Relocated - SS Springs

[Christopher Glick <MrChristopher1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

While we are on the subject, I have moved my springs inward 3".  My question is with the rear hanger.  If I mount it at the same height as stock, I while lose travel in the hanger and it appears it will be right (close to) the frame.  If I mount it to where it has the same amount of clearence to travel as stock, then I will be lifting the back of the car a couple good inches.  What do I do or someone who has moved the springs inward give some advice??  Thanks as always

Christopher Glick
1964 Dodge 440 2Dr Hrdtp


----- Original Message -----
From: Layne Grissman <64Polara500@xxxxxxxxx>
To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:01:27 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: SS Springs brought back up again

${top_text_ad}
To all who are wondering...on our 64's, when you try the SS springs
with the stock hangers it comes up short, and not fitting exactly as
they should.  I tired this approach to try and save a little $.....you
can get the springs on and mounted on both sides with stock, however,
they do not line up whatsoever with the "pin" on the Rear end....

Once I installed the 2" extensions from Mopar, everything lined up,
the pin seated nicely, and I was able to get all installed with no
issues whatsoever.  I talked to Summit....I talked to Mopar....they
said we do need these extensions.
Here is a link to Summit Racing's list of cars and what they need:

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/DCC-3690456/Application/?query=Year|1965&prefilter=1

Layne


On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Herb <zephyr9900@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> In one of the reply's someone said 62/63 did not use them and 64/65 did?.  I
> thought they were all the same 62/65??.  I was left to believe that 66 and
> newer B's needed them, and 65 and older B's did not.  And yes that two
> inches can cause the shackles to bind in the rear doing funny things to the
> springs & eventually the frame, but Layne said every thing aligned up well?
> The springs in a bind will do funny things to the ride height also.  That's
> the reason I had him look at the shackles going up and down for binding.
> Also by all means never I repeat Never use those after market adjustable
> extended length shackles as they will kill a set of new springs in a
> heartbeat.
>
> Herb
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Pat Herman
> Date: 11/25/09 07:58:01
> To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: SS Springs brought back up again
>
> I'm confused on the 2" front brackets Layne mentions.  I thought early
> B-bodies used the stock front spring hanger with SS springs.  Are these
> different brackets being referred to?
>
> Pat
>
>
> Herb wrote:
>>
>>
>> You replaced the springs, I presume, because they were bad!  Did you
>> replace
>> the frame bushings for the shackles in the rear?  When you raise or
>> lower
>> the car do the shackles swing freely and equally & not binding?  One
>> thing
>> to try is loosen the six bolts, two bolts through the front of the
>> spring &
>> four shackle bolts on rear of spring then raise and lower the car to let
>> the
>> spring bushings neutral-out just confirming nothing is in a bind.
>> Re-torque
>> them with the car on the ground.  I bet the old drivers side spring was
>> the
>> weakest (Gets the most stress over 45 years especially if I was driving)
>> and
>> was compensated for by the torsion bar adjustment in past allignments.
>> Are
>> the T-bar adjusters equal?  Probably not!  I bet the drivers side is
>> tighter!  Also if your car is aligned with you in it, it will sit just a
>> little higher on drivers side empty!
>>
>> If nothing is binding, I would get it aligned and see if that rectify's
>> the
>> problem, I am sure it will.  Also remind your alignment guy torsion bar
>> adjustment is required first.  Every time he adjusts them the car needs
>> to
>> be flexed up & down from the front & rear bumpers to equal out.  If
>> after
>> the alignment, and every thing is level, and you have one adjuster Allot
>> tighter than the other then I would worry.  Other than that I would
>> "Forget
>> About It!!"
>>
>>
>>
>>          
>>  Herb
>>
>> 1956 Plymouth Belvedere 361
>> 1959 Coronet 326 Poly
>> 1963 Fury 2D/HT 6.1
>> 1963 Sport Fury Convertible 361
>> 1970 Challenger RT 440 - 4 Sale
>> 1999 Durango SLT 5.9
>> 2008 SRT-8 Magnum 6.1
>> St. Louis, MO.
>>
>> http://1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/mmo42009.html
>>
>>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ----
> Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person -- directly to that person.  I.e., send parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!
>
> '62 to '65 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html.
>
>
>

${bottom_text_ad}
----
Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person -- directly to that person.  I.e., send parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!

'62 to '65 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html.


----
Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person -- directly to that person.  I.e., send parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!

'62 to '65 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html. 

This email was sent to: arc.6265@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

u/?bUrDWg.bSONJP.YXJjLjYy



?p=TEXFOOTER