re: re: Springs (105/115)

[Dana Loomis <dloomis@domain.elided>]

Bob Brady posted some observations about springs for 105/115 coupes.  Among
the things Bob mentioned was this:
>From the little bit of investigating I've done so far, the W&D rears are 
>about 10-20% stiffer (assuming the same coil spacing to derive the number of 
>coils on the Shankel springs).  

Believe it or not,  Ward & Deane springs are actually about 400% stiffer
than stock.  This is based on both calculations and actual measurements in
a spring tester.

>So, to get some idea of how my GTV will sit 
>with the W&D rears, I assumed 400 lbs load on each rear spring, which makes 
>the stock springs deflect ~6.5".  Therefore, at the same load, the W&D 
>springs will deflect ~5.7" (assuming 15% stiffer).  So, with the car
sitting, 
>the W&D springs should lower it ~ 1", which would be welcome, as the car
sits 
>a bit high, imo.

The amount of lowering depends on which W&D springs you have, and how you
install them.  I have their "High Performance Street" springs in my 72 GTV,
and the front went down about 1.5" and the rear was changed very little,
relative to where the car was before, with worn stock springs.  In the
process of installing the springs, all of the shims under the front springs
were removed.    W&D race springs are supposed to lower the car more
radically, but I don't have any direct experience with those yet.  

Bob also noted that the Alfa CRH contains some interesting spring data but
wonders about its applicability to 2000 GTVs.  The copies of the CRH that I
have, at least, also give information for the 1750 GTV, which should be
essentially identical to the 2000.  

Dana Loomis
71 1750 GT Veloce
72 2000 GT Veloce

------------------------------