cosmick

I searched, and searched more. Our replacement rear springs are Moog 5665 or Moog CC635, but I'm looking at Moog CC617 as a possibly good choice. Here are the specs: CC635 tangential / pigtail 4.30" I.Dia. 0.500" 10.25" @ 518# static load 104 ppi 15.25" free L 5665 tangential / pigtail 4.30" I. Dia. 0.485" 10.00" @ 580# static load 107 ppi 15.42" free L CC617 tangential / pigtail 4.28" I. Dia. 0.541" 10.25" @ 475# static load134 ppi 13.81" free L Anyone agree / disagree?

Johnny Blaze

iTrader: (15)

Why do you want to run that one? Looks to be just a little stiffer.

I have c5662s fronts with 1/2 coil cut off.

cosmick

Exactly. I found some direct-fit 290 pound-per-inch springs for $ 30 each, but I thought that would be overkill, and might hurt ride quality and cornering on rough roads. Not sure how the car would take such a massive increase in spring rate. I just don't like seeing the car go tail-down when I put my tool box in the trunk.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

Having owned CC635s, I'd say no.

The CC635 is entirely stiff enough. That other would make the car ride like there's not even any spring in there at all, like some trailers.

cosmick

You typed that in the past-tense, so what are you using at present? 5665s?

cosmick

Measured my current rear springs, 0.462", so not 5665 nor CC635.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

Still have the CC635s. It's more like "past continual tense" or some such... started some time ago, but still is in effect.

Don't worry what whatever is on there measures now. CC635, or 5665, is the correct part # for these cars.

cosmick

seems installing that overkill hitch I bought from Atilla is sagging my rear springs even farther, to the point where I'm now ready to order. Moog's master list http://www.moog-suspension-parts.com...il_Springs.asp also makes their 6377s and 8799s look interesting. But from reading other threads here in TGO, I'm thinking 5665s might serve. CC635s are cheapest, at $50.05 delivered, but from what I've read, I decided to pay another $7.17.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

On this forum??? PAY EXTRA TO GET WHAT YOU WANT?? What are you, the GEICO guy that rides around on bikes and jet skis and such with money just flying off in heaps???

cosmick

I keep reading that upon installation, the 5665s sit as tall as air shocks, but the CC635s don't. I also read that the 635s start around 80 pounds per inch. So instead of paying $50.05 for the 635s, delivered, I paid $57.22 for the 5665s, delivered.

cosmick

Sofa was awfully quick to be critical, based on his own misunderstanding, but still hasn't admitted to standing corrected. I can't respect that.

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

I can't respect having stuff made up about me, either; so I guess we're even.

Not sure where I was critical, where I misunderstood, where I was corrected (or where I was wrong in the first place, for that matter), or what I'm supposed to admit, in order to be "respected".

InfernalVortex

iTrader: (4)

Im confused? What was he wrong about?

There's a reason the factory has computer selected springs. THere are a lot of variables in ride height and variables in suspension package goals and variables in car weight.

Where the car sits and how rough it will ride depends on entirely on a combination of all those things.

Johnny Blaze

iTrader: (15)

I too was trying to figure out where he was wrong. I've read this thread a couple times.

Johnny Blaze

iTrader: (15)

Fwiw jegs has 635's for $44.99

cosmick

Haven't yet measured the rear ride height, but as we all expected, it is sitting a little higher than before. Not the air-shocks look some claim, and that may be the weight of the hitch, but there's NO gas in the tank. Plus now I've cut the old exhaust pipes off. Pics in 2 days.