tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: springs

To: CoolVT@aol.com, J&E@ontis.com, tigers@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: springs
From: Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:13:53 -0700
Steve, Mark, et Listers,

I should probably keep quiet on this topic, since my experience with the 
CAT springs is old - very old. However, here goes anyway.

I belive the CAT springs are still nominally 330 lbs/in spring rate, which 
is stiffer than stock, so they need to be shorter in order to achieve the 
same ride height. I'm not sure if Mark installed his with our without the 
rubber isolator doughnut that goes on top, but it makes about 3/4" 
difference, depending how long after you installed them you measure it(they 
crush with time). When I had the CAT springs on my car they were installed 
without the doughnut and, yes, the car was VERY LOW in front. About fifteen 
years ago I got a set of 425 lbs/in springs from Coil Spring Specialties. 
They had supplied a lot of the cars in the S.F. Bay area (STOA) and were 
very familiar with the Tiger. I ordered them with 1" lower than stock ride 
height and they came out exactly right. I also think this spring rate is 
about perfect for performance driving. These springs are good quality and 
have not sagged one bit since I installed them. CSS has since moved to the 
Mid-West, but I think they supply springs to Dale. If I were asked to 
recommend springs by a friend, I'd tell him to think about what he's after 
in terms of ride and order them accordingly, either from Dale or directly 
from Coil Spring Specialties. I don't know what the going price is these 
days from CAT and other suppliers (ca. $100 ??), but this is a important 
decision that will significantly affect the performance of the car. I don't 
believe this is a case of "one size fits all" by any means. Some owners 
have 600 lbs/in springs, some still have stock. And BTW, you can't really 
compensate a bad choice of springs with a sway bar.

Just tossing another two cents in the pot,

Bob

At 07:16 PM 9/24/99 -0400, CoolVT@aol.com wrote:
>The CAT front springs I got 5-6 yrs. ago were too short.  I believe they are
>supposed to be 12" unloaded legnth.  The CAT's were 10 1/2".  I'm pretty sure
>of these dimesions.  Anyway, they were definitely 1 1/2" shorter than stock.
>My gas mileage has really picked up, though. The car always looks like it's
>running downhill.
>   Mark L.

Robert L. Palmer
UCSD, Dept. of AMES
619-822-1037 (o)
760-599-9927 (h)
rpalmer@ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>