Asking out of curiosity as much as anything, but I’m hoping someone can help ID a couple of Cougar rear leaf spring retainer boxes. (The parts that fit over the springs and under the axle housing, surrounding the rubber isolators.) The WCCC site shows that these came in three sizes. The shortest/shallowest being marked “6” and the next two sizes increasing in depth (getting taller) in 1/8" increments. (Pic from WCCC below.)
What I’ve found are a pair that are 1/8’ shallower than the #6 size. There’s no trace of markings on them that I can find. I don’t suppose they’re particularly valuable or anything, I’m just curious if anyone has run in to these before. Also, I’m wondering if anyone knows of any particular rhyme or reason to explain which cars came equipped with which size spring boxes.
Also, I’m wondering if anyone knows of any particular rhyme or reason to explain which cars came equipped with which size spring boxes.
Just guessing but would it have to do with the number of leaves and the thickness of them? i.e. a big block convert would have a thicker spring pack than a small block standard hardtop due to its higher spring rate.
Mike
Possible I suppose. I can tell you though that they were removed from a '70 Cougar with competition suspension. And while I don’t know the complete history of the car, I know they were on there for a very long time. Also, height aside, they’re identical in every way to the other Cougar pieces I have. But if anyone can suggest any other makes that might have used these, it’s a possibility I’ll look into.
Q Code.
I didn’t think the background would be relevant, but FWIW:
When I purchased the car many years ago it had traction bars installed that replaced the lower shock plates. The sway bar mounting plates were the only thing between the traction bars and the springs. The lower half of the rubber isolators was not present. In that configuration, the “short” spring boxes worked just right. Everything was bolted down securely. But when restoring the rear suspension to stock configuration (i.e. with the lower rubber bushings and standard shock plates, it was apparent that the boxes were much shorter than seemed to be correct, as there was a significant gap between the bottom of the retainer box and top of the top of the sway bar mounting plate.
So questions as of now: 1) Did rear shock plate cars omit the lower rubber spring isolators? I’ve never heard that, and I can’t think of any good reason why they would, but it would mean these spring boxes are correct and “restoring” the car with taller boxes and the lower isolators was incorrect. (EDIT: Found the answer. '70 Chassis Assembly Manual clearly shows lower rubber isolators installed with the sway bar plates.) 2) Did the factory assemble some cars with large gaps between the bottom of the spring cover and top of the spring (or sway bar) plate? Again, not something I’ve heard of and I can’t think of any good reason for, but I haven’t inspected as many Cougar rear axle assemblies as many of the folks here. 3) If these were sourced from some other application, what are some likely candidates for that?
Any and all facts or informed speculation welcome.
It might help to post some photos of the spring boxes that are in question. If I recall correctly the spring rubbers carry a C6OZ part number so that would make them for a 1966 Fairlane. That might be something to look into.
Hi Randy. Did you miss the pics above? Granted they don’t show the entire boxes, just enough to show the height difference, but as mentioned they’re otherwise identical in every way to the #6 marked box that is fully visible.
I did not know that Fairlanes (and presumably Comets) were using this same style of rear axle mounting in '66. Very interesting information and definitely gives me something to look into.
Hi Jay. Yes, I did see the above photos. I was just saying that perhaps a full on view of the box in question may show someone something that may help ID it.
So I’m going to put my axle housing back into the car today, right? I grab the retainer boxes to put them in and notice once has a 6 and one has a 5, which reminded me of this thread. I set them down next to each other and of course they are slightly different heights ~ about 1/8 or so (#5 being shorter, as you can see in the pic).
Now, I’m thinking these are both likely original to my car. BUT, the car did have traction bars on it when I bought it. No idea why one side would require a different height box but the other didn’t.
So now I am wondering, is it a “staggered rear shock” thing?
And either way, how would I know which box to use on which side? I thought the number was just a stamp machine reference, like you see on cast parts ~ so they know which mold they came out of. I didn’t know it was a height code, so I didn’t pay attention to which side had which retainer. And this is the second time they’ve been off anyhow, so I have no idea if I even put them back on the same way the first time, LOL!
This thread has me thinking about how, some years ago, I installed new EATON rear leaf springs and the drivers side is about 1/2 inch lower than the passenger side. Makes me wonder if these different size spring boxes might have something to do with it.
I just got finished having a set of those Eaton Detroit springs re - arched. Out of the box with the new springs the car looked like it was going to bottom on the gas tank. It’s an R code GT-E like yours.
The R code I was referring to is my 69 Cougar and not my 68 GTE, but same answer may apply. Did you have someone locally (as in the Dallas area) do them?
I had the ones on my R - Code re - arched in Dallas. The name of the place is Truett Worral spring company. It’s very cool. Near Harry Hines and Mockingbird. Been in business since shortly before WWII. Check out the building. No way it would pass any building code ever!
