Notices

Issue with new leaf springs on our 62 ranchero

 
  #1  
Old 03-30-2019, 02:47 PM
66F250CS's Avatar
66F250CS
66F250CS is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 250
66F250CS is starting off with a positive reputation.
Issue with new leaf springs on our 62 ranchero


We have an issue with the new leaf springs on our 62 Ranchero. They are about 5 inches shorter - measured on the radius - than the springs that were in the car when we bought it about a year ago. Many people had owned the car and each made their own "improvements". I ordered a new set of stock height springs from Macs Auto Parts. When we got them we compared them to the old springs and they were clearly shorter. I sent the photo to service dept at MACs and they came back and told us that the springs they sent are correct and the old ones in the car where clearly not the original ones and were from some other car. We also checked another website (Stengel Brothers) that sell springs and their Ranchero springs appear to measure up the same as the ones from MACs. The picture shows these new springs installed and they are very clearly not the correct length. The shackle, as you can see, point forward and will never function properly. Under load they will push the shackle even further forward and crash into the frame rail. So, I guess our question is this: What is the proper spring length for a 62 Ranchero and where might we go to get them. The ones available on line are apparently all the wrong size. Any help or thoughts appreciated. Steve and Nathan
 
  #2  
Old 03-31-2019, 01:54 AM
NumberDummy's Avatar
NumberDummy
NumberDummy is online now
Ford Parts Specialist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 82,578
NumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputation
What are the applications for the springs you bought?

1962 & 1963 6 cylinder: Ranchero, 2dr/4dr station wagon and sedan delivery use the same 5 leaf rear springs w/a 900 lbs. load rate.

1962/63 2dr/4dr sedans, 1963 2dr H/T & convertible, 1963 V8's use different rear springs.

Parts catalog does not list the specs of these springs.

Shackles were not furnished with the springs, sold separately. 1960/62 Falcon are the same for all models.

You might call Green Sales (513-731-3304), see if they have a parts catalog that has the specs.

I'm using an ancient Ford Passenger Car loose leaf paper catalog that covers 1960/67, 1968 before January 1968.
 
  #3  
Old 03-31-2019, 09:23 AM
66F250CS's Avatar
66F250CS
66F250CS is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 250
66F250CS is starting off with a positive reputation.
Thanks Bill. The springs I bought are supposed to be stock height. They are 5 leaf rather than the 4 leaf that came off the car. In the 60-62 Falcon/Comet shop manual it lists the station wagon springs as 50 inches - does not list the Ranchero, but I believe the Ranchero was based on the station wagon so 50 inches appears to be correct. So what is wrong with our car?? Do we have the wrong rear hangers? Did one of the previsous owner add 5 inches of frame rail to the car . As I say, very odd, but clearly the "stock" springs we bought are not going to work.
 
  #4  
Old 03-31-2019, 09:33 AM
66F250CS's Avatar
66F250CS
66F250CS is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 250
66F250CS is starting off with a positive reputation.
Does anyone have a photo of the rear hanger bracket? The little piece that is bolted to the frame rail that the rear shackle then attaches to. Is ours not original? Trying to figure out where this extra 5 inches came from in our car!
 
  #5  
Old 03-31-2019, 11:51 AM
jschira's Avatar
jschira
jschira is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Arlington, TX USA
Posts: 4,058
jschira has a good reputation on FTE.jschira has a good reputation on FTE.jschira has a good reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by 66F250CS View Post
Does anyone have a photo of the rear hanger bracket? The little piece that is bolted to the frame rail that the rear shackle then attaches to. Is ours not original? Trying to figure out where this extra 5 inches came from in our car!
Early Falcons (65 and earlier) did not use a hanger. There is a reinforced hole in the frame rail that the shackle/bushing fits through. 65-66 Mustangs used the same set up.

Here is a pic of my 64, but all Falcons were the same.





Here is another pic off of a 63 hardtop that I just finished.

 
  #6  
Old 03-31-2019, 12:09 PM
jschira's Avatar
jschira
jschira is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Arlington, TX USA
Posts: 4,058
jschira has a good reputation on FTE.jschira has a good reputation on FTE.jschira has a good reputation on FTE.
Here is a pic of a rear frame patch panel for a 65-70 Mustang. You can clearly see the shackle hole. As the Mustang was based on the Falcon, Falcons had the same set up.


 
  #7  
Old 03-31-2019, 01:34 PM
66F250CS's Avatar
66F250CS
66F250CS is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 250
66F250CS is starting off with a positive reputation.
Ours definitely does NOT have a hole in the frame rail and on another forum someone sent a photo of a 62 that has the same exact hanger as ours. The frame rail does not appear to have been replaced on ours so ours appears original with the funky little hanger. I know the Mustang is based on the Falcon but I think they made some mods as the years went by. Not sure what to make of the difference. I need several 62s to crawl under and see how they are set up. I hole closer to the front of the car makes sense, but nothing there.

Originally Posted by jschira View Post
Early Falcons (65 and earlier) did not use a hanger. There is a reinforced hole in the frame rail that the shackle/bushing fits through. 65-66 Mustangs used the same set up.

Here is a pic of my 64, but all Falcons were the same.





Here is another pic off of a 63 hardtop that I just finished.

 
  #8  
Old 03-31-2019, 01:36 PM
66F250CS's Avatar
66F250CS
66F250CS is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 250
66F250CS is starting off with a positive reputation.
Just another observation - there appears to be a break in all sorts of parts between 60-62 and 63+ so while the 63 may have had holes in the frame rail the 62 does not.
 
  #9  
Old 03-31-2019, 02:46 PM
jschira's Avatar
jschira
jschira is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Arlington, TX USA
Posts: 4,058
jschira has a good reputation on FTE.jschira has a good reputation on FTE.jschira has a good reputation on FTE.
With these old cars, I have learned to never say never. Almost anything is possible.

If what you have is factory, then I doubt that the leafs are reproduced.
 
  #10  
Old 04-19-2019, 09:00 PM
66F250CS's Avatar
66F250CS
66F250CS is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 250
66F250CS is starting off with a positive reputation.
I thought I would share a set of photos I gathered at a local salvage yard that has a pretty good collection of early 60s Rancheros and Falcon Wagons. Our spring situation is clearly not unique. A couple of things to note about the photos. 1) the shackles all point forward rather than down or back as they should, and 2) note the condition of the frame rails where the shackles have been crashing into them over the past 50+ years. In a couple of the photos you can see the shackle essentially locked into place against the frame rail. I was able to verify from the shop manual that Falcons had holes through the frame rails for mounted the rear of the spring (like the photos posted earlier in this thread), but Wagons and Rancheros had a little hanger that was bolted to the bottom of the frame rail, I presume to raise the rear end a little bit and permit loads in the rear of the car. The only thing my son and I can surmise is that one would try to flatten out the spring (like clamping it between a couple of 2 x 4 when mounting to the car on stands. Once lowered, perhaps the shackle would settle into a quasi-correct position with the weight of the car flattening out the spring. However, as soon as you hit a speed bump or any other road hazard that would cause the rear end to jump up, the position would be lost and you'd be left with a situation depicted in the photos. All I can say is that this is apparently the way Ford engineered these cars and that the engineering was completely pathetic! We plan to install the old (not stock) springs in the car and take it to a local spring shop so that they can modify the new (and apparently correct) springs with a longer first section so that they mount correctly. Old cars are often a mystery, but this one has got to win some sort of prize for worst design!





 
  #11  
Old 04-23-2019, 03:40 PM
jschira's Avatar
jschira
jschira is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Arlington, TX USA
Posts: 4,058
jschira has a good reputation on FTE.jschira has a good reputation on FTE.jschira has a good reputation on FTE.
All I can tell you is that I have rebuilt the suspensions on both a 63 Ranchero and a 64 Ranchero. I did not care about load capacity, so I used the sedan leafs on the 63 and a set of 65 Mustang leafs (Mustang parts are cheaper to buy than Falcon parts and most are the same) on the 64. Neither had the hangers. No problems with the fit. Both used holes in the frame rails for mounting the shackles.

Wagons and Rancheros had stiffer leafs. 5 leaves instead of 4 on 64-5. 6 leaves instead of 5 on 60-3 (880 lbs. load capacity instead of 635 lbs. load capacity). So using the hanger to increase load capacity seems unlikely (but not impossible)
 
  #12  
Old 04-27-2019, 12:04 AM
66F250CS's Avatar
66F250CS
66F250CS is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 250
66F250CS is starting off with a positive reputation.
We are going to try a pair of springs out of a 65 Mustang tomorrow. A local shop has a few old ones from restorations. Those are 22/31 rather than the "stock" 22/28. We think the extra 3 inches will allow them to mount properly in the rear. If they work we will get a fresh pair. Our car came with a set of non-Falcon springs that were 2.5 inches wide rather than stock 2 inches (at least in 62) and there seems to be plenty of room in the front mounting area.

By the hangers I meant that they would cause the spring to mount lower in the rear and raise the back end of the car - therefore allowing a heavier load without sinking the car too much in the rear. At least I think that's what they'd do.
 
  #13  
Old 04-27-2019, 12:18 AM
NumberDummy's Avatar
NumberDummy
NumberDummy is online now
Ford Parts Specialist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 82,578
NumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputation
Pic from 1965/72 Ford Passenger Car Parts Catalog:
 
  #14  
Old 04-27-2019, 05:51 AM
jschira's Avatar
jschira
jschira is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Arlington, TX USA
Posts: 4,058
jschira has a good reputation on FTE.jschira has a good reputation on FTE.jschira has a good reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by 66F250CS View Post
We are going to try a pair of springs out of a 65 Mustang tomorrow. A local shop has a few old ones from restorations. Those are 22/31 rather than the "stock" 22/28. We think the extra 3 inches will allow them to mount properly in the rear. If they work we will get a fresh pair. Our car came with a set of non-Falcon springs that were 2.5 inches wide rather than stock 2 inches (at least in 62) and there seems to be plenty of room in the front mounting area.

By the hangers I meant that they would cause the spring to mount lower in the rear and raise the back end of the car - therefore allowing a heavier load without sinking the car too much in the rear. At least I think that's what they'd do.
I looked at a friend's 63 Ranchero yesterday and it has the hangers. So now I am completely confused. My service manual has picks of the leafs both without hangers, and two pages later, with hangers. But I think that the pics are generic.
 
  #15  
Old 04-27-2019, 10:00 AM
66F250CS's Avatar
66F250CS
66F250CS is offline
Senior User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 250
66F250CS is starting off with a positive reputation.
Yep - there's that hanger in the upper left corner of NumberDummy's post - exactly like ours. I wonder if different assembly lines did different thingss? Some with hangers and some without. Very curious. What is clear from the photos I posted of the salvage yard Rancheros is that these short springs and the odd mounting is the way they came from the factory. Let's see how the 22/31 from a Mustang will work. They have got to be closer, but I also worry if the arch is correct for a stock height. We'll see
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.