North American Turbocoupe Organization



Factory Fox Body Spring Rates
svo_thunderchicken Offline
Senior Member
#11
all it was, was a assumption.. from what im gathering , load rating is the weight that the spring loads up.. therefor you can have to springs the same size and rate , but one will load up faster if its a higher load rating to prevent sag.....
84 TC Silver 5 speed - PE EEC, Big Vam, RR cam, 35lb injectors, E6 swap, T3 60 Trim, 87-88 intercooler and hood, BOV, K&N Cone Filter *under constrution*
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2298891/1

87 TC Black 5 Speed - Stock IHI, BCS Bypassed
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2390431
Reply

Chuck W Offline
Posting Freak
#12
The load rating is the maximum weight the spring will support before completely compressing.
83 TC Clone, 85 Mercury LTS, 97 Volvo 850 T5 Turbo, 78 Volvo 240, 93 F150
Reply

svo_thunderchicken Offline
Senior Member
#13
thanks!
84 TC Silver 5 speed - PE EEC, Big Vam, RR cam, 35lb injectors, E6 swap, T3 60 Trim, 87-88 intercooler and hood, BOV, K&N Cone Filter *under constrution*
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2298891/1

87 TC Black 5 Speed - Stock IHI, BCS Bypassed
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2390431
Reply

livingfast Offline
Member
#14
Dragging up an OLD thread from the dead ....

Has anyone run LTD rear springs? By looking at the above numbers, it appears that the STOCK LTD rear springs COULD yield about a 1" drop. Can anyone confirm this?

I am also concluding that the 79-93 Fox Mustang V8 front springs are nearly identical to STOCK TC front springs, except the Mustangs have a slightly lower load capacity. Does this equate to any drop on a TC? Has anyone actually tried these springs?

I've deduced that Mach 1 and Bullitt SN-95 rear springs will lower the rear of a TC approximately 3", which is too much. What about stock 02'-ish convertible rear springs?

I've read hundreds of posts, including Chuck W's stuff, and feel like I'm going in circles. There has to be a combination of springs that equates to 1.5"ish drop, without adjustable arms or coilovers.

Sorry for all the questions. If I can get an idea of some combinations that are in the ballpark of what I'm looking for, I'll make some wrecking yard trips and try them out ... with pictures.
1988 TC ... all stock, so far ....
Reply

livingfast Offline
Member
#15
Just to stir the pot a little more:

'78-'83 Fairmont (excluding wagon) use 8597 or CC821.
'78-'83 Fairmont Wagons use 8599 or CC823.
'85 Mustang GT uses CC827, no other springs listed.

[i]*CC are Cargo Coils, which are variable rate springs*[i]

CC827- 9.5" installed | 691lb load | 174lb/in | 13.80" free height
CC823- 10.25" install | 808lb load | 340lb/in | 12.63" free
CC821- 09.25" install | 804lb load | 275lb/in | 12.29" free

8597 - 9.5" installed | 726lb load | 224lb/in | 12.75" free height
8599 - 9.5" installed | 926lb load | 249lb/in | 13.33" free height.

Taken from: http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread.php?p=871986
1988 TC ... all stock, so far ....
Reply

86 XR7 5spd Offline
Senior Member
#16
IMO the rears of our cars needs a stiffer spring than stock:
to improve handling, capacity when carrying 4 passengers plus luggage, and to minimize squat during launch

so, I suggest the Wagon springs
8599 - 9.5" installed | 926lb load | 249lb/in | 13.33" free height.
then trim to desired ride height
David T
T5 / ported E3 / .63 / 35# / K&N
2.5" exhaust w/ cherry bomb
30+ mpg! 8.2 0-60, 16.4@88 1/4 (gTech)
Reply





Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Theme © iAndrew 2018 - Software MyBB