[FC] Rampside Rear Springs

[BBRT]

I have another question. Dale, you gave us a lot of good info. the question 
is, how much does the FC weigh?  Van, Greenbriar, and both or either version 
of the pickup? If we have the rear weights as well as overall weight, and 
spring length at the ride height - which we should be able to get, then we 
can have springs made. For shocks and springs, corner weights are critical.

I think if we can get weights F & R, for ea vehicle version and get a ride 
height at say, 0-1/2° neg. camber unloaded, we can specify a desired spring 
and can probably figure a hvy duty one for those that plan on regularly 
loading their vehicle. It may be that one version is much stiffer or enough 
stiffer that it can be used for the lighter versions as a hvy duty item.

Anybody volunteer who has one or more FC's?   "Stock is.. "  would like the 
info.

Chuck Sadek


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dale Dewald" <dkdewald at pasty.net>
To: "Corvanatics" <corvanatics at corvair.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [FC] Rampside Rear Springs


> Hello Folks,
>
> From what I can ascertain [using my Oct 1, 1964 P&A Catalog] GM
> manufactured three different FC rear springs:
>
> 61-62 All FC (1/2"orange, 1/2"lime full length) .............. # 3798434
> 63-64 FC w/ side ramp (1/2"yellow, 1/2"purple stripe) ... # 3829556
> 63-65 FC exc. side ramp ........................................... # 
> 3848586
>
> I have a pair of # 3829556 that I removed from one of my parts 
> Greenbriers.
> They were obviously installed as replacements to that vehicle shortly
> before it was retired. The springs still had their paper parts tags and
> were almost new looking as compared to the rest of the vehicle (a Michigan
> rust bucket). I measured these to have: 6-3/4 coils of 49/64" dia wire and
> an overall free length of 11.5"
>
> I do not have dimension data for the other two spring numbers. The 
> original
> # 3848586 springs on our Greenbrier were deformed at the bottom as if
> apparently heated and allowed to sag to reduce ride height. I replaced 
> them
> because one was developing a fatigue crack near the deformation.
>
> I had the # 3892556 springs blasted and painted, then installed on our '65
> Greenbrier for a while. They are very stiff. When unloaded, our Greenbrier
> sat with about 1.5 deg positive camber, but only compressed to about 1/2
> deg negative with a full [over] load. I have since replaced them with
> Clark's C1661RP which sit with 1 deg positive camber empty, but compress 
> to
> 1-2 deg negative with a full load.
>
> I have the pair of # 3829556 springs for sale for $75 or best offer.
>
> I would really like to come up with some designs for progressive rate rear
> springs for our FC's. It would help if I could get measurements of 
> original
> # 3798434 and # 3848586 springs.
>
> Dale Dewald
> Hancock, MI
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> At 17:25 3/26/2012 -0500, David wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Not much wrong with my old springs, its just that the rear sits a bit low
> in relation to the front. I thought that the replacements would make it
> "level". The rate itself seems perfect with the originals. I did not
> imagine that the replacements would be so: 1. stiff, 2. tall.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corvanatics mailing list
> Corvanatics at corvair.org
> http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/listinfo/corvanatics
> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, 
> http://www.corvair.org/
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4897 - Release Date: 03/27/12
>