rear leaf spring height

[1968shelbygt350h]

my rear leafs are dead any recommendation on rear leafs would prefer to raise rear at least 1 inch from stock I know they can be rearched but am afraid it might come out too high or anybody bought new ones from eaton and hows the height

[Bob Gaines]

my rear leafs are dead any recommendation on rear leafs would prefer to raise rear at least 1 inch from stock I know they can be rearched but am afraid it might come out too high or anybody bought new ones from eaton and hows the height

You don't have to over think this. I would suggest getting a set from Virginia classic Mustang .http://www.virginiaclassicmustang.com/65-73-Rear-Leaf-Spring-Assemblies-Pair-P5261.aspx . Save your bottom leaf if original and switch it on the new set. They are not dipped in thick black paint (yuk  ) like the Eaten springs ether. I and others have been using them for decades now. 

[shelbydoug]

my rear leafs are dead any recommendation on rear leafs would prefer to raise rear at least 1 inch from stock I know they can be rearched but am afraid it might come out too high or anybody bought new ones from eaton and hows the height

Are you sure they are dead? Even new these cars looked like they were carrying sand bags in the trunk with the original "competition" springs. They gave the car a speedboat profile with the nose up.

The Virginia springs are q great price but if you aren't showing in Concours (how do you spell that Pete?) then just doubling the top leaf of the original will get you to where you want to and you CAN carry rear seat passengers without running on the bump stops.

Many, if not all of the Shelby Trans Am coupes had this done to them.

[Coralsnake]

You have spelled in correctly shelbydoug

You are also correct, the cars were originally set up to be lower in the back.

[vtgt500]

You have spelled in correctly shelbydoug

You are also correct, the cars were originally set up to be lower in the back.

Pete, that has been my observation as well.  Been curious all these years, is the nose-high attitude do to intent, or is that what available spring rates unintentionally yielded?

[Coralsnake]

I dont know.

Theoretically, you have less weight in the front because of the fiberglas components.

[shelbydoug]

It's my understanding that it is just the "normal" stance created by using that spring. If I recall corrrectly, the rear spring is described as a "competition" spring.

I don't know what packages it automatically would have been included with but it was part of the suspension package specified for all of the '68 Shelbys, if not all of the Shelbys?

I believe that I have seen the same results on earlier K Mustangs as well.

As long as I have known Mustangs (which is from the beginning of production) I have heard comments from people about having to replace rear springs on almost new cars because the owner thought they had sagged.

The problem for me was that when my car was my everyday driver, there was not enough rear spring travel to put rear passengers in the car. It would sit on the rear bump stops and it would make the steering of the car very spooky.

I tend to think this was just an oversight of the Ford Engineering department probably putting a pencil neck junior engineer in charge of specking that detail.

I by accident I suppose, found the solution of just adding an additional top spring, with the eyelets cut off, put the car just where I wanted it. I also think that it rides much smoother there and combined with the Comfort Ride rear shocks, stops front end diving in the turns and makes the car smooth, comfortable and quiet to drive.

I also found that the original exhaust system would have the rear axle banging on it with the original unaltered leaf springs.

Now I still have the original production rear springs in the car, just with an additional leaf added...and the clamps left off.

Since I did this way back, like in 1972 or 3, I can tell you that it has never created an issue anywhere for anything, and if you notice my car, it has BFG 295-50-15's in the rear, tucked in so nicely, hardly anyone except Disher and Cowls noticing them.

[Jimbc123]

Shelbydoug-Can you post a photo of your rear spring setup?

Thanks, Jim

[Bob Gaines]

You have spelled in correctly shelbydoug

You are also correct, the cars were originally set up to be lower in the back.

Pete, that has been my observation as well.  Been curious all these years, is the nose-high attitude do to intent, or is that what available spring rates unintentionally yielded?

FYI the nose high attitude is a  factory Mustang thing not just a Shelby thing.

[shelbydoug]

Shelbydoug-Can you post a photo of your rear spring setup?

Thanks, Jim

It's just a stock rear spring with an extra leaf and no clamps. I never took a picture of it.

[corbins]

my rear leafs are dead any recommendation on rear leafs would prefer to raise rear at least 1 inch from stock I know they can be rearched but am afraid it might come out too high or anybody bought new ones from eaton and hows the height

My experience with re-arching originals to the correct free-arch height, by a very old and reputable spring shop, resulted in a very bouncy ride... much like an air shock kinda ride. Replacement of one leaf, second longest one resulted in a better profile height w/o the bounce.

[pmustang]

My old KR circa 2001/2 always looked like it had a load in the trunk

https://imgur.com/gallery/Uuzt7ix

Low mile never apart car