Leaf Spring Pictures, ESPO, SS, XHD, Etc.

[HEMIRT]

Hello,

Anyone care to post pictures of their Mopars with various set ups such as: ESPO (and How high +1, 1.5, +2),  XHD, SS, Mcveigh, Hotchkis, etc...

Please include anything that would be helpful such as:  PICTURES, how much lift or lower, if you like them, any other recommendations, etc....

(This is for a 70 Big Block Challenger, but all pics will help)

Thanks!!

[Cuda Cody]

Welcome @HEMIRT    

I love the look of an E-Body with a little rake.  I hope someone will post some photos as I have always used stock springs but thought about trying to get a little more arch.

[Roadman]

        @HEMIRT

[HEMIRT]

Hey, thanks for the great welcome guys!!

Looking forward to sharing lots of E-body info on this great website!!

..but where are all the pictures of your leaf spring installs...lol... ??

[Chryco Psycho]

Welcome @HEMIRT  From Panama
Glad you joined up 

[Brads70]

First picture ESPO plus 1.5  with 255/60/15 rear tires and 235/60/r15 front tires

Second picture same tires but with 225lb Hyperco composite leafs

Third picture same composite leaf springs but with 18x11 rims 295/40/18 rear tiires and 315/30/18 up front

[erik70rt]

I" over stock lift from ESPO

[dave73]

I posted this a few weeks back on another thread on here...

My setup has changed a few times in the past 2 years. The current setup I'm running are the hotchkis leafs. The car handles amazing from what it was. They sit very low, I had to really crank down my front to get it look right. Wasn't fun getting it aligned but it's good to go now. My rear tires are tight but I haven't experienced any rubbing yet. I haven't had any passengers in the back seat yet though, that may cause some rubbing on hard bumps.

#1 - stock springs, extended shackles, 14" wheels (how I bought it)
#2 - stock springs, extended shackles, front 15x17 235/60 rear 15x8 275/60
#3 - ESPO 1.5"over stock,  front 15x17 235/60 rear 15x8 275/60
#4 - Hotchkis springs,  torsion bars cranked way down, front 15x17 235/60 rear 15x8 275/60

[HEMIRT]

Hi Dave and Brad and anyone else who had ESPOs...

What made you guys change out the Espo's?

Was the handling cruddy  ?  ...or...???

I keep thinking on going ESPO +1, but if everybody is pulling them off, maybe I should learn from those lessons so they don't just  ..???

[bentpshrods]

   I have the espos +1 on my car. Have had them on for about 10 years now,no problems. 

[Brads70]

Hi Dave and Brad and anyone else who had ESPOs...

What made you guys change out the Espo's?

Was the handling cruddy  ?  ...or...???

I keep thinking on going ESPO +1, but if everybody is pulling them off, maybe I should learn from those lessons so they don't just  ..???

For me I was on a mission to make my car handle the best it could using the stock design. So I went with 225 lb composite leaf springs for the rate and the weight savings . Nothing wrong with the ESPO springs I'd buy them again if I was building a cruiser type car. 

[dave73]

Hi Dave and Brad and anyone else who had ESPOs...

What made you guys change out the Espo's?

Was the handling cruddy  ?  ...or...???

I keep thinking on going ESPO +1, but if everybody is pulling them off, maybe I should learn from those lessons so they don't just  ..???

For me I was on a mission to make my car handle the best it could using the stock design. So I went with 225 lb composite leaf springs for the rate and the weight savings . Nothing wrong with the ESPO springs I'd buy them again if I was building a cruiser type car. 

Same here. I didn't remove them because of their quality, they were great springs. My espos were 1.5" over stock so my rear sat high and that's what I wanted at the time. I didn't like the handling, but that's not the quality, it's how high I went. I also couldn't see a thing out the rear with louvers and a jacked up rear. So when I decided to change them, I bit the bullet and spent the money on hotchkis after reading great reviews on the handling aspect of that part.

[HEMIRT]

So you guys are saying there is a significant handling difference between  -1 vs ESPO +1.5...??

I wonder if that is linear, like each inch gives equally more better handling, or once you get down to a certain reasonability of height it is good, and 'more than 1 inch' high, or something like that, is terrible..?

Maybe the saggy originals after wearing out are best...lol .... or maybe...

I.E. My worn out saggier challenger handles better than my higher (less worn out) original hemi springed challenger.  (Same part numbers but one is an inch lower than the other and seems to handle better)   

What says you all...?

[Brads70]

So you guys are saying there is a significant handling difference between  -1 vs ESPO +1.5...??

I wonder if that is linear, like each inch gives equally more better handling, or once you get down to a certain reasonability of height it is good, and 'more than 1 inch' high, or something like that, is terrible..?

Maybe the saggy originals after wearing out are best...lol .... or maybe...

I.E. My worn out saggier challenger handles better than my higher (less worn out) original hemi springed challenger.  (Same part numbers but one is an inch lower than the other and seems to handle better)   

What says you all...?

A good handling car is the sum of it's parts. Springs /torsion bars/shocks, sway bars, tires need to be chosen to go with the overall package. Just because a spring holds your car at a ride height you like doesn't mean it's optimized for the spring rate required. Each car will be different. Lots of factors like 4 corner weights, front/rear percentages , your weight, engine weights, suspension geometry, etc....
Some people think just because you lower a car it will handle better  and that is not true. Optimum Ride height is determined by the front /rear geometry .
A good example of this was in my circle track Tech inspector days . In the street stock divisions they had a minimum ride height of 6" .( This was to allow for Camaro/Firebirds) Most of the field was using GM Metric G-Body chassis.The rules said the chassis had to be stock.  If I ever found a  G-Body car that came in the top 3 at the end of the night that was at 6" I knew they were cheating as these cars do not handle at 6" the rear geometry is horrible at that height. I knew or had to find where they modified the chassis as in stock configuration they did not handle well at all at 6"

[cataclysm80]

The car has weight.   The center of this weight is called the center of gravity.

The suspension design (height is one factor) determines the pivot point which the weight rotates around.  This pivot point is called the roll center.

Generally, the center of gravity is located above the roll center.

The distance between the center of gravity and the roll center functions like a lever. 
The roll center is the fulcrum of the lever, and the center of gravity is where the force is applied to the lever.
A longer lever makes the weight roll the car body more easily, while a shorter lever means the weight has less effect on body roll.

To have less body roll in cornering, you can decrease the car weight and/or shorten the distance between the center of gravity and the roll center. 
In general, lower handles better because your moving the center of gravity down closer to the roll center.  This is why the Hotchkiss springs perform well, and why they're designed that way.


Some people don't like the look though.  You'll have to decide whether performance or appearance is more important to you, or if you want to choose something in the middle.

If you like the raked look, you might consider lowering the front instead of raising the rear.