Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Info on CC655 Springs...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Frame / Springs: New Info on CC655 Springs...

    Thanx to Jim Pepper... December Turning Wheels..

    http://www.studebaker-info.org/TW/tw1216/tw1216p12.jpg
    64 GT Hawk (K7)
    1970 Avanti (R3)

  • #2
    Compare the specs of CC655 and Precision SP08055 springs. The same specs.
    The SP08055 springs are available through Oreillys. I didn't check anywhere else.
    Also, see this thread http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...43#post1017643
    Last edited by 55 56 PREZ 4D; 12-13-2016, 06:50 AM.
    South Lompoc Studebaker

    Comment


    • #3
      Summit Racing have both the suggested 653's and 661's from the article for $77 pair.
      $40 and $56 respectively at Rock Auto.

      Comment


      • #4
        When I replaced the springs in my Avanti with CC655's the front end came up about 1.5 inches. This was actually more than I expected but it made the car capable of driving down our local highways without bottoming out on the stops and jarring my back teeth out. Some of the expansion joints in the frozen north country where I live are pushed up 2" or more.

        I ordered a set of CC661's and measured them against the springs I removed. The unloaded difference is about 0.5" lower than 'tired' stock springs. As the article points out with a 0.5-1.0" spacer these may be just the spring I need to get the ride height down a bit to that nice raked look the car had when I bought it... Maybe install them in the spring, along with a couple of dozen other jobs that seem to sneak into the project jar.

        Comment


        • #5
          How did you that tried these, deal with the "Squared" ends of these Replacement Springs as apposed to the Flattened and Level seated Original Studebaker Springs fitment into the smooth, Level pockets in both the "A" Arm and the Frame?

          The squared ends of the GM Springs were designed to fit into a dead ended Link Pocket in the Trailing Arms.
          StudeRich
          Second Generation Stude Driver,
          Proud '54 Starliner Owner

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by StudeRich View Post
            How did you that tried these, deal with the "Squared" ends of these Replacement Springs as apposed to the Flattened and Level seated Original Studebaker Springs fitment into the smooth, Level pockets in both the "A" Arm and the Frame?

            The squared ends of the GM Springs were designed to fit into a dead ended Link Pocket in the Trailing Arms.
            I helped a friend put a set of CC655's in his '59 Hawk. We didn't do anything, just put them in the car. It handles and drives great.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by StudeRich View Post
              How did you that tried these, deal with the "Squared" ends of these Replacement Springs as apposed to the Flattened and Level seated Original Studebaker Springs fitment into the smooth, Level pockets in both the "A" Arm and the Frame?

              The squared ends of the GM Springs were designed to fit into a dead ended Link Pocket in the Trailing Arms.
              Some springs have a pig tail, which has a narrowing spiral. Others just spiral and are cut mid coil. The square end springs, although they do have the spring cut square to the length of the round bar, have the last half, or so, of coil bent towards the other coils as to make a flat seat. The factory Studebaker coils do the same but have the spring ground flat but this makes no difference as they both sit square in the control arm.

              Actually this link will explain it better. http://www.moog-suspension-parts.com/moog-cc655

              Len

              Comment


              • #8
                following. I've been recommended the 655's multiple times and was upset to see them sold out. Glad to see there's another option

                Comment


                • #9
                  Last year, I just put a set of 655's in a 1970 Avanti II. The originals were stiffer and had a spacer. The 655's gave the Avanti front end about a 1.5" drop.
                  64 GT Hawk (K7)
                  1970 Avanti (R3)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My Avanti II got back the original Avanti rake by eliminating the fender inserts, eliminating the aluminum coil spacers and cutting off (square ending) one coil of some SI stock HD springs ... BUT ... after 6 months of settling, the car dropped another 1 1/2" so the suspension had limited range of travel and almost rode on the rubber stops. So, I bought another pair of SI springs (flattened ends), waited another 6 months and now ride (visually) about 1" too high ... but have range of motion. Oh, and I don't know how SI flattens their spring ends without heating (which is supposed to damage springs). Is anyone getting original rake and suspension movement with their new choice of springs?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What are Avanti fender inserts? Thanks, Tom

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TWChamp View Post
                        What are Avanti fender inserts? Thanks, Tom
                        Early Avanti II's had filler panels molded into the front fender openings. That way there wasn't a big gap between the top of the tire and the fender lip since the body was raised up higher.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Last weekend I had a stroll under my Avanti (it is stored on a hoist) and made some measurements. It seems the front end is about perfect for suspension ride height with the CC655 springs. Compression travel is about 1/3 and deflection travel about 2/3 total suspension movement with the new springs. The old ones were 1/5 to 4/5! My problem now is the rear springs are sagged about 2-3" so the car sits fairly neutral when at rest. I like the raked looked so I guess the next job will be replacing the rear springs with a set of good used station wagon springs I have in the parts bin. I will keep the CC661's (post #4) for my next project.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I like the raked looked so I guess the next job will be replacing the rear springs with a set of good used station wagon springs I have in the parts bin.
                            Thanks for reminding me. For those who need to raise the rear of a Stude, I need to pass along some NOS parts which have been gathering dust for too long:

                            1. A pair of genuine Monroe Load Leveler coil-over rear shocks

                            2. A pair of fiberglass rear leaf springs I had made up by Vette Brakes several years back.

                            PM me if interested.

                            jack vines
                            PackardV8

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              What is the length of the 661 spring?
                              Start and Stage Your Studebakers

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X