1965 COUPE STOCK REAR SPRINGS AND SHOCKS NOT SNG

[mgcjag]

Hi Andrew...i think were all possibly on the same page but you wording sounds wrong
"Its physical distance between centres with the same springs on different shock absorbers"
What Geoff said sounds correct "The measurement that is important is the combined distance between each end of the spring and the centre of each corresponding eyelet. If this distance is the same on each shock then the ride height will be the same. Shims alter this distance so they will alter the ride height" ......Steve

[andrewh]

Ok ok, so have a go at my English now then!!

Look its not an issue for me, I have established what I needed to , which is the BOGE is roughly 3/4 inch longer/higher than the original Girling. Thats enough to make me look for another shock absorber as I have peculiar aesthetic about ride heights. So many E types are wrong to me they spoil the beauty. Probably like many others on here, I spent hours and hours as a kid in the 60s studying every angle possible. It was infatuation. If you look at the Gunmetal car which I restored a few years ago, that sits too high with the original springs and BOGE shocks and now I know why. My other car sits better with Konis but not sure I am buying them again, so given I am not on a mission to be 100% original with this car, I think I may go for the adjustable platform SPAX. Thanks for all the input. Andrew

[abowie]

Mea culpa.

Andrew I think you are right.

If you consider that the springs are identical and they alone support the weight of the car, then with the car on the ground they will both be compressed by the same amount and be the same length.

The spring sits on the shock spring perches, which are in turn rigidly fixed to the mounting eyes.

If one shock is indeed 3/4" longer than the other then it must raise the ride height by that amount because the mounting points are further away from the end of the spring, which is the same length as the spring on the shorter shock.

[andrewh]

Exactly . well put.

I think in this case a picture really is worth a 1000 words as some needed convincing!

There is none so blind as he who will not see!

[Series1 Stu]

Well clearly we've been like a chicken and a duck talking to each other because that's exactly what I was saying - its the distance from the spring perches to the fixing eyes that are having the effect of raising the ride height.

[mgcjag]

Hi All....indulge me here......iv just drawn up this representation of 3 different shocks fitted with the same springs...note that the springs iv drawn dont all look the same but iv just drawn it as a representation.....so identical springs.....dimensions are shown....so which shock/spring combo if fitted would give the highest ride height.......the shortest combo 1...the longest combo 3......or the middle length combo 2 ......Steve

[Series1 Stu]

Shock 2

[Geoff Allam]

Steve. Thank you for drawing the diagrams. They demonstrate exactly what I, and I think most others were trying to convey. #2 with the total 8 inches of distance will raise the car approximately 4 inches higher than the other 2 setups. (Will make it look like my Camaro back in the day)

[Series1 Stu]

I've just had a quick look at the CAD layout I did a couple of years ago (from information supplied by members here) and can see that the length of the shock/spring assembly through the full travel of the rear suspension varies from around 10" on full bump to around 12.5" on full rebound.

Wheel travel is quoted by Jaguar as being 3.125" either side of mid laden.

Regards

[typea59]

Hello everyone,
I enter this exciting debate with a beginner's question.

Is it possible to restore the original Girling shock absorbers, which would solve the problem?

Best regards

Loïc

[mgcjag]

Hi.......i dont think so....i havent heard that anyone has done it......Steve

[Heuer]

According to Girling:

"The damper is of completely welded and riveted construction throughout, thus sealing it against the ingress of outside matter."





Front dampers:
Cars manufactured up to December 1961 (850321/876394/860121/885334 on) were fitted with Girling NFP.6405 4173 dampers. Jaguar part C.15071
Cars manufactured after December 1961 (850322/876395/860122/885335 on) were fitted with Girling NFP.6405 4298 dampers. Jaguar part C.20011

Rear dampers:
Cars manufactured up to December 1961 (850321/876394/860121/885334) were fitted with Girling NFP.6405 4324 dampers. Jaguar part C.16908
Cars manufactured after December 1961 (850322/876395/860122/885335 on) were fitted with Girling NFP.6405 4299 dampers. Jaguar part C.20008

And then you have the issue with springs, which may or may not to be the original Jaguar specifications!

[mgcjag]

Hi Andrew...i mentioned previously about spacers. ....looking at your photo i dont see the top packing ring C19027 fitted at the top of your Girling/spring combo.....with this missing your car will sit lower than it should.....part 6 shown here S1 4.2 cars.....I dont know if they are also required on your Boge.....Steve https://www.sngbarratt.com/English/#/uk ... mbly/21400

[adam]

Hi, I got new springs from David Manners as I had been told that SNG springs gave the wrong ride height. I fitted them to new Boge shocks. Ride height looks right to me.