Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a 1970 XL. I am wondering if I can use the terms XL and Galaxie interchangeably. Specically, I am shopping for rear coil springs. Moog says part CC805 works, which I thought, but I thought 8307 worked but they say 8309. I was wondering if there was anyone that knows and if there is a really good sport spring for the rear available. My title and registration simply say Ford, which it's the model which has flip up headlight covers but it's not an LTD.






 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
779 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
401 Posts
I have a 1970 XL. I am wondering if I can use the terms XL and Galaxie interchangeably.
1967 was the FIRST year that Ford dropped the "Galaxie" moniker from the XL. If you research the ORIGINAL adds for the XL or even the LTD models in '67 ( I have a few original dealer catalogs), you will NOT find them notated as a "Galaxie XL" or "Galaxie LTD". They will simply be listed as Ford XL or Ford LTD. Even though WE know they are Galaxies with different trim options, Ford made them separate "MODELS".

ALMOST every parts store has them under "Galaxie". The real good parts stores give you and option in ordering to identify whether or not it's an XL or LTD. Some parts, it really doesn't matter because they were not XL or LTD distinctive.
Some of the fellas and gals that have been around much longer than me may be able to verify, but from what I was told, the XL and LTD had VERY MINOR distinctions in suspension. I am not sure about the years following '67 but a friend of mine had a '70 429 (I think) XL and he said parts were hard to find for the Model specific items. This was about 20 years ago though.

Not too sure if this helps, but I hope so.

Tommy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
I have a 1970 XL. I am wondering if I can use the terms XL and Galaxie interchangeably. Specically, I am shopping for rear coil springs. Moog says part CC805 works, which I thought, but I thought 8307 worked but they say 8309. I was wondering if there was anyone that knows and if there is a really good sport spring for the rear available. My title and registration simply say Ford, which it's the model which has flip up headlight covers but it's not an LTD.






i like your car! looks very nice!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
The CC805 and CC801 are variable rate springs and both will work on your car. The CC805 is likely closest to stock for your car at a load rate of 770#. The CC801 has a load rating of 870# and may provide a firmer ride.

CC801:

Inside Diameter, Bar Diameter, Install Height, Load, Spring Rate, Free Height
5.430, .640, 9.75, 870, 192, 14.50

CC805:
Inside Diameter, Bar Diameter, Install Height, Load, Spring Rate, Free Height
5.430 , .640, 9.75, 770, 187, 14.00

I installed the CC801 on my '69 Marquis conv. and it sits pretty much level. It's probably quite a bit heavier than your car though at 4920#.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,924 Posts
I installed MOOG Cargo Coils in the rear of my car, but that was around 26 years ago. I should have the records in the file, but I don't remember the part number. The springs did jack the rear end up a bit, which was a good thing, in my view. It is fairly stiff when the car is empty, but it certainly does not drag the rear when fully loaded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Are looking to lower or raise it with springs?
I feel the springs are worn out. The car sits rather low in the rear. It's lower now that I removed the spring/shock assemblies. My plans do not included raising the rear for slick tire clearance at this time. So a low ride is not completely unacceptable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I installed MOOG Cargo Coils in the rear of my car, but that was around 26 years ago. I should have the records in the file, but I don't remember the part number. The springs did jack the rear end up a bit, which was a good thing, in my view. It is fairly stiff when the car is empty, but it certainly does not drag the rear when fully loaded.
Moog says cargo springs are designated CC, which CC805 fits. Will stiffer springs and a lower profile tire improve handling, or is is no better? I had a 1980 Z28 which was all stock with GR2s and a 1.375" front sway bar and it was good in my opinion. Oh yes, with 16" wheels and nice 2nd hand HancooOOook tires.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
847 Posts
I am going to give you a opinion, remember, its free and it just my opinion.

I would buy a taller set of rear tires, it will lift the back some, fill up the wheel well and look mean. The first thing I thought when I seen your car was the tires are too small.
Like I said, its just my opinion, please dont take it as anything personal, I love the car!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,924 Posts
Moog says cargo springs are designated CC, which CC805 fits. Will stiffer springs and a lower profile tire improve handling, or is is no better? I had a 1980 Z28 which was all stock with GR2s and a 1.375" front sway bar and it was good in my opinion. Oh yes, with 16" wheels and nice 2nd hand HancooOOook tires.
Improved handling is a loaded question. I would say that stiffer springs and lower sidewall tires should improve cornering, at least theoretically. For improved handling I'd say the keys wil be big sway bars front and rear and polyurethane control arm bushings. Addco makes a 1 1/8" front bar and a 1" rear bar, which is what is on list of things to get.

I got my car in 84 from my Grandfather. He used to keep big bags of sand in the trunk over the winter to improve traction, so even though the car was only 14 years old, the rear springs were sacked out. I couldn't put much more than a duffel bag in the trunk and not have the rear end drag and headlights light the tree tops instead of the road. I was in university at the time and it was a nine hour drive, so moving back and forth, spring and fall, I needed to be able to haul my belongings and the cargo coils made the long drive a pleasure. The car would not bottom out or drag the rear when loaded completely full, and you pack a lot of stuff in these cars. The cargo coils are dual rate springs, but unloaded the car is certainly stiffer than what I would expect it would be with good stock springs.

I run a 28" diameter tire (P235, 70R15), which I believe is very close to what the original equipment tire size was. They seem to fill the wheel well nicely and I should have a reasonably accurate speedo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,924 Posts
I should add some further comments. There is one condition that arises when raising, or lowering the ride height at the rear. Because my cargo coils raised the rear the geometry of the panhard bar has pull the rear end over to the drivers side a bit. Once I get my new front springs cut to get the front ride height back down to where I want it, I intend to modify the panhard bar, or the mount to get the rear more centered under the car. The car has been running like this since 1985, so it is not a problem, but I do hope to address it sometime soon just because.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I am going to give you a opinion, remember, its free and it just my opinion.

I would buy a taller set of rear tires, it will lift the back some, fill up the wheel well and look mean. The first thing I thought when I seen your car was the tires are too small.
Like I said, its just my opinion, please dont take it as anything personal, I love the car!
Those tires are 235/55/15 which are 27.18" on 8" rims from my Ranger in the backround. They fit both vehicals. The rims on The Ranger were on the XL when I got it and are 15x6 with a car offset and I put on the big tires 235/75/15 which are 28.88" and I had no problem with either combo on either car. The original tires were 225/75/15 and are 28.29. Those 28.88 tires are actually truck tires but looked good on the car, but "hot-rods" usually have wheels and right now that's how it has to be. Its just economics but you're right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Those tires are 235/55/15 which are 27.18" on 8" rims from my Ranger in the backround. They fit both vehicals. The rims on The Ranger were on the XL when I got it and are 15x6 with a car offset and I put on the big tires 235/75/15 which are 28.88" and I had no problem with either combo on either car. The original tires were 225/75/15 and are 28.29. Those 28.88 tires are actually truck tires but looked good on the car, but "hot-rods" usually have wheels and right now that's how it has to be. Its just economics but you're right.
wow, for some reason i thought three wheels on your car were either 16 or 17"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,337 Posts
:frown:

...the days of air shocks...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
847 Posts
:frown:

...the days of air shocks...

LOL, not a fan huh?. They work for now, cant think the air bag in a spring is much better. They came with the car and dont leak so there you go. As soon as we get the rear set up the way we plan there wont be any need for them or any other air devices.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
847 Posts
:frown:

...the days of air shocks...

No more air shocks. :) Ride is smooth 30" tall tires

The tall tires really leveled it out with the tired rear springs.
Old pics, now we have matching front tires
 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top