Other: Rear Springs on a 64 Cruiser?

[Bullet]

I have a 1964 Cruiser that I use as a daily driver. When ever I have two adults in the back seat, not very often, I tend to bottom out when I go over bumps. I have replaced the rear shocks, but know I need to replace the bushings in the frame and the back end of the springs. My question is this, I believe that the current rear springs are standard duty. I have a pair of 63-66 Wagonaire heavy duty rear springs, that have been re-built and are ready to install. If I put these in the Cruiser, will it raise the rear of the car way to high, like 2-3 inches or be close to stock (1 inch higher is ok).

Thoughts? I know I will still have to replace the frame bushings, but would like to eliminate the bottoming out when the occasionally adult sits in the back seat.

Thanks

Mark

[Alan]

Measure the thickness of the main lief on the car then measure the HD spring and see if they are the same thickness. Then measure the true arch of the HD's on the ground. Let me know what you come up with.

[Andy R.]

Alan seems prepared to give you specific application feedback, so I will defer to him.

From my own experience, I replaced std. springs (which were really fatigued) with HD on my '63 Wagonaire, my ride height rose about 3/4" at the axle, putting the top of the rear wheel opening just slightly above the edge of the rim. The difference was most notable with passengers...we could tour all day with 3 in back + camping gear with ease. Drivability with 5-6 people noticeably improved.

Again, that difference in unladen ride height may have also been attained with fresh std. springs, but I doubt they would have provided the stability under load of the HD springs.

It shouldn't take too long to swap them out and see.

[53k]

I have a 1964 Cruiser that I use as a daily driver. When ever I have two adults in the back seat, not very often, I tend to bottom out when I go over bumps. I have replaced the rear shocks, but know I need to replace the bushings in the frame and the back end of the springs. My question is this, I believe that the current rear springs are standard duty. I have a pair of 63-66 Wagonaire heavy duty rear springs, that have been re-built and are ready to install. If I put these in the Cruiser, will it raise the rear of the car way to high, like 2-3 inches or be close to stock (1 inch higher is ok).

Thoughts? I know I will still have to replace the frame bushings, but would like to eliminate the bottoming out when the occasionally adult sits in the back seat.

Thanks

Mark

I don't know if this will help or not, but when I bought this Daytona convertible it had the stock four-leaf rear springs. I installed a set of six-leaf Wagonaire springs and a set of spacers in the front because I thought it sat too low. The first picture is before, the second after. It raised the rear about an inch and a half, but the ride and handling improvement was dramatic.

[candbstudebakers]

Alan seems prepared to give you specific application feedback, so I will defer to him.

From my own experience, I replaced std. springs (which were really fatigued) with HD on my '63 Wagonaire, my ride height rose about 3/4" at the axle, putting the top of the rear wheel opening just slightly above the edge of the rim. The difference was most notable with passengers...we could tour all day with 3 in back + camping gear with ease. Drivability with 5-6 people noticeably improved.

Again, that difference in unladen ride height may have also been attained with fresh std. springs, but I doubt they would have provided the stability under load of the HD springs.

It shouldn't take too long to swap them out and see.

Andy I still have your rear springs and exhaust in the shop, from a long time ago..Bob

[avantilover]

I had the springs (HD) on my 1962 re-arched and she sits like Paul's '64. Just lovely and drives wonderfully.

[Warren Webb]

Paul, it's gonna take me a while to wipe off all the drool on my monitor! That is one fantastic ride.

[Bullet]

Alan,

I measured the thickness of the existing springs at the center of the spring near where the bolt goes through. It was 1 inch. I then measured the wagonaire springs. They were 1.5 inches thick each at the exact same spot as the standard existing spring. I turned the wagonaire springs upside down so that the eye bolts were on the ground and the "bottom" of the spring (where the bolt goes through, as in above). The measurement was 6.75 inches on one and 7 inches on the other. I am assuming the difference is for drivers side vs passenger side?

Mark

[Alan]

What I meant was the thickness of the main lief. And the distance from the center line of the front and rear eyes to the spring at the hole that holds the spring together. There is a formula that will give you a LBS/Inch rating for the spring. I use a NASCAR spring checker and a jig I whipped up to test lief springs. The formula is close.

[53k]

Paul, it's gonna take me a while to wipe off all the drool on my monitor! That is one fantastic ride.

Every time I go back to those pictures I kind of kick myself. I had always wanted a '64 Daytona convertible, bought it off eBay, spent three years tweaking all the little issues then saw the '64 Avanti I have now, also on eBay. Sold the convertible to pay for the Avanti now I'm back to tweaking again and, while the Avanti is striking, it just doesn't have the eye appeal the convertible did. The convertible was a California car with absolutely zero rust anywhere, 289, Powershift, reclining buckets, but was a two-barrel, single exhaust, manual steering and brakes car. I even added air conditioning. On the down side, I could never get rid of the rattles and creaks, the top fit was poor and the body panel fit was poor (doors sagged, etc.)

[Bullet]

Ok, got it. So the thikness of the mail lief on the std and the HD are both 1/4 inch. The std has four liefs total, where as the HD has 6. On the HD, the measurement from eye center to center bolt center is 24 inches. The eye center to eye center is 48 inches.

Thanks for your help.

Mark

[Bullet]

That 64 Convertible is just beautiful! Now I am drooling as well!!! I am sure it went to a good home.

Mark

[Alan]

OK Mark, The formula is and I hope that the site doesn't jack math around.
Leaf Spring rate = (WN/12) X (1000t/L)3
W = Width of spring in inches
N = Number of leaves
T = Thickness of 1 leaf (in inches)
L = Length of spring ( in inches)
12 = A constant for all leaf springs

[StudeRich]

OK Mark, The formula is and I hope that the site doesn't jack math around.
Leaf Spring rate = (WN/12) X (1000t/L)3
W = Width of spring in inches
N = Number of leaves
T = Thickness of 1 leaf (in inches)
L = Length of spring ( in inches)
12 = A constant for all leaf springs

A Ok, I think a little non-spring Engineer help may be required here Alan.

Leaf Spring rate = (WN/12) X (1000t/L)3 ...Decoded:

Width X # leaves Divided by12 X 1000 Tons (2 Million Lbs.) Divided by Spring Length X Tripled = Rate?

Somehow I think I got that wrong!

[Bullet]

I took the 1000t to be 1000 X thickness of one leaf or .25 inches. Now what you get from this is the rate, I think as well, but I am not sur ehow that helps me understand how much that will raise the rear of the car vs std Cruiser leaf springs that I first ask about. But it is interesting..


Mark