Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: cramer236 (Marc Cramer)

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060411/7e8d4bb1/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: cramer236 (Marc Cramer)

Hello All,

Sorry if this becomes a double post...it scrubbed my message the last
time I sent it in htm format.

Pardon my ignorance but I need a couple of questions answered about
1969/1970 mustang coupe front suspension coils.
How do you know if they are still good or need to be replaced?
Also I keep seeing new coils and suspension parts that say they lower
the front by an inch...
so does this mean something (control arms) need to be taken out and
moved or are they the same location and the drop comes strictly from
the shorter springs.
Also feel free to post and answer the question(s) I should be asking
but am not

Thanks,
Marc Cramer

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: walt (Walt Boeninger)



Marc Cramer wrote:
>
> Pardon my ignorance but I need a couple of questions answered about
> 1969/1970 mustang coupe front suspension coils.
> How do you know if they are still good or need to be replaced?

You don't. If they still support the vehicle at a reasonable height
vis-a-vis new springs, and you don't plan on driving too aggressively,
the original springs are fine. Both my 67 and 71 have all of their
original springs, and I have no intention of ever changing them.
The 67 has settled to a very nice height, maybe 1/2-3/4" lowered.

> Also I keep seeing new coils and suspension parts that say they lower
> the front by an inch...
> so does this mean something (control arms) need to be taken out and
> moved or are they the same location and the drop comes strictly from the
> shorter springs.

Strictly from the springs. Most people also lower the upper arms at the same
time, which also lowers the car a bit more. But not required.

--

Regards
--------------
Walt Boeninger
mailtoemail redacted)
norcal-saac.org

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: shawkins6 (Steve Hawkins)

I put new 1" lowering springs on my 68 Fastback. My old springs were so
weak that the ride height is about the same. The difference is the car
doesn't dive in the front under braking.

Steve Hawkins



-----Original Message-----
From: (email redacted)
[mailtoemail redacted)] On Behalf Of Walt
Boeninger
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:20 AM
To: A list for owners of Classic Mustangs
Subject: Re: [CM] front suspension coil questions




Marc Cramer wrote:
>
> Pardon my ignorance but I need a couple of questions answered about
> 1969/1970 mustang coupe front suspension coils.
> How do you know if they are still good or need to be replaced?

You don't. If they still support the vehicle at a reasonable height
vis-a-vis new springs, and you don't plan on driving too aggressively,
the original springs are fine. Both my 67 and 71 have all of their
original springs, and I have no intention of ever changing them. The 67
has settled to a very nice height, maybe 1/2-3/4" lowered.

> Also I keep seeing new coils and suspension parts that say they lower
> the front by an inch...
> so does this mean something (control arms) need to be taken out and
> moved or are they the same location and the drop comes strictly from
the
> shorter springs.

Strictly from the springs. Most people also lower the upper arms at the
same
time, which also lowers the car a bit more. But not required.

--

Regards
--------------
Walt Boeninger
mailtoemail redacted)
norcal-saac.org

_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list (email redacted)
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: mustang (Brandon Peskin)


On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Walt Boeninger wrote:

> Both my 67 and 71 have all of their
> original springs, and I have no intention of ever changing them.


Are they drivers? Wouldn't the springs eventually run the tires into
the fenders from sagging?

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: rickl (rick)

Brandon wrote:

>
> On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Walt Boeninger wrote:
>
>> Both my 67 and 71 have all of their
>> original springs, and I have no intention of ever changing them.
>
>
> Are they drivers? Wouldn't the springs eventually run the tires into
> the fenders from sagging?

*I'd* like to drive the 67 :-). Yep, Walt drives 'em.

rick
66 coupe

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: walt (Walt Boeninger)



rick wrote:
> Brandon wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Walt Boeninger wrote:
>>
>>> Both my 67 and 71 have all of their
>>> original springs, and I have no intention of ever changing them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are they drivers? Wouldn't the springs eventually run the tires into
>> the fenders from sagging?

Perhaps in another 100 years...... which means they won't be my problem!

--

Regards
--------------
Walt Boeninger
mailtoemail redacted)
norcal-saac.org

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: dano (Dan O'Reilly)

At 10:25 AM 4/14/2006, Walt Boeninger wrote:


>rick wrote:
>>Brandon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Walt Boeninger wrote:
>>>
>>>>Both my 67 and 71 have all of their
>>>>original springs, and I have no intention of ever changing them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Are they drivers? Wouldn't the springs eventually run the tires into
>>>the fenders from sagging?
>
>Perhaps in another 100 years...... which means they won't be my problem!

I know that before I replaced my 40-year-old coil springs, the ride height
was off by as much as 3" (driver's side) and 2 1/2" (passenger side). The
back was similar. I can attest that spending the 20 hours or so plus about
$350 was well worth the effort to rebuild the suspension all the way around
(didn't need upper control arms or upper ball joints - they had been done
probably in the last 10 years). Handling and ride are night and day different!

---

Dan O'Reilly
1966 Nightmist Blue Pony Coupe
2002 Black Deluxe Convertible
Colorado Springs, CO

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: walt (Walt Boeninger)



Dan O'Reilly wrote:
>
>
> I know that before I replaced my 40-year-old coil springs, the ride
> height was off by as much as 3" (driver's side) and 2 1/2" (passenger
> side). The back was similar. I can attest that spending the 20 hours
> or so plus about $350 was well worth the effort to rebuild the
> suspension all the way around (didn't need upper control arms or upper
> ball joints - they had been done probably in the last 10 years).
> Handling and ride are night and day different!

It would be interesting to know the mileage. 3" is a lot. Both my
67 and 71 cars have around 70K miles on them. And they spent their
lives in the SF Bay Area... so no temperature extremes.... and they
both came with heavy duty springs to begin ....


--

Regards
--------------
Walt Boeninger
mailtoemail redacted)
norcal-saac.org

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: dano (Dan O'Reilly)

Hard to say. It's either 116k or 216k. I would be inclined to think it's
the 216k number. The car was sold into the Seattle DSO, but evidently
spent most of its life in southern CA. I do know the last person who owned
it, used to drive it somewhat regularly between LA and the Bay
Area. That'll put a lot of miles on it in a hurry. I talked with a friend
of mine who's been restoring Mustangs for 30+ years (he's had several
featured in magazines), and he told me that for the age & probable mileage,
that sort of sag isn't out of the ordinary.

At 10:56 AM 4/14/2006, Walt Boeninger wrote:


>Dan O'Reilly wrote:
>>
>>I know that before I replaced my 40-year-old coil springs, the ride
>>height was off by as much as 3" (driver's side) and 2 1/2" (passenger
>>side). The back was similar. I can attest that spending the 20 hours or
>>so plus about $350 was well worth the effort to rebuild the suspension
>>all the way around (didn't need upper control arms or upper ball joints -
>>they had been done probably in the last 10 years).
>>Handling and ride are night and day different!
>
>It would be interesting to know the mileage. 3" is a lot. Both my
>67 and 71 cars have around 70K miles on them. And they spent their
>lives in the SF Bay Area... so no temperature extremes.... and they
>both came with heavy duty springs to begin ....

---

Dan O'Reilly
1966 Nightmist Blue Pony Coupe
2002 Black Deluxe Convertible
Colorado Springs, CO

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: ckelly (Chris Kelly)

The 70 still has the stockers in it and it's fine. I've worn out a set of
Moroso Drag springs in the front of the Falcon - that took about 1200 drag
launches and a broken shock. The stockers had about 140K on them when they
came out of that car. The rear leafs in both are stock factory. The
Mustang is a little high in the back and the Falcon a little low. So, I
think it's going to be random in most cases what happens to the springs when
they age.

=====================================
Chris Kelly - (email redacted)
raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod
Merkel, Texas
Member:
International Hot Rod Association
Abilene Performance Car Association
Falcon Club of America
=====================================

> >
> >It would be interesting to know the mileage. 3" is a lot. Both my
> >67 and 71 cars have around 70K miles on them. And they spent their
> >lives in the SF Bay Area... so no temperature extremes.... and they
> >both came with heavy duty springs to begin ....
>
> ---
>
> Dan O'Reilly
> 1966 Nightmist Blue Pony Coupe
> 2002 Black Deluxe Convertible
> Colorado Springs, CO
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> (email redacted)
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>