Stock XR4Ti spring lengths?

[MerlinMerkur]

Oo Where did you get them at that price. I'd be willing to do some cutting experiments if they were that cheap.

BTW, 325lb is very very soft for the rear imo, much shorter travel in the back than the front and rates are usually wanted at +%60 or so over front, ask MC2 about that.
I think they race on 500/850 lb respectively while stock was 100/250.
I think. Either way 325 isnt much over stock rates for the rear, which IMO is just waiting for the sag to set in and screw up your ride height and camber.

[whitelx]

Oo Where did you get them at that price. I'd be willing to do some cutting experiments if they were that cheap.

BTW, 325lb is very very soft for the rear imo, much shorter travel in the back than the front and rates are usually wanted at +%60 or so over front, ask MC2 about that.
I think they race on 500/850 lb respectively while stock was 100/250.
I think. Either way 325 isnt much over stock rates for the rear, which IMO is just waiting for the sag to set in and screw up your ride height and camber.

The 325lb springs are for the front. If they work up front I'll then get some springs for the rear. Probably 700lb or 750lb

[MerlinMerkur]

Oo ook, idk why I assumed rear. My B!

[janvanv]

O
BTW, 325lb is very very soft for the rear imo, much shorter travel in the back than the front and rates are usually wanted at +%60 or so over front, ask MC2 about that.

OOOooooooh Really? What kind of travel? Spring or damper?
Have you measured the shock and strut movement?
Suggest you measure again.

[MerlinMerkur]

Weeeell J, I didnt measure but the dirt constantly being pushed back did (back), and thats good enough for me. And that I can rub the fender in the front measures my front travel pretty far, which is a longer distance than the dirt-psuh path in the back! In that case it measures travel every single time. Now granted, the farthest travel is probably had on my car by jacking up the car in the opposite side and all the weight being shifted to an extreme corner or something, so yeah.. its a guess.
BUT, combine that with the fact that the compressed (seated) height of the rear is substantially shorter AND that the bump stop is but a couple inches from the arm... Im willing to say again the rear has shorter travel.

Either way bro in my original post which includes all that statement wrapped inside is only to say that you need much higher rates in the rear than in the front, and they would so then need to be different, and probably not 325lbs in the rear. Something like a 35/65, even though the car is 53/47. Which is another indicator even Ford intended the rear to be quite more stiff, both for low and high speed handling. Cant have that rear dancing around on 195s lol.

SO, if you want to disagree with the "less travel" that rocks!! I posted only the throw caution at him putting 325lbs on the rear, but I was mistaken.. he's not, so it doesnt matter lol.

OH, and when are you going to reply to my PM about the Cos Exh. housings?

[whitelx]

Looks like its not going to happen. The company is sold out of the springs.

[Ray]

Travis,

The rear spring rate isn't higher because of the dancing on the 195's issue but because the spring is mounted inboard, therefore the wheel rate =/= spring rate so much so your effective wheel rate in the rear is actually less than or equal to that in the front.

[MerlinMerkur]

Travis,

The rear spring rate isn't higher because of the dancing on the 195's issue but because the spring is mounted inboard, therefore the wheel rate =/= spring rate so much so your effective wheel rate in the rear is actually less than or equal to that in the front.

Well yeah that too. Good shot!