1963 - 1965 V-8 original coil springs

[pbrown]

Dearborn has them.

http://www.dearbornclassics.com/coil...1963-1965.html

[Nathan289]

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.

[ew1usnr]

Dearborn has them.

http://www.dearbornclassics.com/coil...1963-1965.html

Hello, Pat and Nathan.

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.

[pbrown]

Have you considered that the rear springs have probably sagged as well? The Sprint springs should get you to the factory ride height.

[Nathan289]

New springs take time to settle as well.

I've heard as much as 1.5" in a year.

[Jeff W]

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.

[ew1usnr]

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.

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.

[pbrown]

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.

[ew1usnr]

Have you considered that the rear springs have probably sagged as well? The Sprint springs should get you to the factory ride height.

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.

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.

1-Wheel cover ad.jpg

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.

64 Mercury cyclone with high front end.jpg

1-Support Our Troops in Vietnam.JPG

[pbrown]

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.

64 Mercury cyclone with high front end.jpg

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.

[ew1usnr]

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.

Hello, Pat.

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.

64 Mercury cyclone with high front end.jpg

It really is a sharp looking car. If you drove one of those down the street today it would command everyone's attention.

[Luva65wagon]

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.