Shocks, Springs, Brakes, Frame, Body Work, etc
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
Not really an expert , but from the research I did they are trying to mimmick the action of a parabolic mono leaf spring , which is tapered having a thicker and stiffer front section to resist wrap -up . There are some advantages to the split spring . One the are easier to make , 2 it is easier the to get the ride height you want by changing the back half of the spring . Different arch or eye position . 3 changing spring rate ,different thickness leaf . 4 is weight of the spring .this I have not really checked. I personally did not buy a set because I already had a set of Landrum parabolic mono leaf springs in the same spring rate that Calvert suggests for my car . Why buy a copy when you have the real thing . These springs (Landrum) have worked great on my car i don't regret not going with the split mono leaf at all. I also use the roller blocks on the rear of the spring but they are from AFCO because Calvert did not have them when I was building my car. Dan
Thanks for the info. I've got a 69 Nova that is going together-very nose heavy with an all iron bigblock, tunnel ram, and a heavy 4L80E transmission. The rear wheelwells won't be modified so tire size is going to be limited too... The car is just too clean to tub right now. It's going to be a challenge getting any traction.
Pro question poster.
Please give me some time to think it over. Thanks.
Oh, I ordered my '67 Camaro car with the heavy-duty spring package on it, but have never been able to verify FOR SURE just what both the coil's and mono's spring rates were??
I want to say 337 for the coil's and 137 for the mono's but don't know for sure??
Can anybody document their factory rates? Please post up if so...