Leaf Springs

Conner · Post by **Conner** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:57 pm

This topic has been thoroughly discussed here and I've read a lot of good information already.

I just tried to order a pair of stock leaf springs for my 1968 2000 (part #55020-25500) and the dealer broke the news to me that they are NLA. Another one bites the dust.

Anyway, I am a bit nervous about going to the competition springs, though they seem to be readily available. I've heard from a number of sources that they ride very rough and I'm not interested in that.

I'm wondering if anyone has installed a pair of the early-car leaf springs (part #55020-10500) on their later roadster. Do these bolt right up without modification? I have heard that they are a bit softer but they may be available (I haven't asked the dealer yet so they may be NLA as well--we'll have to see). If they are a straightforward install I will check on their availability.

If the early springs don't work out, I guess I'll either check with the vedors or look into inserting another leaf to prop up my original springs. Any other ideas?

toolsnob · Post by **toolsnob** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:39 pm

Early springs are NLA. The sit a little lower and are a little softer.

Conner · Post by **Conner** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:00 pm

Dammit!
Thanks for the information.
To the vendors I go!

JoeK · Post by **JoeK** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 6:45 pm

I was under the impression that a spring shop shop would be able to re-arc your existing springs. Might be easier and cheaper than adding a leaf, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd still have the same ride you currently like.

Conner · Post by **Conner** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:15 pm

Thanks--I may go that route after pricing the springs from the vendors. At this poing I'm collecting information on my options, so that's a good suggestion.

Post by **spl310** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:37 pm

Earlier springs are stiffer than 67.5 and later springs. Bob Sharp recommended using them (early springs) rather than the comp springs as he found the comp springs too stiff (this is referring to the leaf springs only)

Victor_laury · Post by **Victor_laury** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:06 pm

No really! When I first bought my roadster, 1995, I was dissapointed in the tire rub. I asked the only vendor I knew at that time and was told I needed my springs re arched. So I did it. And no more rub.

Later I learned, My wheels just had too little positive offset (they stuck out too far). That was my only problem. At the time, I thought my roadster looked better with the higher ass. I went to my first Solvang (97) and thought "Look at all these roadsters with worn out springs!".

In retrospect, I was in error. The roadster rear wheel arches are ment to eclipse the tires. Yes It Does realy have a bit of that Alfa Boat-Tail Spider "Butt lower that the front" look. I didn't come by this conclusion myself, I've talked design clues with those who should know. The main clue is the line under the door sills. That should be level. The area just in front should angle up and that angle should match the rise of the rear quarter panel.

Your springs are most likely perfect. Make sure you not reacting to a problem that's not really there. Comp springs ARE brutal, don't go there unless your goal is to canyon carve, and even then you'll skip around (sometimes to far around!) on rough pavement.

What do you all feel? Is spring sag a myth or a fact?
My Roadster

Post by **Datrock** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:31 pm

I say fact... In the 90's I replace my old stock springs with a set from a low mile parts car and it raised the rear of the car about an inch. After looking closely at the old springs I could see alot of wear between the leafs. Oh yes, they had around 200,000 miles on them. I now run comps on the back and front... Bill

shifty · Post by **shifty** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:58 pm

I just measured the distance from the wheel center to the rear fender lip on my cars. Should be a somewhat consistant way to measure spring sag.

'69 2000 120,000-ish miles - 10.5"

'68 1600 98,000-ish miles - 11"

I was thinking that rear felt a bit soft on the 2000, haven't driven the 1600 yet to compare.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:33 am

I just measured the distance from the wheel center to the rear fender lip on my cars. Should be a somewhat consistant way to measure spring sag.

'69 2000 120,000-ish miles - 10.5"

'68 1600 98,000-ish miles - 11"

I was thinking that rear felt a bit soft on the 2000, haven't driven the 1600 yet to compare.

Did you have the same amount of fuel in both tanks?

shifty · Post by **shifty** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:39 am

No, the 2000's tank is almost full, the 1600's almost empty. No spare tire in either, just a jack in the 2000.

Would a full tank make that much difference?

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:36 pm

I'll bet that's where your 1/2 inch difference is coming from. Gas is roughly 6 pounds per gallon. The jack is another 5 to 7 pounds. You've probably got a good 75 extra pounds in the back end of the 2000.

Victor_laury · Post by **Victor_laury** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 5:08 pm

Still, I think Leigh has given us a good reference point. I'll measure mine the same way this afternoon.

Victor_laury · Post by **Victor_laury** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:41 pm

9.5'' with newish Nismo Springs

ganderson · Post by **ganderson** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:55 am

I went through this last month saggy springs and tires that rub..

My solution was to have the leaf springs re-arched .Now the car takes curves with no rub and the added height 2 1/2" looks very natural.

US Spring in Oakland California $450.00.Sme day service

Datsun Roadster Forum-311s.org

Leaf Springs

Leaf Springs

Springs

Is Spring sag a myth?

The leaf spring thing