Author Topic: My rear spring drama  (Read 1465 times)

Offline MyMopar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
My rear spring drama
« on: February 23, 2007 - 02:19:53 PM »
Last year I ordered some Mopar XHD Leaf springs from Mancini racing.  Mine were shot and I thought that these would do the trick for getting the sag out.  Boy I was wrong.  At only $160 for the pair I should have known.  Here is some info:

I wasn't happy with the way the rear was sitting AFTER installing the new springs, it looked no different.  SO I finally caved in and brought them to a spring shop.  They took one look and said there's your problem (sorry no pic).  The mopar spring does not support the main leaf at the front end of the spring.  What happened to mine is that the main lear spring bent or flattened out the first 5" of the spring.  It was clear as day.  The shop installed a new leaf and then installed a second leaf that would support the main leaf.
I haven't reinstalled them yet, but I know for sure that these springs will give the ride and height back that I orginally wanted.
Now the embarassing part  :dupe:  Like I stated I spent $160 plus $40 for shipping so $200 for the crappy springs.  Now I just spent $228 for labor and parts to have the less than 1 year old springs rebuilt and repaired  :walkaway: :banghead:  So my point is this, I have a really nice set of $428 springs that I could have gotten for about $280 from Epso or Springs and things . com.  Lesson learned, most of the time you do get what you paid for. 
STAY AWAY from the MOPAR springs, unless you like getting ripped off and being unhappy.
1969 (OO===]|[===OO)
1973 (OO/=====\OO) <---SOLD
1997 (O|||||O) <---SOLD

Smoke tires, not drugs!




Offline MEK-Dangerfield

  • C-C.com Expert
  • ********
  • Posts: 20946
  • I don't get NO respect! Member since 1/25/2002
Re: My rear spring drama
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2007 - 02:37:26 PM »
Man that stinks. I can only hope these new springs do the trick for you, then you'll forget about the price after a while. I have heard the Mopar leafs are made in Mexico now.  :-\


  Mike

Mike

1970 Challenger - SOLD
2016 SXT+.  1 of 524 SXT+'s in Plumb-crazy for 2016.

Offline farmboy70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1636
Re: My rear spring drama
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2007 - 07:25:11 PM »
I ran into the same problem with mopar springs. Now I go with ESPO all the way. I have used the 1" over springs twice now and love the look.
Dave
'

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: My rear spring drama
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2007 - 10:43:39 AM »
The Mopar XHD springs are one of the most mis-understood parts on the market.  Many, many people pick these up expecting them to increase ride height. The simple fact of the matter is that they are not designed to increase height, but to simply restore the original ride height. The benefit of the XHD spring design over a standard spring is that they have an increased rate for torque control. This is why they came on 440 and Hemi cars.  What many people seem to forget is that aside from the AAR/TA versions, almost all E bodies did not sit with a rake to them. Yet, after restoring a car back to stock, most are disatisfied with the stance. So they break out the credit card and buy a new set of XHD springs thinking they would lift the rear. Unfortunatly, mymopar experienced what most find out and are unhappy about; their stance is no different than before.

Personally, I'd rather leave the rear at the stock height and lower the nose or use different apsect ratio tires, but that is just my preference. Adding arch, or camber, to a spring reduces its ability to resist twisting, or roll, so you are reducing its handling capabilities by arching the spring. However, most of us don't drive our cars at a level that this change is blatently obvious. Mopar designed their springs to sit with very little to no arch at all. It is even acceptable to run them with some reversed arch under compression.

I can say that after having installed four set in my cars and my brothers cars, and having sold a dozen sets in my previous business, all with the expectation outlined above, no one has been disatisfied. However, mistakes can happen and mymopars experience outlined above is truly unfortunate. However, I wouldn't attribute his situation to a poor spring design or the fact that the springs are made in Mexico or Canada.

If anything comes of this post, it is this, and the more people that know this the better; XHD SPRINGS RESTORE ORIGINAL RIDE HEIGHT, THEY DO NOT RAISE IT!!

Offline MyMopar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
Re: My rear spring drama
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2007 - 02:15:56 PM »
HP2 I wasn't expecting the Mopar springs to raise the ride height. I knew that they were a HD stock replacement.  The problem with the Mopar springs is that the second leaf does not support the main leaf and my main leaf spring was bent at the front spring hanger.  Is this suppose to happen?  Is this what Mopar intended?
I have probably less than 1,000 miles on the Mopar springs.  Like MEK said, I'll be happy now and will forget about the cost of the springs, especially after driving to Carlisle again, no more bottoming out due to a poorly designed spring pack!
1969 (OO===]|[===OO)
1973 (OO/=====\OO) <---SOLD
1997 (O|||||O) <---SOLD

Smoke tires, not drugs!

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: My rear spring drama
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2007 - 07:16:05 PM »
Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I don't know what your spring shop meant by saying the second leaf doesn't support the main leaf and this caused the first 5" of your spring to be flat. Installed, these springs are meant to be flat to almost flat. Was it flat, or was it bent backwards? If the main leaf was bent, then the second leaf should have been bent as well. If the seond leaf was short and at the apex of the bend, then the pack was defective from the start and should not have been installed. The second leaf is only supposed to come up to the spring eye on XHD sets and to the middle of the spring eye on SS packs.  No mopar springs are designed to support the mainleaf by wrapping around the eye,as is common on some 4x4 applications. Not that any of this matters anyway as there are quite a few monoleaf out there and they have no second spring support, and they typically function just fine. Even some of the Caltrac set ups uses a split mono leaf and they support horsepower application that are pretty radical.

Offline MyMopar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
Re: My rear spring drama
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2007 - 10:34:08 AM »
Was it flat, or was it bent backwards? If the main leaf was bent, then the second leaf should have been bent as well. If the seond leaf was short and at the apex of the bend, then the pack was defective from the start and should not have been installed. The second leaf is only supposed to come up to the spring eye on XHD sets and to the middle of the spring eye on SS packs.
This sums it up good.  Yes the main leaf was bent backwards, the second leaf was not bent becuase the main leaf bent the first 5" or so from the main eye back to where the second leaf began (seond leaf was short and at the apex of the bend). 
So it would appear that I got a defective spring pack, where's the quality control in that?  I didn't know the pack was defective as it looked all good to me so I installed it. Now if I went to a spring shop I'm sure they would have mentioned it, but I didn't go to one until AFTER I was unhappy with the performance of the springs. 
I'm sure other mfg's out there run into quality control issues but after doing some more research and asking around, this seems like a common problem with the Mopar springs.  SO I'll say it again, pay the extra $70 for a real good high quality spring pack from EPSO or elsewhere.
1969 (OO===]|[===OO)
1973 (OO/=====\OO) <---SOLD
1997 (O|||||O) <---SOLD

Smoke tires, not drugs!