+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 48

Thread: Need info on use of Moog CC655 Springs.

  1. #1
    President Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Great Falls VA
    Posts
    3,080

    Need info on use of Moog CC655 Springs.

    I'm at the point where I could install a set on my Hawk tomorrow. Currently doing end of year maintenance ie; new inner bushings. On the Avanti Forum, one member mentioned that the Moog Springs are almost 2" shorter than the factory parts.. If so, it would certainly make installing them a lot easier than the factory stuff. However my concern is that the new geometry will require a significant change in wheel alignment.

    Can anyone comment on their experience after their install?

    thx
    64 GT Hawk (K7)
    1970 Avanti (R3)

  2. #2
    President Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Citrus Springs Florida
    Posts
    785
    I used a set of these in my brothers '63 Avanti and they worked fine. At first they were a little high, but after a bit of time they "settled" and the car has a normal stance. These springs are cargo coils,so they "absorb" more of the load as they are compressed. I intend to use a set on my '64 Hawk when I get to that point. Bill

  3. #3
    install them. No one here has complained about any part of the substitution...

  4. #4
    President Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,496
    Bob, There is really no difference in height of the springs. Here is a pic. of a 655 and a 526127 standing next to each other. The 655 is 13 15/16" and the 127 is 14 1/16".

    [/URL]

    The 127 checks out at 237 lbs. inch and the 655 at 301 lbs. inch. for the first inch. The 127 has 7 active coils and the 655 6.
    There is a guy on this forum that is a member of our local chapter, goes by the name of One Sick Stude, that brought me 6 springs for a Lark to check out since they were dimensionally all over the place. The springs with the same number on the ends ran from 13 1/2" to almost 15" free standing height. That might be where the guys on the Avanti forum come to that conclusion.
    So go for it and tell us how you like them, since no two people will have the same reaction or feel for the change to their cars.
    Last edited by Alan; 11-03-2015 at 05:36 PM.

  5. #5
    Regarding the guy who brought in the six springs to check, did he specify new, used, or what??? Can make a big difference in specs.

  6. #6
    President Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,496
    They were all take offs. The only thing that was the same was the part numbers on the springs. So we found 2 that were closest in poundage and put the longest one on the drivers side.

  7. #7
    Have installed Moog Cc655 in both of my cars and are quire pleased with results.
    Didn't notice any vast length difference when I installed them. Took the new spring out of the box and placed the original spring next to it on a flat concrete driveway.
    1957 Packard Clipper Country Sedan
    1965 Studebaker Daytona Wagonaire
    "There's nothing stronger than the heart of a volunteer"
    Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle
    "I have a great memory for forgetting things" Number 1 son, Lee Chan

  8. #8
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Millsboro, DE
    Posts
    2,212
    Quote Originally Posted by 57pack View Post
    Have installed Moog Cc655 in both of my cars and are quire pleased with results.
    Didn't notice any vast length difference when I installed them. Took the new spring out of the box and placed the original spring next to it on a flat concrete driveway.
    I'm wondering if time will show a difference, as what we take out is obviously "sagged" with time and use. Hopefully not, the vendor's prices and spring company quotes for "original spec" ones are so much higher it will probably be more cost effective to replace with these 4-5 times than buy one of the other sets!!

  9. #9
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Moretown, Vermont
    Posts
    122
    I have had the 526127's in my Avanti (without spacers) and they make the car ride a little too high. Does anyone have experience on how much the 528127's will "settle"? Mine replaced some cut coils (which made the suspension bottom out) but the new 526137's have only been in my lighter front end (LS2 aluminum engine) for 3 months so I'm not sure if I'll get more (hoped for) settlement.

  10. #10
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    waukesha, wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    255
    The Moog CC655 are a direct replacement for the HD V8 front coil. The difference is the progressive Moog coil does not have the harshness of the HD spring. Both springs share the same wire diameter and free height. The difference is in how they are wound. As rate increases on a spring the free height generally gets shorter. The free height and installed height are closer. A spring with a lower pounds per inch rate needs to be compressed more to support the same weight. I have personally used 4 sets of CC 655 springs in my vehicles. They work great. A spring engineer in Pittsburgh recommended this part number and gave me the specifications back in 92 when I was researching front springs for Ron Hall's Avanti. I used Afco coils in his car because I needed a 700 lb/in rate but put the cargo coils in my 63 superlark in place of the HD factory springs. It was a dramatic difference. They are still in there. The cargo coils do not work well in drag race applications. There is not enough stored energy so you do not get much front lift on launch. For drag racing you want a low spring rate and a tall free height. I used to use a 6cyl with air spring when I was drag racing.

    Jim
    james r pepper

  11. #11
    President Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,496
    Jim, Back when drag racing, I used Morroso Trick Springs in my K. They are 17" tall and use the stored energy principal.

  12. #12
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Millsboro, DE
    Posts
    2,212
    Ok, so I just spent some time looking over the Moog Spring specs here: https://www.moogproblemsolver.com/moo...rings_Spec.pdf
    The CC655 there shows it as a "Square " end, but Alan's picture shows a "TG" ended spring-which does it really have??

  13. #13
    President Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,496
    Fred, One end, the one on the ground is like the Stude, ground flat. The other end is flattened out but not ground, which is what you see. If you flipped the spring around it would sit just as flat but not perfect.

  14. #14
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    waukesha, wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    255
    When I use CC655 I radius the pigtail end that is not ground with a grinder. It eliminates the sharp corner.
    james r pepper

  15. #15
    President Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Great Falls VA
    Posts
    3,080
    Alan, check your PM's
    64 GT Hawk (K7)
    1970 Avanti (R3)

  16. #16
    President Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Great Falls VA
    Posts
    3,080
    Just ordered the CC655 springs from Jegs. Should be here in a few days. Does anyone have a source for the large washers that retain the lower inner bushings, part #532190? I asked Stude Intern'l and they don't list them, although there is someone doing a search. Forget about asking the counter-bots at NAPA or the like. This was stuff from before the "Beginning of Time" for most of them.
    64 GT Hawk (K7)
    1970 Avanti (R3)

  17. #17
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Millsboro, DE
    Posts
    2,212
    Don't know how close these are, might work-looks like most original retainers for all older cars are discontinued numbers.
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-1982-CO...-/271931935515

  18. #18
    President Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Great Falls VA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by karterfred88 View Post
    Don't know how close these are, might work-looks like most original retainers for all older cars are discontinued numbers.
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-1982-CO...-/271931935515
    I ran into those but it seems they don't have the concave serrations on the rubber side, nor are they depressed near the bolt hole. The depression on the Stude washers bite onto the inner bushing sleeve and press it against the shoulder of the pin, making everything immobile. I'll guess you could use a couple washers inside the large one, but will wait to see if anything comes up..
    64 GT Hawk (K7)
    1970 Avanti (R3)

  19. #19
    President Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Great Falls VA
    Posts
    3,080

    CC655 in an Avanti

    I have the springs in my car now (Avanti II) . Here's a couple preliminary shots.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN1857mm.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	84.2 KB 
ID:	49624

    The difference in height between the old springs with and without the aluminum spacer



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN1858mm.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	192.4 KB 
ID:	49625

    You could insert the spring and swing it up this far before needing the jack..

    Not yet on the floor, so ride height isn't known yet. The ease of installing the spring vs the removal process for the old was dramatic. The 655 may need the spacer to keep from bottoming. Will report back...

  20. #20
    President Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Glendora, California, USA.
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by 64V-K7 View Post
    I have the springs in my car now (Avanti II) . Here's a couple preliminary shots.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN1857mm.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	84.2 KB 
ID:	49624

    The difference in height between the old springs with and without the aluminum spacer



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN1858mm.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	192.4 KB 
ID:	49625

    You could insert the spring and swing it up this far before needing the jack..

    Not yet on the floor, so ride height isn't known yet. The ease of installing the spring vs the removal process for the old was dramatic. The 655 may need the spacer to keep from bottoming. Will report back...
    Reinstalled my cc655's a few days ago without the front clip or engine installed. This used to be nigh on impossible with stock springs. A jack and a tire lever in the right place and I was able to bolt the front suspension to the frame with the springs installed.

    Len

  21. #21
    President Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Great Falls VA
    Posts
    3,080
    So the car was put on the floor today. It's almost at curb weight, lacking the hood, engine fluids, etc. The height of the wheel arch at the center line of the wheel was 27.5"

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCN1873mm.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	105.8 KB 
ID:	49689

    The tires are 215/60R16.

    With the 655 springs being softer and removing the .5" aluminum spacer, there's now a pleasing reminiscent of the original rake.
    64 GT Hawk (K7)
    1970 Avanti (R3)

  22. #22
    President Member r1lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
    Posts
    3,845
    Blog Entries
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by 64V-K7 View Post
    So the car was put on the floor today. It's almost at curb weight, lacking the hood, engine fluids, etc. The height of the wheel arch at the center line of the wheel was 27.5"
    Bob, for future reference, what was he height of the wheel arch previously (with the original springs)?
    Paul
    Winston-Salem, NC
    Visit The Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com

  23. #23
    President Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Millsboro, DE
    Posts
    2,212
    Bob,
    Is your "R3" 1970 a Chevy block or Stude? I'm trying to guess the finished height for my R2 '63 since there is a bit of a weight difference. I don't have much room to spare between the bell crank housing and the ground now, with the original sagged springs.

  24. #24
    President Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Great Falls VA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by r1lark View Post
    Bob, for future reference, what was he height of the wheel arch previously (with the original springs)?
    About an inch higher. The original springs were extremely stiff and there was that 1/2" aluminum spacer. The spacer was left out and the softer initial spring rate on the 655's yielded the difference. I'm looking for some settling also after it gets on the road.
    64 GT Hawk (K7)
    1970 Avanti (R3)

  25. #25
    President Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Great Falls VA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by karterfred88 View Post
    Bob,
    Is your "R3" 1970 a Chevy block or Stude? I'm trying to guess the finished height for my R2 '63 since there is a bit of a weight difference. I don't have much room to spare between the bell crank housing and the ground now, with the original sagged springs.
    Funny you mentioned that. It's a replacement 350 SBC, but I no sooner had it in the car, than I gave myself a dope-slap and asked "WTH didn't I just put in a built Stude engine. The Powershift would have bolted right up... and could have generatred some interesting chatter.

    The ground clearance on my car has varied since it was new. With the 60 series tires in front, the main crossmember is 8.5" off the ground, the shock absorber bolts are 4.5" as is the bottom of my (deep) transmission pan. It's been a passing thought to fabricate a skid plate to protect the trans.
    64 GT Hawk (K7)
    1970 Avanti (R3)

  26. #26
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lindsay, California
    Posts
    242
    Would these springs also work on a 64 wagonaire. I should have replaced them when I had everything apart. Now that I have car back together and drove it a little in my back lot the front dropped down quite a bit. So now I guess I know why somebody had somehow installed some old springs from coil over shocks inside of the coil springs !

  27. #27
    Golden Hawk Member StudeRich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ferndale, WA, USA.
    Posts
    26,575
    Quote Originally Posted by rbigcal View Post
    Would these springs also work on a 64 wagonaire. I should have replaced them when I had everything apart. Now that I have car back together and drove it a little in my back lot the front dropped down quite a bit. So now I guess I know why somebody had somehow installed some old springs from coil over shocks inside of the coil springs !
    They probably will work fairly well, just keep in mind, this is THE Heaviest Car Studebaker built and has heavier springs than any other, except the higher performance Avanti. This could mean a bit of a lower stance in front, especially with Good or New H.D. Wagonaire springs in back.
    StudeRich
    Second Generation Stude Driver,
    Proud '54 Starliner Owner




  28. #28
    Do these springs work on earlier cars? I've got a '53 C/K V8 - I'm looking at doing springs and shocks in the next few months. I already put a bigger GM front sway bar on it, but hadn't driven the car in several years, so no back-to-back comparison, but it does handle OK. Trying to work steering and suspension upgrades over the next few months.
    -------------------
    Daddy always said, if yer gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough & I\'m one tough sumbiatch!

  29. #29
    President Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,456
    I've installed several sets o these springs also and they do work well. I did notice one annoying problem and that was an occasional thud noise in the front suspension. I decided it was due to each end of the spring, the first revolution, not being ground flat where it mates to the next coil when compressed. On occasion this rounded section of the coil would cam over the next coil during cornering and I could hear an audible thud or click. I minimized this by hand grinning a flat area on the first coil where it could potentially contact the second. This is what you see n a standard Stude coil.

  30. #30
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lindsay, California
    Posts
    242
    The way it is now, it's about 3" lower in the front measuring at the rocker panels. Way too much stance. I would think that the front would be about the same as a convertible with the extra 70lbs. of weights up there. I have an aluminum radiator and a/c compressor, which might offset it a little. After installing the engine and rest of the front end, it looked ok at first, but after taking a little test drive it dropped quite a lot.

  31. #31
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lindsay, California
    Posts
    242
    Ok, I received a set of the CC655's on Sat. and today I removed one of my old springs The Stude # on it is 1561664 which according to SI website is a standard spring for 53-66 cars excluding Avanti. That spring measures about 15.75" tall , the CC655's are only about 14" tall, but coil thickness a little larger. I want to make sure that these are going to work ok on this Wagonaire. The way the car is now the front is low enough where the tires rub inside of fenders when turning sharp.

  32. #32
    President Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Thousand Islands, Ontario, Canada.
    Posts
    808
    I installed a pair on my Wagonaire a few years back, made all the difference in ride quality without compromising the stance.
    I also installed a pair of T-Bow rear leaf springs to complete the deal.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Car Fun 2014 005.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	197.4 KB 
ID:	50060
    Bill Foy
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    1953 Starlight Coupe

  33. #33
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lindsay, California
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Billy View Post
    I installed a pair on my Wagonaire a few years back, made all the difference in ride quality without compromising the stance.
    I also installed a pair of T-Bow rear leaf springs to complete the deal.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Car Fun 2014 005.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	197.4 KB 
ID:	50060

    Thanks, looks like it's pretty level. I was a little wary of them being so much shorter and didn't want to go to
    all the work without knowing for sure that they would be ok on a Wagonaire. Should be a lot easier to install.

  34. #34
    President Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Thousand Islands, Ontario, Canada.
    Posts
    808
    The car isn't actually level.....it's how I mow the grass.
    Bill Foy
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    1953 Starlight Coupe

  35. #35
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lindsay, California
    Posts
    242
    Finished installing them today. Looks good, almost level just a hair lower in the front. Much better than before !

  36. #36
    Silver Hawk Member JoeHall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Kentucky, USA.
    Posts
    5,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Flat Ernie View Post
    Do these springs work on earlier cars? I've got a '53 C/K V8 - I'm looking at doing springs and shocks in the next few months. I already put a bigger GM front sway bar on it, but hadn't driven the car in several years, so no back-to-back comparison, but it does handle OK. Trying to work steering and suspension upgrades over the next few months.
    If it has a Stude V8, the MOOGs will work perfectly on your car. Not sure, if it has a brand 'X' motor, since it would likely be lighter in the front end, and may sit too high.

    No matter which Stude they are installed in, they will settle down about 1/2 inch in the first 1000-2000 miles or so.

  37. #37
    President Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Above the Equator
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeHall View Post
    If it has a Stude V8, the MOOGs will work perfectly on your car. Not sure, if it has a brand 'X' motor, since it would likely be lighter in the front end, and may sit too high... .
    My figures say if one goes to a Chevy 350 and a 700 R4 (my situation) you are removing about 175-200 pounds off the front of the car. The Moog CC665 springs are actually for the rear of certain GM, FWD cars - and an upgrade for increased capacity. Thus my thinking (hope) is that the original GM spring might have a softer characteristic for the GM powertrain that matches the results of the CC655 and the heavier Studebaker powertrain.

    After some searching at the Pick A Part I found the model with the GM factory variable rate springs. Note that most of the potential parts cars do not have these variable springs. It took quite a bit of searching to find them as they seem to be quite rare (most every car of the correct model had a consistent wound spring). I now have a variable rate set and someday (don't hold your breath) I'll report back as to how they work. In the mean time I thought I'd throw this out there as a possibility to consider for those not running a Studebaker powertrain.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Springs '87 Lesabre Variable Rate.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	44.8 KB 
ID:	50105  
    Last edited by wittsend; 12-16-2015 at 08:37 PM.
    '64 Lark Type, powered by '85 Corvette L-69 (carburetor), 700R4, - CASO to the Max.

  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeHall View Post
    If it has a Stude V8, the MOOGs will work perfectly on your car. Not sure, if it has a brand 'X' motor, since it would likely be lighter in the front end, and may sit too high.

    No matter which Stude they are installed in, they will settle down about 1/2 inch in the first 1000-2000 miles or so.
    Thanks! Was hoping someone would answer before I asked again.
    -------------------
    Daddy always said, if yer gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough & I\'m one tough sumbiatch!

  39. #39
    I have a 1954 Starliner with an LS motor and 6 speed. Engine weight is about 425 lbs, obviously less than a SBC and a lot lighter than a Stude V8. Any suggestions for a Moog spring? I currently have a Stude champion spring, one coil cut with a front end kit from Slick Street Stuff in Knoxville. The car is very low, 2" ground clearance at the front sway bar, so I need to raise it at least an inch, but still want it low (it's my thing). I think a stock Champion spring would have acceptable ground clearance. I've read a lot about Moog CC653 and CC655 but I would like to know how they compare to the Champion spring rates/load capacity (can only find info on Commander springs). The variable spring design would be desirable.

    Also, anyone know the weight of a 6 cylinder engine, or automatic transmission?

    Appreciate any help.

    Ken Lemmon
    Cedar hills, Utah

  40. #40
    President Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Great Falls VA
    Posts
    3,080
    A recent article on the 169 Six said the weight with it attached to a manual transmission was 562#. Supposing a non-OD manual weighed around 90#, that gives 470#. An automatic of that era (DG150) weighed around 180-200 (the DG250 weighed ~240#), so figure around 650# for the original configuration.
    64 GT Hawk (K7)
    1970 Avanti (R3)

+ Reply to Thread

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •