Thread: MII ride height and spring rates????

Tweet

I have a 41 chevy tudor I am working on and it has a MII w tubular a-arms under it reputed to be a "Heidts", Now this thing sits LOOOOW,w a BBC and not much higher w a SBC (I replaced a complete 305/T350 w a 454/T350), I do not "think" it has lowering spindles. I do not have shocks in it yet (I am planning on MII GT V8 gas shocks) and see no provision for a sway bar or strut rods,
That said, What kind of a spring rates or length should I be getting w a semi heavy car like this to bring that front up a bit (2" maybe) ? and Where? I also need everything to run a steering shaft from the manual rack to the 59 chevy column.
YES ,I AM planning on 11" brakes,LOL.

Got any friends that dirt track race? Would be nice to borrow their scales and see what the weight is so you could get the correct springs the first time.... If you're using the MII springs, just start with a stock set and see where it sets...

That is DEFINITELY NOT a Heidt's spring hat. That's either Fat Man or one of the other bottom pricers. Can't tell on the control arm.

Here's some pics that might help you figure out what you've got going on. This setup has a sway bar. It attaches to brackets on the lower control arms which, as you can see, are tubular also. This bar is from Chassis engineering. These control arms are also the "narrowed" versions, 5/8" shorter than the stock MII dimension. This is also the dropped spindle, in the one pic you can see the shape of the spindle shaft butt end and the distance from the top ball joint.

I can't tell you the length of the springs as I never bothered to measure them, it's sort of pointless anyway. The critical factor is getting the lower control arm to set parallel to the ground at full load ride height to get the geometry right. This picture was taken before I shortened these coils one turn. In my case removing that coil set it just right. The third picture shows how our steering shaft was routed, though you'll be dealing with different dimensions so this is only reference/inspiration.

One other possibility in your case may be that the crossmember was set into the frame rails deeper to get the nose down more, worth looking at.

One more thing, the back end on yours needs to come down at least two inches to cover the top of the tire visually so it won't look so dumped off once that's done.

Bob's rite about getting the lower arm parellel with the ground with the total cars weight on it to get the geometry rite. This may take some experimenting with spring s. U can get some help by e-mailing the folks at eaton spring. they have done plenty of these and will know your approximate weight and recommend a spring rate. http://www.eatonsprings.com/products.htm

I think thats where the problem is. My lower A-arms are definately at a up hill angle from the chassis and does not change much if i lower the back.

a pr of 383# sprimgs did the trick even a weebit high now but I figure lopping a half a coil should put it right