Thread: New Info on CC655 Springs...

Summit Racing have both the suggested 653's and 661's from the article for $77 pair.
$40 and $56 respectively at Rock Auto.

When I replaced the springs in my Avanti with CC655's the front end came up about 1.5 inches. This was actually more than I expected but it made the car capable of driving down our local highways without bottoming out on the stops and jarring my back teeth out. Some of the expansion joints in the frozen north country where I live are pushed up 2" or more.

I ordered a set of CC661's and measured them against the springs I removed. The unloaded difference is about 0.5" lower than 'tired' stock springs. As the article points out with a 0.5-1.0" spacer these may be just the spring I need to get the ride height down a bit to that nice raked look the car had when I bought it... Maybe install them in the spring, along with a couple of dozen other jobs that seem to sneak into the project jar.

Originally Posted by StudeRich

How did you that tried these, deal with the "Squared" ends of these Replacement Springs as apposed to the Flattened and Level seated Original Studebaker Springs fitment into the smooth, Level pockets in both the "A" Arm and the Frame?

The squared ends of the GM Springs were designed to fit into a dead ended Link Pocket in the Trailing Arms.

I helped a friend put a set of CC655's in his '59 Hawk. We didn't do anything, just put them in the car. It handles and drives great.

Originally Posted by StudeRich

How did you that tried these, deal with the "Squared" ends of these Replacement Springs as apposed to the Flattened and Level seated Original Studebaker Springs fitment into the smooth, Level pockets in both the "A" Arm and the Frame?

The squared ends of the GM Springs were designed to fit into a dead ended Link Pocket in the Trailing Arms.

Some springs have a pig tail, which has a narrowing spiral. Others just spiral and are cut mid coil. The square end springs, although they do have the spring cut square to the length of the round bar, have the last half, or so, of coil bent towards the other coils as to make a flat seat. The factory Studebaker coils do the same but have the spring ground flat but this makes no difference as they both sit square in the control arm.

Actually this link will explain it better. https://www.moog-suspension-parts.com/moog-cc655

Len

following. I've been recommended the 655's multiple times and was upset to see them sold out. Glad to see there's another option

My Avanti II got back the original Avanti rake by eliminating the fender inserts, eliminating the aluminum coil spacers and cutting off (square ending) one coil of some SI stock HD springs ... BUT ... after 6 months of settling, the car dropped another 1 1/2" so the suspension had limited range of travel and almost rode on the rubber stops. So, I bought another pair of SI springs (flattened ends), waited another 6 months and now ride (visually) about 1" too high ... but have range of motion. Oh, and I don't know how SI flattens their spring ends without heating (which is supposed to damage springs). Is anyone getting original rake and suspension movement with their new choice of springs?

What are Avanti fender inserts? Thanks, Tom

Originally Posted by TWChamp

What are Avanti fender inserts? Thanks, Tom

Early Avanti II's had filler panels molded into the front fender openings. That way there wasn't a big gap between the top of the tire and the fender lip since the body was raised up higher.

Last weekend I had a stroll under my Avanti (it is stored on a hoist) and made some measurements. It seems the front end is about perfect for suspension ride height with the CC655 springs. Compression travel is about 1/3 and deflection travel about 2/3 total suspension movement with the new springs. The old ones were 1/5 to 4/5! My problem now is the rear springs are sagged about 2-3" so the car sits fairly neutral when at rest. I like the raked looked so I guess the next job will be replacing the rear springs with a set of good used station wagon springs I have in the parts bin. I will keep the CC661's (post #4) for my next project.

Originally Posted by 11SecAvanti

What is the length of the 661 spring?

Here's link to most spring specs. I have a more comprehensive catalogue but too big to post. https://www.moog-suspension-parts.com...il_springs.asp

The CC661 springs I have are about 1/2 -3/4 inch shorter than the springs I removed from my Avanti. That being said I don't know if the springs were original to the car or were replaced when the car was restored back in 1985. Judging by the sag to the front end when I got it I would expect they were original... I can get a number and even post a side by side pic later this evening or you can check the specs on the above link.

Regarding Moog springs... anyone dealing with coils might want to check the "home' site of the Website noted above, if not mentioned before. If one knows roughly where they are starting from, this might give some guidance where to go and offer options to explore. Btw, this site lists the cc661 noted above as a variable-rate, if not noted somewhere above or elsewhere.

https://www.moog-suspension-parts.com...asp#springrate

I have a (fuzzy) comparison pic of the CC661 spring beside the R2 spring I removed from my Avanti. The 661 is 13.25" unloaded. The original but tired R2 spring is 14". It might need a spacer to get it to set up at a desired static ride height but it may actually work really good as is if you like the raked look.

Originally Posted by plee4139

My freshly restored Sky Hawk had a driver's side sagging spring, even though they were new. The man who restored the car thought that it had been parked unevenly on a hill, and the frame was affected. I had a body shop put some rubber shims in, but now it sits too high.I thought it might settle down some, but it hasn't. I'm afraid if I take it to them to correct the problem they'll charge me an arm, a leg, and probably some additional body parts. Suggestions?

Don't know if this is your problem but you might check to see that the end of both springs are pointing toward the engine. If one is and one isn't you could see a difference in vehicle height right to left.

Originally Posted by StudeRich

How did you that tried these, deal with the "Squared" ends of these Replacement Springs as apposed to the Flattened and Level seated Original Studebaker Springs fitment into the smooth, Level pockets in both the "A" Arm and the Frame?

The squared ends of the GM Springs were designed to fit into a dead ended Link Pocket in the Trailing Arms.

I've used these springs before but did modify them. Initially I installed as purchased with the round ends. However, I noticed that on occasion I heard a significant clicking noise in the front suspension when coming to a sudden stop. The noise was coming from the second last coil camming over the last coil while compressing. If you notice, the Stude coil is flat on the top and bottom of the last coil. The grinding eliminated this cam over last coil clicking or thump or thud or however I might try to describe it. I ground a flat on the the top of each lower coil to keep this camming over tendency from occurring. It did cure the problem.

I have installed CC665s in two GT Hawks and one 56J, and all were done around 20,000 miles ago. I did not modify them in any way, but did use rubber pads on both ends of the coils; if you don't have any handy, a slit, thick garden hose works great. The GTs still sit perfectly, and never any noise out of any of them. But the 56J has dropped about 1/2 to 3/4 inch. I will probably install a set of 1/2" spacers in the 56J, if I ever drop the front springs again. It has Saginaw PS, AC, and a huge radiator, so lots of extra weight on that 56J anyway.

As for spacing, the geometry is such that spacers effect height at a 1 to 1.5 ratio. In other words, a 1/2" spacer will lift the car 3/4". One thing to keep in mind, after major suspension work, i.e. new springs or bushings, the car needs a few thousand miles for the suspension to settle down. Eventually, it will settle a half inch or so.

As for Plee's car sitting too high on the driver's side, I'd rather too high than too low, because if low it gets even worse when the driver has a seat in the car. OTOH, if it sits too high, it gets better when the driver has a seat in the car. Many V8 Stude's came with a 1/8" or 3/16" spacer under the driver's side spring. I believe that was to address the extra weight on the driver's side for battery, power steering, and driver weight. It may sit a bit high when sitting still, but probably is closer to even when going down the road. Then too, I'd give it a few thousand miles to see if it settles enough to become tolerable.

Did they use them in the front? Variable rate springs are most often used in the rear. I don't have anything advertising springs. A service manual for 57 hawks I have shows HD springs. Perhaps those are variable rate. Never the less, variable rate springs are going to give you a stiffer ride. Any springs I have from Studebaker front are constant rate.

leaf springs out back on all Studes.....pre-war exceptions ??

Found it. They were rear springs. Studebaker called them two stage springs. A constant rate spring would be better for the front. https://storm.oldcarmanualproject.com...7/ssw/0203.jpg

My driver is a 53 studebaker on a 57 hawk frame. I also have a 59 hawk and and various parts.
You are right about the glitch. Later in the ad it shows a leaf and coil spring, but it calls it a long travel coil spring.

All the springs I have, about 6, are constant rate springs. And the pictures and manuals show constant rate springs, but that is pictures.

The Studebaker International catalogue picture shows a constant rate spring and list same springs for 1953-1966 except Avanti.

The spring from the Avanti in the 01/09/17 post standing next to the one he is using as a replacement is a constant rate spring. His proposed replacement spring is a variable rate spring. That alone seems to indicate that not "all" Studebakers had variable rate front springs UNLESS his spring is not OEM


My research over the last few days points to a constant rate spring being the best choice for front coil springs. However, short of having CSS or Eaton make a spring or buying them from SI, a variable rate spring might be a cheaper compromise.

I would love to know where you found your information that all Studebakers after 57 used variable rate for the front coils.

Contacted Eaton spring yesterday. Here are Mike's comments. I am Jerry not Redney,

Jerry,

Thanks for the information. The front springs are to be a constant rate. The reason you read that some are using variable rate springs is because there are some Studebaker suppliers who are selling rear Buick variable rate springs that come close to the Studebaker specs.

Variable rate springs should not be used on the front suspension.

The specs you provided come close to the OE standard duty springs.

A new set of springs is 249.95 plus shipping.

Thank You
Mike
EATON Detroit Spring, Inc.
Phone 1-313-963-3839
Fax 1-313-963-7047
www.eatonsprings.com
mike@eatonsprings.com

Originally Posted by StudeRich

Hi Jerry, sorry about the name error, most people who include a First Name in their "Handle" use their correct name, my error in Assuming!

After selling Studebaker Parts at Two original Studebaker Dealers and one aftermarket Stude. dealer and on my own for 46 years, you get to know the Part numbers and applications pretty well, and it never hurts to have owned over 100 of them and currently over 40!
Plus having a Studebaker Salesman Dad.

Yes there would always be exceptions as on Fleet, Taxi, Police, Export, Special Ordered with H.D. and Avantis, many of which use the old 526XXX Part Number '51-'52 Commander constant rate front coils as do some pre-1957 Models.

As I mentioned in Post #30, the variable rate springs are on most 1957 and later cars BUT, they have a Rep. for short life and do sag relatively soon, which is why most Stude. owners "in the know" have replaced them with the H.D. version.

Good luck with your Spring replacement project, unfortunately the tested and proven, very reasonable Moog CC655's are long gone from production.

Rich.

Newsflash Rich,
After several decades of holding the front end up, the constant rate springs were not immune to sagging either. That's why I bought several sets of them for 56Js. While at it, I always went to the HD 526125 versus the standard 526124, because the 56J benefits from the extra strength spring. Once new springs are installed, no matter which we choose, none of us will likely live long enough to ever have to replace them again

Starting in 1958 Hawks started using variable rate front springs, The rear springs were shifted rearward making the front section shorter than the rear measured from the center of the axle. I believe this helped anti dive under braking and wheel hope under acceleration. Most of this was mimicked by Chrysler in the 60s along with a pinion snubber which can be found on 61 Hawk 4 speed cars.

Originally Posted by JoeHall

Newsflash Rich,
After several decades of holding the front end up, the constant rate springs were not immune to sagging either. That's why I bought several sets of them for 56Js. While at it, I always went to the HD 526125 versus the standard 526124, because the 56J benefits from the extra strength spring. Once new springs are installed, no matter which we choose, none of us will likely live long enough to ever have to replace them again

I hope to beat the snot out of my 655's and have to replace them. I don't want to think my car will not get enough miles on it before I die. I'm only 56.

Len

Thanks Rich. The name is actually a company I sell radiators under. I just wanted everyone to know who the Jerry was.

These responses are the sort of information and experience I needed. I really would prefer to do this project only one time. I can still locate 655 springs from other manufacturers at a reasonable cost. I am being persuaded to go with the 655 if it does not affect wheel travel adversely.

This project has been a very educational process. I changed to a Corsica rack only to learn about the "ackerman angle" and how it affects turning radius. Those studebaker boys were good on their slide rule in calculating the radius of the pitman arm. Installing a rack changed everything.

I also manufactured angles to make Chamber easier to adjust, but am not satisfied with caster. I can only get about 1-1/2 degrees with out the kingpins binding. When I change the spring I am going to make a kit to add about 1 1/2 degrees to the caster. The car drives great, but is a little sensitive to drifting I think the extra caster will keep it tracking better. Modern cars with power steering have closer to three degrees of caster.