SkylinerRon on 2015-09-14 21:18
Why not just call Eaton, tell them what you want and let them make you a pair.
They have been making them for decades.
Thought about doing that, however not sure about them anymore. specially when the told me that Aerostar springs would raise my car up when everyone that has done that has said the exact opposite. Just doesn't make sense that they would say that but they did. My neighbor's brother works for Benz spring across the river and they've also been around since Studebaker was building wagons so if he would give me a straight answer.............. well lets just say he's a bit flaky.
Zap- :unitedstates:
got a break in the paint prep. today and couldn't stand the suspense so I went out, jacked the car up and loosened all the control arm mounting points. it didn't make any difference in the ride height. Don't remember where I bought my springs but do remember they only offered one so I could have the heaviest spring that ford offered, that is if it is even built to a ford spec. So, I am going to get a set of Moog springs coming. When I get them in I will be able to tell exactly what they did for my car. I think I can take a 3 inch drop from where I am right now but we will see.
Got my Moog springs today. They are really short. I won't be able to put them for a few days but I am sure there are spring spacers in my future. I guess it's easier to raise it than it is to lower it.
So, i installed the Aerostar springs and my measurement from the fender lip to the spindle went from 15 1/2 to 11" even. I put a 1" spacer on top of the spring and it came up to 12 1/2.. I know I am going to get somewhere between 1/2 and 1" of settling so I am not going to do anything for probably a month and see where I am. The spacers don't fit in the shock towers like I would like but good enough to get a final thickness I need. We will then machine some out of UHMW and that should fix the problem. The picture is where the front is sitting right now. don't think I want it any lower so the final adjustment will probably be up. Anyway, anybody who tells you that those springs will raise your car 2" is confused.
It's nice to have a Guinea Pig...thanks Doug. The rake looks perfect. With my lighter weight engine, I may not even need the spacers. What are the height measurements at the front and back of the rockers?
Is that primer or matte paint?
I think the reverse shackles are adding to the rake but the front is pretty low. Are those Plymouth wheels?
Doug's front measurement of 12 1/2 is just a 1/4" lower than Rob's wagon.
not sure i am completely happy with the rear end but feel its a waste of time to do anything else until the coils have had a chance to settle the good thing is if anything has to be done with the front, it will be to raise it a bit and that is the easy part. The wheels are just Wheel Vintiques steel smoothies. I have a set of new Torque Thrust D wheeles waiting to go on as soon as the painter is thru.
jfyi......I did find out that the 6 leaf option on the rear springs do raise the rear 1" higher than a new 4 leaf would due to the fact they are arched differently. I ordered them because he told me the ride would be somewhat equivalent, but there will be less leaning in the rear with the 6 leaf. I figure if the new rear springs raise it too much, I can add lowering blocks and have the best of both worlds. LOL...there's probably a flaw in that reasoning somewhere that I'm not aware of. If I don't have to use lowering blocks, I'll also have the advantage of the axel dropping down an additional inch for tire changes, and if I go to the '55 year shocks, the higher spring rate should help keep the car from bottoming out on the shock travel( yep, I realize I'm also gonna probably lose another inch of shock travel with the 6 leaf springs with no lowering blocks)
So, Doug, there's probably no chance of meeting in Phoenix in 2 1/2 weeks?
Rich, I am seriously think about using Aerostar springs on my car, I like the higher spring rate for handling. I like the 6 leaf springs from McVeigh for the same reason but raising the rear is not desirable for me. Lowering blocks will work but I am thinking about asking for an arch job that will lower the car. Will McVeigh do that? The only negative with lower blocks that I can think of is that may aggravate the tendency to axle hop (besides the wheel changing thing).
I'm not sure if McVeighs can make modified springs. I do know they have the facilities to mfg. U-bolts, so he's not just a retail store. Also, the springs are made by Dayton.
I'm sure Eaton could though.
I wouldn't hesitate using the 6 leafs in a custom but it will ride a little harsher especially on bumps but that is a trade off for better handling etc. Remember the Ranchero was rated with a load capacity the same as a 1/2 ton pickup. Something I forgot to do was measure the big bearings when I had my axles out to compare them to my 1/2 ton truck bearings, I wonder if they are the same?
"Back in the day" I had a truck frame repair shop (they re-arched leaf springs) add two leaves to my Fairlane rear springs. I didn't know that Ford put 6 leaf springs on wagons and Rancheros then. They worked out very well, they raised the rear end and stopped the axle hop I was having.