> Besides I still need to get the back end dropped too.

Signature
.boB
Arrived: 2006 FXDI, Red.
1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged Stolen 11/26/05 in Denver
1HD1GEL10VY3200010 CO License J5822Z
2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92
1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver
1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast.
> > I'm thinking about the aftermarket 1" spring "hats" that go on the top of
> > the spring, but I wanna see if I can make this work first.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> You'll need at least 1/4" of thread extending past the retainer nut on the U
> bolts. You may have to buy new bolts.
Here's the info you need about the upside down spring trick:
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=544275
"Latamud's" specification of a 60" link of all-thread must be a typo.
You need a piece just long enough to bridge the gap between your
existing spring pack and your auxiliary spring. 24" is more than
enough. I have not read Latamud's how-to post in a while, but he uses
alot of words to describe a fairly simple operation. You take the
smallest leaf from a donor spring pack. You remove the center
through-bolt from your existing spring pack. You place the donor leaf
upside down on top of the main leaf of your existing spring pack. You
use the all-thread to draw the two together, until they're close enough
to fit in a vise, then you use the vise the rest of the way and to hold
the springs together while you put in a new through-bolt. I use a
longer than necessary through-bolt and add a spacer or built up washers
to the head end to make a registration stud for the axle bracket. The
all-thread, I lock two nuts together at one end, put on a fender
washer, insert it through the spring pack and the donor spring, put on
two fender washers with motor oil between them, then another nut. This
top nut is what you use for the tightening process.
It's really easy as pie.
You also need a clamp, for one end of the new spring pack only. You
can make your own -- see the pic I added to the linked thread showing
how I made mine -- or you can go to a spring shop and have them bend
the square U-bolts like you can see on "Opentracker's" car in the
linked thread.
You may also need some new axle tube U-bolts, but only if your present
U-bolts have less than 1/2" of thread showing past the nuts.
The fender rolling, cut some slits every few inches on the fender lip.
Then use a baseball bat or a piece of pipe between the lip and the tire
to flatten the lip.
The 1" spring isolators will give you back more than 1" of ride height.
They don't cost much. I would try this first, before rolling the
fenders. OTPH, you should never have any tire to fender interference,
even at full compression.
Also, I assume from now on you will be a vocal dispenser of words of
caution to those who cut coil springs. I would never cut a half coil
at once, much less 1.5 coils. I have usually seen a 1/4" drop for each
2" of spring removed. And I drive the car around for awhile to let it
settle before I remove any more.
Anyway, I'm glad to see you going lower. Unless you're scraping at
least once in a while, your Mustang is sitting too tall!
180 Out
Blue Mesteno - 05 Jul 2006 04:04 GMT
> Here's the info you need about the upside down spring trick:
> http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=544275
I'll check it out.
> The 1" spring isolators will give you back more than 1" of ride height.
> They don't cost much. I would try this first, before rolling the
> fenders. OTPH, you should never have any tire to fender interference,
> even at full compression.
I have no interference now, just rubbing with tight turns. without power
steering it seems to tun easier at slow speeds when I normally have the
HARDEST time getting the wheel around.
> Also, I assume from now on you will be a vocal dispenser of words of
> caution to those who cut coil springs. I would never cut a half coil
> at once, much less 1.5 coils. I have usually seen a 1/4" drop for each
> 2" of spring removed. And I drive the car around for awhile to let it
> settle before I remove any more.
No SH-T!!!
> Anyway, I'm glad to see you going lower. Unless you're scraping at
> least once in a while, your Mustang is sitting too tall!
No scraping except in the turns and it looks completely badass!!! It's just
a little TOO badass for the street. 'Course I had my a.s handed to me by a
blown 5.0 the other day. My n/a 400W 2.70 open rearend 2" exhaust didn't
help, compared to his 10lb blown 5.0 with 4.35's and 4" exhaust.

Signature
Scott W.
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
>> I'm thinking about the aftermarket 1" spring "hats" that go on the top of
>> the spring, but I wanna see if I can make this work first.
>>
> I've used them before, and they seem to work just fine. By cutting the coils
>you've decreased your spring rate. So watch the bumps.
Actually he increased the spring rate, ie made the spring stiffer by
reducing the number of active coils:
Spring Rate = F/S = Gd4/8ND3 where:
F = spring force.
S = spring deflection.
G = torsional modulus of the material.
d = wire diameter.
N = number of active coils.
D = mean (average) coil diameter.
one80out@hotmail.com - 06 Jul 2006 23:03 GMT
> Actually he increased the spring rate, ie made the spring stiffer by
> reducing the number of active coils:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> N = number of active coils.
> D = mean (average) coil diameter.
Very interesting. I have had the intuitive theory that a coil spring
and a torsion bar are similar, i.e., that the wire of the coil spring
must twist as the coil is compressed. Your formula indicates that the
greater the "torsional modulus" of the wire, the higher the spring
rate. This seems to verify my intuition.
I have a question, though: why do you have a "4" in the numerator and
an "8" and a "3" in the denominator. Why not reduce these three
constants to "1/6." Oh, wait, could it be that the formula is
Gd^4/8ND^3, where a "^n" indicates an exponent?
Be gentle. I'm only a liberal arts major. : (
180 Out
LoneGunman - 07 Jul 2006 02:39 GMT
>> Actually he increased the spring rate, ie made the spring stiffer by
>> reducing the number of active coils:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>greater the "torsional modulus" of the wire, the higher the spring
>rate. This seems to verify my intuition.
A coil spring and torsion bar work exactly the same way, one is just
"wound up" rather than straight.
>I have a question, though: why do you have a "4" in the numerator and
>an "8" and a "3" in the denominator. Why not reduce these three
>constants to "1/6." Oh, wait, could it be that the formula is
>Gd^4/8ND^3, where a "^n" indicates an exponent?
That would have been a better way to write the formula. I did a
cut-n-paste from Paul Haney's webpage, and didn't notice that.
http://www.insideracingtechnology.com/eibach1.htm
(Confirmed the formula on page 764 of Milliken's book.)
>Be gentle. I'm only a liberal arts major. : (
>
>180 Out