Re: Super Stock Spring Hangers

[Dave64 <lt7dave@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the reply, MO.  I don't know if it's my Yahoo email or Topica, but your response is the only one I've seen (my own didn't even show up in my inbox).  And Gary's and Dodger's were the only responses I saw from my original post.  Just mentioning that in case there are other responses that I'm not getting.

Anyway, I'll play around with it and will report back what I find.

Thanks,

Dave

--- On Thu, 5/20/10, MO ( Steve Mick) <micher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: MO ( Steve Mick) <micher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Super Stock Spring Hangers
> To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 11:59 PM
> 
> Yes Dave , I'm here!  All the info I collected from
> the list members show that different years had some
> variation in stock spring lengths.  My conclusion is ,
> the spring makers have come up with a SS spring  that
> "will" work with several different applications. Hence the
> hanger extensions.  I wonder if a shorter front
> segment  used with 2" hanger extension , would make
> even less spring wind up? Paul Lenneman had a similar
> problem as yours , except his is a 63 and has a shorter
> spring.. If the wind up theory is correct, I would have a
> set of springs made up and use those 2"
> extensions......................MO
> 
> {Steve Mick}
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/mick64.html
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave64" <lt7dave@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Super Stock Spring Hangers
> 
> 
> Thanks for throwing another issue into the mix,
> Dodger!  Here I am thinking all is well, and now I'm
> scratching my head.  LOL  This is my assessment at
> this point.  The SS spring looks to be about an inch
> shorter on the front segment when I measure and line it up
> with the stock spring.  (Yes, my car has nothing under
> it at the moment, so all of the old and new parts are
> available for comparison.)  The 2" extended bracket
> adds 2".  So, it looks like the mounting pin is about
> 1" farther back than stock.  BUT - there are two
> mounting holes to choose from for the front spring
> eye.  The stock hole falls right in the middle of them
> (up and down).  So depending on which hole I choose, I
> figure the mounting pin will move closer or farther away
> from the stock position.  Closer would reduce my
> projected 1" difference.  Then there's the slight
> difference in the spring curve, and now I'm out of my league
> mathematician-wise! LOL  Mo - are you out there?
> 
> I'm hopeful that any difference there may be will be within
> a workable amount for the driveshaft.  I'm going with
> that thought based partially on other guys doing this swap
> and not seeing mention of driveshaft issues from them. 
> I'm now at the point of putting it back together with the
> extended brackets and new springs and seeing how it
> looks.  If it's an issue, I can experiment with the two
> mounting holes or even go back to the stock brackets without
> much hassle.  I'm still having fun, though!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave
> 
> --- On Wed, 5/19/10, Dodger7998@xxxxxxx
> <Dodger7998@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dodger7998@xxxxxxx
> <Dodger7998@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: Super Stock Spring Hangers
> > To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 10:42 PM
> > 
> > 
> > I think that you are correct in needing them, but
> before
> > you get to far
> > into the swap, I hope that you checked the center
> bolt
> > location between your
> > orig. springs and the new ones, and that the extra
> length
> > is needed on the
> > front segment of the spring, because you are messing
> > with driveshaft length
> > when you use the extenders,,,,,,,,
> > 
> > 
> > In a message dated 5/19/2010 10:29:37 P.M. Central
> Daylight
> > Time,
> > lt7dave@xxxxxxxxx
> > writes:
> > 
> > Yes, thay are something like that - a little
> > different shape, but the same
> > general design. There has been debate in our
> > group here over which of our
> > cars need these extended hangers, but it looks like
> > mine needs them since
> > the ss springs are shorter, and it wouldn't raise the
> > rear much with the
> > stock hangers.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > --- On Wed, 5/19/10, Gary H. <spigot2039@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Gary H. <spigot2039@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: Super Stock Spring Hangers
> > > To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 10:06 PM
> > >
> > > Is it something like this that you have?
> > >
> > > http://www.4secondsflat.com/AR015.jpg
> > > AR015 – 1964-65 Dodge B body with Super Stock
> > springs.
> > > 0.250 material. Extra length so the
> > shorter SS springs
> > > will fit this early B body Dodge vehicle.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gary H.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > >I'm in the middle of my rearend and spring
> > swap on my
> > > '64 Belvedere. I have the 2" front spring
> > hanger
> > > brackets that go with the SS springs, but the
> > studs don't
> > > line up exactly right with the holes on the
> > car. There
> > > are 4 studs. When I compare them to the
> > stock hanger
> > > brackets, they line up correctly side to side,
> but
> > the top
> > > to bottom is off by about 1/8". I'm thinking
> > about
> > > drilling out the holes just enough to get them
> > to fit -
> > > there's no way they'll fit otherwise.
> > Anyone else
> > > experience this?
> > > >
> > > >Dave
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Please address private mail -- mail of interest
> > to only one
> > > person -- directly to that person. I.e.,
> > send
> > > parts/car transactions and negotiations as well
> > as other
> > > personal messages only to the intended
> > recipient, not to the
> > > Clubhouse public address. This practice will
> > protect your
> > > privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and
> fine
> > tune the
> > > content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
> > >
> > > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion
> > Guidelines:
> > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > ----
> > Please address private mail -- mail of interest to
> only one
> > person -- directly to that person. I.e., send
> > parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as
> other
> > personal messages only to the intended recipient, not
> to the
> > Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect
> your
> > privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune
> the
> > content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
> > 
> > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ----
> Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one
> person -- directly to that person.  I.e., send
> parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other
> personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the
> Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your
> privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the
> content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!
> 
> 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>