Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MOOG 655 Springs vs. MOOG 653 Springs

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

  • Frame / Springs: MOOG 655 Springs vs. MOOG 653 Springs

    I'm replacing the springs on my 1960 Lark Convertible. Purchased but not yet installed the MOOG heavy duty 653 spring, instead of the MOOG 655's.. Now I'm concerned they may not fit or the ride will be too harsh. Anyone have any experience with this? [This is my second post of same subject, I guess my first post got lost somewhere in computer neverland. I can't find it. ]

  • #2
    IMS the 653 is a bit shorter and a bit stiffer. there's a spring comparison chart at youre FLAPS or on line. Good Luck Doofus

    Comment


    • #3
      Let us know how it turns out. I'll be ordering some coils for my 63 Avanti R2 soon. I can't seem to figure out Studebaker's specifications on the originals. They show an HD wire size the same as the 653 but the installed height differences in the spring charts drive me crazy. Also the HD spring was for A/C cars, but not mentioned is the fact that the R2 blower and mounting brackets are way heavier than any A/c set up. I'm looking to slightly stiffen it up, without a "too heavy" anti-roll bar. But at the same time wind up with the original height of the front end, as my coils has sagged badly, and don't want to "over shoot" the original height. By the way not to hijack this post, any suggestions for rear leaf spring replacements. I've heard the vendor's rears put the rear so high, you need spacers to lower it back down.
      Last edited by karterfred88; 02-03-2015, 06:06 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I always installed the shorter, heavier springs in my cars (mostly GM intermediates & F-bodies) but came to the conclusion that the driveability was best with the softer springs and much heavier (larger diameter with beefier mounting and bushings) sway bars and very heavy duty shocks (Koni, Bilstein, KYB). A slight lowering also helped the roadholding.
        Bill

        Comment


        • #5
          I used the ones defied as HD for Avanti


          BUT, I also have a V8 and AC on the car.. If you have a V8, go with the 653



          With Monroe gas shocks, the ride is very nice and responds well to driving the car

          Comment


          • #6

            Comment


            • #7
              I installed front springs from Eaton Detroit Spring. Its been a while but if I remember they did not have a listing for Avantis so I said give me Lark springs figuring they would be close. The rear leafs I purchased form Dave Thibeault. He had the 5 leaf Avanti springs. Looking at original press photos of the Avanti at the NY auto show in '62, and the cover photo on John Hulls's first Avanti book, I feel my car is pretty close to where it should be (pic). The springs from Thibeault were made Stanley Springs made by Dayton Parts LLC. Part # 87-547
              Attached Files

              Comment


              • #8
                The following is from Jack Vines fairly recently, who took the trouble to do this research on all matters Moog.....

                "Thanks, Joe
                CC655 20.4 x 12.9 x 6.5 inches
                ID: 4.18". Bar Diameter: 0.65"
                Spring Rate: 355.00 Lbs Per Inch
                Installation Height: 11.00"
                Free Height: 13.63"
                Load: 827#

                CC653 20.4 x 12.9 x 6.5 inches
                1985 - 1998 GM vehicles
                Inside Diameter 4.25", Bar Diameter .64"
                Installed Height 10"
                Spring Rate: 357.00 lb/in
                Load: 1230#

                So it would seem the CC655 is for softer ride/lower stance and the CC653 would give stiffer ride/taller stance?

                jack vines" (Vines, Front Springs for 64 Hawk, post #7, 11/14/2014)
                Hope this helps.
                cheers, Quentin

                Comment


                • #9
                  Here is a list of Moog springs so you can compare for yourself.

                  http://www.moog-suspension-parts.com...il_Springs.asp

                  I have included a PDF attachment of some calculations I did a few years ago before I ordered my springs, before the turning Wheels article came out, so this was an independent study. You can see at the far right I included the projected installed height for a Studebaker. I believe at the time I used a 1963 Lark V8 as the starting point. The information for the Studebaker I gleaned from other articles so there is no way of me being 100% sure of the original height measurements. That said I, and many others, have had no trouble with the CC655 springs.

                  If anyone would like an excel spreadsheet for the full Moog chart I can email it or post it here as a PDF. What I did for myself was eliminate all the springs that did not have square ends top and bottom. Then all with inside diameters that would not fit etc.. etc... Once that was done it was a matter of some calculations and the end result is that the CC655 is the best all around spring for most Studebaker applications. The CC653 was the next on the list but did not suite my application.

                  Both springs have a "CC" prefix which denotes a progressive rate.

                  Len
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I've been pondering this chart for a while since I first learned of this interchange option. I had my front end tore apart for a total rebuild and decided to cut the front coils down a bit to see how it would sit. Well, now it sits too low. I would like to find a spring that would lower the front about an inch and a half and still ride good. On the chart, the 653 and the 655 are both listed as have square cut ends. My stock springs had the tangential ends. I wonder how well the square end nest in the spring pockets. I guess it's not a problem since so many guys have made this swap. Btw the list I printed off from the Moog site was about 26 pages long. Would like to hear from someone who used the 653 in a Hawk with 289 and if it lowered the front any.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      All Studebaker late model cars that I know of have square ends. What that means is the spring will sit flat on the ground, either way up.

                      http://www.eatondetroitspring.com/cutting-coil-springs/

                      Len

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thanks for that info Skybolt. Had my thinking screwed up on that one. Nothing like a good picture.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          According to the short list it looks like the CC661 spring will provide a lower static height and still give you reasonable ride and handling if you have the HD sway bar... My application would be in my R2 Avanti. I need to get more suspension travel out of it than I have right now. It is barely 1 1/2 inches off the upper a-arm bumpers and at highway speeds even small expansion joints jar my back teeth out. This being said, I like the looks of the low stance so I don't want to lift it too much!
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I thought someone might like to see this spring I removed from my '63 R-1 Avanti over 20 years ago. It is the original factory "47 HD Springs F & R" (directly from the original build-sheet, not a retyped, reproduction). At that time the springs had 67K miles on them and were still perfect in the stock R-1. But, I had added a Vortech supercharger system with air-to-water intercooler, pump, etc. I thought these springs would still be okay even having added some weight in front (70#s). But, with the 17x7 forged Centerline wheels and 235R35 tires I'd put on it set way too high in the front with these. So, I retrieved a "weak" used pair of springs I'd tossed into the woods from my '82 Avanti, cleaned them, put them on, let set a week, and they were perfect. NONE of this I'd have expected with the changes made and the original in-car sag of the replacements I ended up using from the '82.

                            The point is that sometimes one cannot tell how a set of springs are going to work in a particular application... especially if changing wheel/tire combos as well, which in my case ended up being a smaller diameter than stock necessitating I play around to get the desired height, rake, and ride. I'm not sure all the charts in the world would have helped.
                            Attached Files

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X