I'm looking for a set of un-cut original stock coil springs for the front of my 1963 V-8 hardtop.
Printable View
I'm looking for a set of un-cut original stock coil springs for the front of my 1963 V-8 hardtop.
Dearborn has them.
http://www.dearbornclassics.com/coil...1963-1965.html
Moog 8081 if I remember correctly is another option.
I've had 50/50 luck on Dearborn springs, one car rode great, the other one rode like a tank.
I haven't bought anything since they've become Ecklers
espo spring and things is another option.
Hello, Pat and Nathan.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrown
The specifications for these are the same as Moog 8088 springs. Those are supposed to match the stock springs for a 1963 Sprint. My car's original springs had developed a lean towards the driver's side. I put a new pair of Moog 8088's on my car and it corrected the lean .... but now the nose of the car is about two inches higher than it had been.
Rather than start guessing and cutting the new Moog springs, I wondered if I might be able to find a pair of original springs to bring the car back to level.
Thanks, Dennis.
Have you considered that the rear springs have probably sagged as well? The Sprint springs should get you to the factory ride height.
New springs take time to settle as well.
I've heard as much as 1.5" in a year.
I'm with Patrick and you should think about the rear springs. I don't think a quality spring like a Moog is going to settle much.
I have been looking into this while preparing and gathering parts for my own front end rebuild.
Hello, Pat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff W
I think that my leaf springs are good. The car was level before changing the front coils. In old photos of Falcons, their fenders cover the the tire at about the same place as mine do. If I raised the back end to match where the front now is, the whole car would be perched above its springs like a baby buggy.
Hello, Jeff.
If you google "1963 Ford Falcon coil springs" it will take you to Moog 8088 springs which are supposed to be exactly identical to the stock springs. I have seen springs listed for the Falcon that were called Raybestos and ACDelco, but their specifications were the same as the Moog 8088, so I think that they are still the same spring. It seems to be the only new spring out there.
I did find this chart that is supposed to be a description of the original springs. 1960 – 1963 Ford Falcon Spring Chart:
http://1bad6t.com/60-63_Falcon_Coil_Springs.html
The specifications for a 1963 "Model 63" hardtop with a V-8 say:
Normal load = 1585 lbs. Nine coils, 0.605” wire, Free Height = 14.25 inches.
The Moog 8088 specifications say:
Bar Size 0.59 inches (15mm), End 1 Type: Square, End 2 Type: Tangential, Free Height: 14.960 inches, Inside Diameter: 3.88 inches, Install Height: 9 inches, Load: 1540 Lbs., Spring Style: Constant Rate, High
The Moog load weight is the same as original. Its free height is 3/4 higher. On paper it looks good. But, when I installed them the car sits two inches higher. I measured the present door height and found that it was 38.75”, up almost two inches from the 37” that I had measure before the spring change.
I will take the car out this weekend and drive it back and forth over some speed humps and though some road dips and then re-measure the door and bumper height and see if there is any settling. My guess is that it might settle maybe 1/4", but I would be surprised (but happy) if it would settle 1 1/2 inches.
Dennis,
Did you drive the car after installing the new front springs? Jacking the car up and putting it back down will cause the front to sit high until the car is rolled a bit to get the suspension to settle.
You can also cut 1/4 - 1/2 of a coil out of the spring to get the ride height down.
Hello, Pat.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrown
The car was jacked up when everything was put together. I've only driven it about 90 miles since the new parts were put in. Day after day of 40% - 80% thunderstorm forecasts have been delaying me from driving it more. :(
I saw a spring company called "EPSO" mentioned on the national Falcon message board and I sent them a note saying "I put a new set of Moog 8088 springs on the car and now the front end is about two-inches high. I want the car to be level."
They sent a note back saying:
"Hi Dennis, Have you changed your rear springs? If not, that's probably why your front end is 2 inches high. Your rear is probably 2 inches low if original springs. The 8088 is the lower of the 2 v8 springs. The only thing lower than that is one of the 6 cyl springs and it is probably going to be more like 2 1/2 inches under the 8088. They are $95 for the pair. the 8088 should put it at a stock height. Shipping would be 18.88
Laura. ESPO Springs n Things, 800.903.9019 or 570.672.9413"
All indications are that the 8088 springs are correct. :confused: Maybe it is like you said "Jacking the car up and putting it back down will cause the front to sit high until the car is rolled a bit to get the suspension to settle."
I will take the car out this weekend for some barn storming. Over the next 3000 miles I will measure the height every now and then and see if it changes.
I'll take some pictures on Saturday and post some "before" and "after" photos so you guys can see what my issue with the front end height is.
Thanks, Dennis.
If you are still set against new rear springs... you may be able to remove yours and have the re-arche back to factory specs. I don't know much about that process. I think I am going to replace both front and back when I get to that point.
Here are the before and after photos of the front end height that I had promised. I parked the car in the same spot as I had taken a picture of it a few months ago.
The front end height on the original coil springs.
Attachment 4176
The front end height on new Moog 8088 coil springs. The nose sits about two inches higher. It's not terrible, but it is noticeable (at least to me). I have driven 112 miles on the new springs.
Attachment 4177
Here is a reference old photo. The position of the rear fender over the tire is exactly the same as mine is presently. That is why I think that my leaf springs are OK and why I don't want to raise the back end to match the new front height.
Attachment 4178
It does seem high in the front. It is also a tad low in the rear. It looks lower at the rear in the first photo than the second.
Here are the options as I see them.
1) Cut the V8 springs by 1/4 coil at a time and install and drive until you get the stance you want. You will need an alignment after this is done.
2) Do the "Shelby Mod" to lower your upper control arm pivot by 1". This will drop the front end slightly and improve handling and is a free mod except for the required alignment.
3) Buy a set of L6 springs and try them.
You should also be replacing the rear springs if they are original. They are over 50 years old and certainly need some attention. If fact, you should probably start at the rear. Get that height where it should be and then adjust the front for a very slight nose down stance.
On Rock Auto it seemed to call out a different part number than the 8088 on a 63 Falcon.
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/rafr...&parttype=7512
I've just installed 8088's on my Ranchero - with 1 coil cut - to replace a pair only three years old. I installed a 65 front-end in my '63 Ranchero, so I just order '65 parts. But I found the original springs (said to be for a 65 wagon) to be very hard to install the first time (3 years ago) and had no choice to cut a coil out. When I got the 8088's a couple months ago to replace this 3 year old set (I just never got over the fact that they "had to be cut to fit in at all") I noted the 8088's were way more than 1 coil taller than the previous springs, but the wire was smaller too - so I took that into account. I still cut only 1 coil and it sits perfect.
So springs are what they are. Too tall, cut them.
Hello, Roger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luva65wagon
Were the three year old springs giving you any problems? Were they too stiff?
What were they? (Brand and part number.)
How do you cut the springs? Do you use a hack saw?
Cut the coils from the bottom of the springs where it meets the perch. The top is milled flat and needs to stay that way to fit inside the shock tower properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ew1usnr
I hacksaw works well but will be slow going. I usually use a cutoff wheel on a 1/4 air tool. An angle grinder or sawzall will also work. Cut both sides the same amount. :sawzall:
Dennis,
I really can't say why I changed them. More money than sense most likely.
I will say, contrary to what Patrick indicated, the Moog 8088's I got were not milled flat. They were wound to seem flatter on one end, and a note inside said, in essence, this is just fine dandy - not to worry. The 3-year old springs were ground flat on one end.
Not sure what NW Falcons sold back when they were in business, but that's where all the parts I bought off Craigslist came from. I do know the spring wire diameter was larger than the new 8088's. The 8088's with one coil cut off set the ride exactly where I wanted it.
Can you just compress the springs a bit and cut the springs while they are still on the car or do they have to come all the way off due to clearance for the saw/grinding disk?
They should come out. Your already there - so much easier. I use a rotary cutoff wheel to make quick work of it.
Hello, Roger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luva65wagon
The 8088's are described as being flat on one end (bottom) and tangential on the other. Here is a site that explains that tangential ends are the ones that can be cut: http://www.eatondetroitspring.com/cutting-coil-springs/
When you say that cutting a coil "set the ride exactly where I wanted it", do you mean level or slightly nose down?
Did the nose stick up initially? If so, by how much?
How much (in inches) did cutting one coil lower the nose?
Did the ride seem stiffer afterwards?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Dennis,
Yes, the 8088's were "wound flat" meaning the wire was just bent on the end to make a flat-ish surface, meaning it would sit vertical if sat upside down on the floor. The others were actually ground to have an actual flat section of spring (spring wire in the shape of a 'D'). You do cut the opposite end.
My problem was never really having the car in the "before" state and never measuring the car at all when it had the 3-year old springs. I can measure it now if that will help you? With the 8088's with one coil cut in a V8 car.
The 3 year old springs were fine with the 6 cyl that was in it, perhaps a bit on the stiff side, but sat a little lower once paired with the V8, which was fine. You can see my sig pic: that was with a 6 cyl and the 3 year old springs (1 year old at the time, or less). Unfortunately that picture also had the new "wagon" rear leafs and Monroe SensaTracs, which had coil-overs too. Way too high and stiff in the back for what will mostly always be a lightly loaded truck at best. With the regular shocks in back it ws a way better ride, but was still too high in back.
When I redid the front-end this last time I also lowered the rear another inch for a total of 2" using shims I got from Doghows (Steve).
Right now, apart from needing to figure a way to move the rear-end forward in my wheel flare another inch, I like the stance. I can't move the rear-end forward yet because there is no way to "key" into the leaf and rear-end with aftermarket lowering blocks as easily. They are mostly hollow extruded rectangular tube cut to length. Because my "wheel flare" requires the tire to center into the flare - the one downside of this mod - I need to shorten my drive-line 1 inch and machine billet spacer blocks with special holes and pins to key the rear-end exactly where I want it. It's jury-rigged at the moment, but still off-set back about an inch more than I'd like it. I notice it all the time, which bugs me, and now everyone else will now that I've called attention to it.
:doh:
Roger, could you drill a second depression in the "shims" to move the banjo where you want it?
Gene, it's a little more complex than that. The blocks I have look like this:
Attachment 4203
The better block would look like this:
Attachment 4204
Currently the upper pin (of the spacer) is engaged in the rear axle housing, but the leaf pin is floating in large open cavity. In addition the lower shock attaching plate, which I've already drilled to a new spot (that's how the hollow blocks are somewhat functional now) will need to be modified again. The real problem is that the bolt in the leaf spring is used for center of the axle and it is for the wheels being way forward in the wheel opening (as Falcons all are) and I had to move them back quite a bit when I then had my drive line cut. Well, it is too far back and I can't move it forward without first shortening my drive line. Real Soon Now. Then I can make a true custom block to really key everything in. I also really need to verify, with everything lowered now, that my drive line angles are not out of kilter.
Oops! Didn't realize blocks were made like the ones you have. Mine are the solid kind you also pictured.
No worries - Someday I'll find some or make some solider ones and that will make it all gooder. Hate the idea of having to shorten drive line though. Just had that one made! Might be a winter project - assuming other 'project' gets done.
Back to our regularly scheduled thread....
My $0.02.
My Ranchero had the front coils cut by supposedly 1 coil to lower it 3" by the previous owner.
I will be removing those springs because of the bone jarring nature of hitting small imperfections/changes in street heights. The bump stops are shredded.
I bought 1" lowering springs (Global West S23) that are lower than stock height (11.5", .655" dia Wire) but supposedly stiffer.
Should be able to get them installed in the next 3 weeks along with a 1" front stabilizer bar.
Hello, Roger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luva65wagon
I used a tape measure and and found that with my new springs the inner edge of top of the bumper where it wraps around the left fender is now at 22 ½”.
What is the height of the top of your bumper measured at the same spot?
Thanks, Dennis.
Dennis,
I typically measure the upper radii of the fender flare (assuming stock flares, which my Ranchero, on the back, isn't). I also measure to body lines. I'd prefer to measure body panels than the bumper, because it is bolted on and could be higher or lower depending on the slop in the bolt holes that hold it on. Body lines are more consistent car-to-car. So I will (since we are talking front, here) measure tonight to the very top of the fender flare relative to the C/L of the wheel. See picture for clarity.
The rear measurement is there for the heck of it, but I usually use that profile line of the car front and rear to check for level - at least on a round body Falcon. Would not work on a 64/65 since that body line tapers going fore/aft.
Attachment 4205
Thanks to Steve for the further exploitation of his car.
I went back to the mechanic who had installed all the new front end pieces and explained that I was happy with the ride and handling but that the nose was too high. He said he could trim the new 8088 coil springs and that he had done it before. That sounded good so I left the car with him the day before yesterday. He called me at work today and said that the car was ready.
The picture is dim because the weather was really lousy this evening. We are getting rained on by the remnants of hurricane Odile that hit Baja California a few days ago. It crossed the southwest and the Gulf of Mexico and hit Tampa. But anyway, ...... Tah Dah! I think that the mechanic nailed it. The car is level again like it is supposed to be.
Attachment 4208
He said that he trimmed off a full coil to get it level. The front bumper had previously measured 22.5 inches high and now it measures 19 5/8 inches. That is a full 2.875 inches lower that its previous height (as shown below). The following picture was with the un-trimmed 8088 springs. I felt like I was driving uphill.
Attachment 4209
The top of the door height had measured 38.75 inches high and now measures 37 inches, the same 37 inch height that the doors had with the original coil springs (see below). The following photo shows the car with its original springs.
Attachment 4210
The new springs and shocks and sway bar bushings and everything else really improved this cars ride and handling. I made a sudden hard right turn (at low speed!) to try to get some body roll. The tire treads shrieked and the the P175/80 13-inch tires were skipping like they were just at the edge of breaking free, and I didn't notice any body roll. The suspension allows the car to roll over speed bumps comfortably and without being jolted and the the car rides smooth and straight at 70 mph. Whew! I am going to take a break from changing anything else and just start driving this car again. :D
Looking GOOD, Dennis. As a semi-wise man on TV used to say, "I love it when a plan comes together".
While I was looking at photos of these old cars trying to figure out what their original stance was supposed to be, I came across these two images.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrown
Look at how far down the rear wheels are pressed in this bizzaro 1963 Falcon hardtop advertisement. I've read that the photographers used to stack lead bricks in the trunks of cars to get them to look lower. That seems to be the case here. The rear end is pressed down so far that the fender almost meets the center of the wheel.
Attachment 4223
And take a look at this drop dead gorgeous 1964 Comet. It definitely sits high in front. I really like the chrome plated steel wheels. Cars used to be so cool.
Attachment 4224
Attachment 4225
That Comet look pretty level to me. The 64-65 Falcon and Comet look low at the rear because of the body lines. Hold a piece of paper just above the wheels to cover everything above the wheels. Focus your attention on the shadow and rocker panel.Quote:
Originally Posted by ew1usnr
Hello, Pat.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrown
I looked at it again, and Yep. You are correct. The car is level. The rocker panels are parallel with the ground. The hood is level. The high cutout for the front wheel well, the upward angle of the of the side body indents, and the downward slope of the trunk deck, however, all combine to give an illusion of it being nose high.
Attachment 4227
It really is a sharp looking car. If you drove one of those down the street today it would command everyone's attention.
I was also going to mention the fact that the cars were level... and then read further. The pre-64 Falcons didn't have the upward body lines, but the unequal wheel opening did do similar things to the eye.
With the flares equal on my Ranchero, I've noticed almost the opposite effect of the rear looking high, when in fact it isn't. Don't gauge this from my Sig photo - the back end was high in that photo. I had installed a set of Monroe Sensa-trak's on it (they come with coil-over helpers) - plus it also had new leaf springs, which made for a very stiff and high ride. I took these off immediately (anybody with weak rear leafs need a zero mile set of these, cheap?) and have also added 2" lowering blocks to get the rear-end down and appearing equal.
In general, most Falcons I've seen are front high. Not appearing so, but actually are. Maybe this is due to leaf springs sagging faster than coils? Or perhaps they sagged equally over time, but most Falcons (by now) will have had front-end rebuilds and changed coils (while we're at it), but would never consider this for leaf springs. Who changes leaf springs, just because? But leaf springs flatten over time as well.
That Comet is sleek, I agree. Worked on one in high school (my friend's) - a Caliente' - and he was driving it to school one day and someone pulled out in front of him on our 'country roads' south of Sacramento and he ended up in the ditch upside down. I can still remember the picture someone took of him sitting in the seat, all scrunched down, like he had a chop-top Comet. It wasn't. It was a flattened-top Comet. The car was toast. :(