I have a 1966 Buick Skylark "convertible" in need of front coil springs. I ordered OEM replacements, but they look 3 inches too long. Most of the websites just specify 1966 Buick Skylark. Some specify 2-door coupe or wagon or GS, but none seem to specify convertible. Anyone know where to get spings for a convertible...quickly. My mechanic is working on the front now. Thanks, 1966 Odd Convertible
Some of the factory replacements seem to short to me. So before just saying that "it looks too long", look at the thickness of the coils. A longer spring with a smaller diameter of steel will have a softer ride- they compress further and have a lower spring rate. A shorter spring with a thicker piece of steel will probably compress to the same ride height, but give a harsher ride. Might want to double-check with whoever sold you the springs. -B C
Thanks. I made this post as a last resort. This website has always helped me in the past. The Summit telephone tech support says the spring fits a convertible, but the website says the springs are for a wagon. The diameter of the coil is smaller. The thickness of the coil wire seems thicker. My mechanic doesn't have a warm fuzzy about the springs. He thinks the springs will bow out. I've done all kinds of web searches. I've talked to Moog. They don't make a spring for a convertible. Year One will make a custom spring that is not returnable. I don't want to order a custom solution unless that's my only alternative.
Thanks. I looked through the info and weblinks in this thread. Originally, I ordered MOOG 5231 for the rear and MOOG 5256 for the front. The rear spring would have lowered the car even lower that it is, and it is low in the rear. Summit tech support told me I ordered the wrong part for the rear of a 1966 convertible and sent me springs for for the front of a 1964 buick special. After waiting a month for the wrong springs to arrive, I told the mechanic to put the rear back together with the originals. The front springs have not been taken out. So I can't get to the springs to read the specs and cross reference to a different spring. Moog tech support is closed until Monday. Thanks for the crash course in springs. Denise
Here we go! First of all, it's a V8 without air conditioning, correct? From the 1966 Buick Assembly manual, a 66 Skylark vert, body style 44467, without air conditioning, uses the following: Front 382818 left 381940 right The right spring is actually heavier than the left one. Specs for these are 0.615 wire dia for the left, 0.631 for the right. Free length is 17.62" and 17.8" From a 1980's Moog catalog, 66 Sky ht and vert uses 5246 front, and 5231 rear. #5246 fronts are spec'd as: 0.630"wire dia, and approx free length of 17.3" Looks like a good match for the originals. The #5256 you ordered are a bit heavier, using a 0.640" wire dia. length is 17.9" Factory rear spring is #9773999 Spec is 0.530" wire dia, and free length of 15.74" Moog's #5231 is also 0.530" wire dia and 15.77" free length. Near perfect match. Next heavier spring is a #6197 with a 0.656" wire dia, and 14.8" length. It's often listed as a hd option for Chevelles, etc. If you want to make minor height adjustments in the rear, you can put a 1" metal spacer under the rear spring to raise it. Spring can also be cut to lower the height. Moog numbers are used by many spring manufactures, so they are easy to match up. Good sources are ESPO spring, Rockauto.com and also do a search of the pn on Amazon.com, sometimes they will have them at a better price, and with free shipping.:TU: But it looks like you made the proper choice in the first place! Nice looking car, BTW.:beers2:
Thanks for the GREAT information. This is very, very helpful. The rear springs looked much more strudy than the 5231. It's very possible they are not the originals. How much of a difference would it make if the engine and transmission are from a '72 GS 350? Thanks for the compliment on the car. I'm trying to get her sound, so I can drive her around in the spring.
Just posting a follow-up. Moog's tech support line was closed for the hoildays (same for espo), so I wasn't able to talk with them until today. They were able to cross reference the part numbers from the 1966 Buick Assembly Manual directly to their spings part numbers. 381940 (right front)->5234 382818 (left front)->did not cross reference Since the '72 350 engine and transmission is basically the same as original '66 340, he didn't see a need to go with the sturdier 5256. He felt the 5246 would be to weak. 9773999 (rear)->5231 The Moog tech agreed with "wkillgs" on using 6197 for the convertible due the weight in the rear of the top mechanism. He told me not to worry about the rear sitting lower than the front because that's how the Skylarks always sat from the get. He also pointed out that the cars came with 14" tires too, and sometimes people put bigger springs in if they use bigger tires. It seems springs part numbers aren't cut and dry, and depending on what's in/on the car will detemine the spring. Interesting lesson to learn for a newbie. Thanks for the help. I'll be back for more more help later. Denise
Definitely! You did the right thing by calling tech support. They should be asking you if you are looking for stock ride/height, or want a more performance-oriented spring. For example, drag-race springs are totally different than springs for a car set up for street handling. Spec charts are a big help. But then you need to apply some math. If you like to explore the tech side of spring selection, there are some good examples for a Monte SS here: http://www.maliburacing.com/coilspring.htm Let us know how you make out:TU:
Here's a great site to get spring specs: http://www.101part.com/coilsprings/Moog_Coil_Springs.htm Like Walt said get your calculator out and you can figure all kind of heights. I figure the 6197 would sit .75" higher than the 5231 and if that isn't enough a 5235 would sit 2" higher. The nice thing about the pigtail/open spring is that if it is too high you can always take some height out of it by cutting the spring slightly. The double pigtail you pretty much have to get right. The fronts are hard to work with but the rear springs are easy to remove just by unbolting the lower shock mount and lifting the frame with a floor jack and the spring will fall out.
:gp: All this neat information and I didn't have to ask a question. Although, I have to wonder about my nailhead 401. Anyways, thanks to all that posted here. Jim :bglasses:
A #6033 is a perfect match for the original 66 GS front spring.:grin: I have a car going together now with these... ride report due in the Spring.:3gears:
I probably should have responded alot sooner. I'm not very good with follow-up. Car rides great now. I replaced the front springs only, as well as the rear upper and lower control arms, shocks all around, front ball joints, front brake hoses, and front control arms (can't remember if upper or lower). The front now sits higher than the rear and looks good to me. I'm told this is the stock look. She needed an alighnment after all of the suspension work, and now she rides great...not like a modern day car, of course. It's a lot smoother and without all of the springiness after going over a bump. She still has the old car floatiness in the steering and there's a little shimmy at 40mph. I just go faster and it goes away. Thanks for everyone's help.
If you want to raise to rear a little, spacers can be made up to fit between the rear spring and the mount on the axle.....Anything from large(huge) washers to steel plate will work as a spacer. A popular upgrade on these cars is a modern fast-ratio steering box. I'll cost anywhere from under $100 (used) to several hundred for a new box. It makes the car Soooo much nicer to drive!
