Eibach Springs - Front sits high... *pics*

[Mark 240z]

I used 280 stuck tower mounts in the rear to raise the back up to bring the car level. 

[jhm]

Sorry for chiming in late, but here's another option for your consideration....

 

Rather than lifting the rear with the taller strut mounts in the rear, lower the front by replacing the stock strut mounts with camber plates.  Might have to do a little fabrication to get the stock spring hats interfacing correctly with the camber plates.  You wont' be able to take advantage of additional negative camber because your stock spring hats will hit the strut tower, but they should definitely lower the front end a decent amount (1 - 1.5").

 

Disregard all the above if you're happy with your current setup! 

[Driver_X]

You've got the springs installed backwards. Swap them front to back. Had the same issue last year.

[pecx]

So does 001 go to the rear now? I have 001 in the front and it is high.

[PCressey]

So does 001 go to the rear now? I have 001 in the front and it is high.

I called Eibach to confirm that 001 goes up front, and 002 goes on the rear. The Eibach tech didn't know why the front lifted... He said they make them special for a distributor (MSA I pressume).

 

I am rather annoyed, and haven't gone back to that aspect of my car. I will eventually call MSA and ask what the deal is.

[DAT240Z]

Pcressey, have you resolve your spring issue. If so can you please let me know what you did. Im in the market for new springs for my 240z

Thanks

[adivin]

Rather than start a new thread, I'll revive this one.  I am having the same issue with the front being higher than the rear after installing the Eibachs.  I am using the new Konis made for the 240z from MSA.  If my measurement is good, the fronts seems to be about 1/2" higher than rear measured from the rocker.  I don't have a hood or radiator on at the moment.  Some say it will settle over time.  Some say it never did for them.  I have 6305.001 in front and 6305.202 in rear.  I wonder how the issue finally resolved for PCressey? 

[grannyknot]

On 1/24/2015 at 6:03 PM, grannyknot said:

I noticed the same thing when I installed my Eibach springs, I had to install a 1/2" spacer at the top of the rear springs to level the car out.

That was 5 yrs ago and the car is still sitting level.

[madkaw]

17 hours ago, adivin said:

Rather than start a new thread, I'll revive this one.  I am having the same issue with the front being higher than the rear after installing the Eibachs.  I am using the new Konis made for the 240z from MSA.  If my measurement is good, the fronts seems to be about 1/2" higher than rear measured from the rocker.  I don't have a hood or radiator on at the moment.  Some say it will settle over time.  Some say it never did for them.  I have 6305.001 in front and 6305.202 in rear.  I wonder how the issue finally resolved for PCressey? 

Did you replace your strut mounts ? If you did - did you put back in the 1/2” rubber spacer that was in the factory strut mount ? You have bearings up front and a rubber spacer in the back . It’s about the same thickness as the bearing . 

[NewZed]

The Eibach springs seem to have more problems than any of the others.  They're just inconsistent.  Some sit too high, some sit too low, many sit too high in the front. some too high in the back.

 

These stories have been cropping up for years and years.  MSA keeps selling them and people keep having problems.  Looks like some numbers might have changed slightly but it's still Eibach and MSA.

 

https://www.zcar.com/threads/240-too-low-w-eibach-springs.293086/

 

 Discussion Starter • #1 • Nov 6, 2009

 

Just recently got my 71' back on the ground. Installed Tokico HP Struts w/ the Eibach PR Springs from MSA. The front looks good, but the rear scrubs the tires (195/70R14) on any dip or bump. I have been searching alot on this issue. Most of the time it seems the springs were reversed or upside down. It is just not the case for me.

Here's the rundown:

Contacted MSA to verify proper installation:

They state part # 6305.001 are the front springs and 6305.002 are the rear -- I can see the numbers on the front and they match.

They state shorter coils should be at the top -- they are.

They state the longer spring should be in the rear -- as I remember they were. However, I found one post where someone stated the longer springs went in the front???

[Miles]

On 12/25/2020 at 10:15 AM, adivin said:

Rather than start a new thread, I'll revive this one.  I am having the same issue with the front being higher than the rear after installing the Eibachs.  I am using the new Konis made for the 240z from MSA.  If my measurement is good, the fronts seems to be about 1/2" higher than rear measured from the rocker.  I don't have a hood or radiator on at the moment.  Some say it will settle over time.  Some say it never did for them.  I have 6305.001 in front and 6305.202 in rear.  I wonder how the issue finally resolved for PCressey? 

 

Examine the gaps between the coils on the front and rear springs. What do you see?

[NewZed]

This comes up so often that it might get overlooked - make sure you tighten the suspension components with the car on the ground if you loosened, removed, or replaced any bushings.  The factory bushings provided some "spring" to the suspension.

 

And, because of that, if you wanted to get tricky, you could have a heavy friend sit on the front while you tighten the bushing bolts and nuts.  The bushings will help hold it down.  Edit - or you could lift the back while tightening.  This is only an issue, and will only work, with the factory rubber bushings.

Edited December 27, 2020 by NewZed

[adivin]

On 12/26/2020 at 6:02 AM, madkaw said:

Did you replace your strut mounts ? If you did - did you put back in the 1/2” rubber spacer that was in the factory strut mount ? You have bearings up front and a rubber spacer in the back . It’s about the same thickness as the bearing . 

 

Yep, spacer in the rear and bearings in the front. 

[adivin]

On 12/26/2020 at 5:30 PM, Miles said:

 

Examine the gaps between the coils on the front and rear springs. What do you see?

001 in front.  002 in rear

[adivin]

On 12/26/2020 at 7:36 PM, NewZed said:

This comes up so often that it might get overlooked - make sure you tighten the suspension components with the car on the ground if you loosened, removed, or replaced any bushings.  The factory bushings provided some "spring" to the suspension.

 

And, because of that, if you wanted to get tricky, you could have a heavy friend sit on the front while you tighten the bushing bolts and nuts.  The bushings will help hold it down.  Edit - or you could lift the back while tightening.  This is only an issue, and will only work, with the factory rubber bushings.

I replaced control arm bushings with poly.  I did not tighten control arms with car on the ground.  Is this required with poly bushings?

[Miles]

1 hour ago, adivin said:

001 in front.  002 in rear

 

As I expected the top (soft) section  of progressive springs collapse as soon as the car is on the ground. The collapsed section of the springs is doing nothing. This is why I rejected those springs on my first V8 240Z built 20 years ago. I used non-progressive springs rated at 180 lb/in front and 280 lb/in rear. My car is at stock ride height and is a very comfortable daily  driver.

 

MSA should be ashamed to still be selling those progressive springs.

 

You can find springs for you car, but it will take some homework on your part. Note: stiffer springs can be shorter than stock springs because the stiffer springs don't compress as much when the car is on the ground. I can install my springs without a spring compressor because they are shorter, but stiffer than stock.

 

Arizona Z Cars used to sell "heavy duty" springs for 240Z/280Z cars, but no longer sells  them. You could call Dave and see if he could give the specs or lead you to a vendor.

[NewZed]

8 hours ago, Miles said:

 

As I expected the top (soft) section  of progressive springs collapse as soon as the car is on the ground. The collapsed section of the springs is doing nothing.

 

They're still working as the wheel drops in to depressions or one side of the car lifts.  That's how progressive rate springs work, the weaker end will collapse faster than the stronger end.  The problem people have is that the rates are wrong between front and back.

 

With PU bushings there is no lifting effect from the bushing.  So, it doesn't matter when you tighten the bolts and nuts.

 

I think it's just a bad product.  I don't know why people keep buying them.  That's why MSA keeps selling them, because people keep buying.

[Miles]

24 minutes ago, NewZed said:

 

They're still working as the wheel drops in to depressions or one side of the car lifts.  That's how progressive rate springs work, the weaker end will collapse faster than the stronger end.  The problem people have is that the rates are wrong between front and back.

 

With PU bushings there is no lifting effect from the bushing.  So, it doesn't matter when you tighten the bolts and nuts.

 

I think it's just a bad product.  I don't know why people keep buying them.  That's why MSA keeps selling them, because people keep buying.

 

But the coils are collapsed and touching with the car just sitting! Can't imagine that they offer any resistance at all when the car is moving  dynamically over dips and bumps or when cornering.

[adivin]

10 minutes ago, Miles said:

 

But the coils are collapsed and touching with the car just sitting! Can't imagine that they offer any resistance at all when the car is moving  dynamically over dips and bumps or when cornering.

This is seems to be common with progressive springs.  They are called dead or helper springs.  Keeps the springs in place when the rear is unloaded.

[JMortensen]

If they're bound then they're not doing anything, but if they're not then they're softer than the rest of the spring, hence the progressive part. The Tokicos are worse, and it's been an ongoing topic since the 90s. It is as designed though. If it bothers you get a non-progressive spring. Personally not a fan of progressive springs.