springs

[t2000]

Hi my estate is sitting quite low I think the springs may be a bit weak? I have a set of stag springs which look the same but different part numbers anyone know if they are stronger?tia

[johnnydog]

In the official workshop manual, there is a list of all springs fitted to all saloon and estate models, both Mk 1, Mk2 and facelift models, including wire diameter, diameter, no of coils, free length etc etc. Unless you can find a similar list for the Stag, I would compare the ones you have with the list which should give you some indication of their suitability, remembering that firmer springs are shorter.
Alternatively, with the little time it takes to remove the old ones, I would be inclined to just to try them!

[Clifford Pope]

One thing Chris Witor pointed out to me once was that the free length of a spring is not necessarily a guide to its height under load. There's more to it than simply standing candidates side by side and selecting the longest - it could still sag more.

[johnnydog]

One thing Chris Witor pointed out to me once was that the free length of a spring is not necessarily a guide to its height under load. There's more to it than simply standing candidates side by side and selecting the longest - it could still sag more.

As I said, standard estate and heavy duty rear springs are noticeably SHORTER than standard saloon springs as they are firmer and obviously don't compress as much under load.
The difference in the free length of standard saloon and estate springs is approx 1 - 1.5". In my experience, heavy duty springs are not as firm as estate springs and are therefore maginally longer. I have genuine BL / Triumph estate springs on all my saloons whether used for towing or not. Being shorter they give the correct ride height - if they were the same length as the saloon springs but obviously firmer the back end would be jacked up like a dragster!

[Jonathan Lewis]

According to Autocar magazine's new model write up for the Stag (June 1970), front and rear spring rates were 110lb/in and 322lb/in respectively, so quite a bit softer than factory specs for a 2000/2500 estate. No idea whether this changed at any subsequent point during production.

As an aside, I did for a few years run Stag rear springs under a Mk2 saloon in a bid to get a better ride/handling compromise than on standard saloon items without going to estate units which I felt could be a little too stiff with the car only lightly loaded. They did give something of an improvement, but not (IMHO) as good as the CW 395lb/in units which replaced them. Both set-ups, by the way, at pre-facelift standard ride height using 160lb/in front springs and ARB.

Hope this is of some help.

[t2000]

thanks for all replys the estate is fine with no weight in it but when I put a couple bags in the back of compost in it its feels very soft & bouncy the reason I asked was when parked side by side the stag sits quite a bit higher than the estate, looking at the springs they look identical

[Carboy0]

Just to possibly throw a spanner into the conversation. On my Stag, I felt the rear springs were very soft, although roughly the standard ride height, with a bit of weight in the boot or with a rear seat passenger, as you pulled away the mud flaps would ground on the road.

I too checked what the poundage should be and bought a set of 2500S Estate rear springs from CW. The ride was about an inch lower than before. I returned to the original springs and instead I replaced the rear shock absorbers and low and behold not only did the car not ground any more, but the handling improved.

I used the KYB Gas-A-Just shocks (pn # 554017), which are actually not adjustable . It’s listed for Stags and T2000, T2500, T2.5 etc.