sycoglitch

Very tru

DWStiles

where can I find a larger scale (readable for old-guy eyes) version of this chart?

I have been referred by some local old-guy off-road Jeep work-truck guys to a local industrial truck brake and spring shop that custom makes springs and will do smaller vehicles like Jeeps etc too. They say it saves serious bucks--if only due to shipping and handling costs.

NewKindOfClown

Since you asked nicely, here's one you can zoom in on

http://littlekeylime.com/MrN/mrnimages/leaf_springs.png

DWStiles

Thank you very much----its much appreciated and may help solve the problem more efficiently. now if you don't mind me asking newbee questions

based on the the specs shown on the chart for the 745# capacity springs . . . . .

(Here we go:
I'm assuming that the chart is based the factory issue rear suspension and that since 2 are listed for a 96 Cherokee that there was one model in that date range with a higher GVW capacity----How can I ID what my Jeep had?
Is that a #745 per side spring pack or was it for the total?
If mine came with the "lighter" spring packs--and has sagged---- I imagine that replacing them with the "heavier duty" would add a certain amount of lift. And that one could ask the spring builder to add more with more or stronger leaves.

I have noted that all my jeep "wagons" and pickups tend to ride a bit harshly if lightly loaded, but with a few tool/equipment boxes well distributed in the back the ride is much smoother.
Is there any way (other than adjustable air shocks---which I have been advised against in another post--due to "frame weakness") to have a good ride and still have cargo capacity?
My goal is to get back to a slightly raked stance while adding a modest "lift" to clear slightly taller highway/all season tires---perhaps 3 inches in the rear and 1 1/2 or 2 in the front above factory original stance-----all without totally sacrificing ride and cargo carrying capacity and totally savaging my fixed income.

EZEARL

"How can I ID what my Jeep had?"


Go here and request a "build sheet".
http://www.jeep.com/webselfservice/j...ull&category=U

DWStiles

Thank you very much. I will do so ASAP, (It's in the shop today getting a new A/C compressor kit installed).

NewKindOfClown

That information is per-spring-pack. With your example of 745lb/in, it would take 745lbs to compress the spring pack one inch. As we have two spring packs on the rear (one on each side), it would take 1,490lbs to compress the rear end one inch, assuming an even load distribution.

Where it gets fuzzy is each leaf in each pack may have a different spring rate. When people build bastard packs using combinations of springs from different vehicles, it can be made softer or firmer by using various other leafs.

A pack with a higher number of springs could be softer than (have a lower spring rate than) a pack with fewer leafs. Due to this variation, it's even possible to take one or two leafs out of a pack that has a higher spring rate and use them to lower your rate.

Unfortunately, I don't know if anyone who has the time, finances, equipment, and desire to tear apart all those various packs and test/measure each individual leaf

sycoglitch

For example, the older dodge sprinters 1500 used only 1 rear leaf spring iirc. I was always surprised by that. But then you see pickup having 4-5 and possibly an overload.

NewKindOfClown

Kuzican just put on some aftermarket leafs from Iron Rock, and they have 7 leafs. It's all about how they're combined

sycoglitch

That's nuts but, yup, that's the best examples.

DWStiles

I hate to be the village idiot but . . . . why would you have a variable # of leafs for a given 1 inch depression for a given weight if you had a theoretical 500 rate why would who use more or fewer leafs. just color me confused? VBG

NewKindOfClown

Are you asking how a different number of leafs cab produce a different spring rate, or why there isn't a standard?

DWStiles

It's more a matter of semi-obsessive curiosity. I was born asking "why" according to my parents. I'm assuming that different metallurgy requires different design setups. perhaps multiple leaves might give different ride characteristics compared to fewer and stiffer leaves with the same defection. weight might also be a factor.
perhaps modern design, materials, and MFG technique have made the older style stacked multi-leaf springs almost obsolete.

(one of my other vices is an addiction to traditional archery--and bow limbs and even arrows a a complex mess of design, weight, material and deflection. a traditional bow is nothing more than a single leaf spring)

NewKindOfClown

You're absolutely right, and it's a combination of the things you listed. Leaf springs were used on Egyptian chariots, and that technology hasn't changed much in a couple thousand years.

There are variations of thickness, length, number of leafs, tempering, etc. I've even seen some modern applications using a single fiberglass leaf on each side.

I'm no engineer, but the Jeep community usually agrees that a stack of thin, low rate springs is better than a couple thicker ones. The thinner springs tend to flex more easily, while the thicker ones tend to last longer before wearing out or breaking.

sycoglitch

[QUOTE=NewKindOfClown;3128790]

I The thinner springs tend to flex more easily, QUOTE]

Exactly. If one just wanted lift, and didn't put the concept of ride quality in the mix or offroading, then a f250/bronco leaf would probably work and/or their coils too. Those spring rates come too into play when one has to come to finding the right blend for a moderate off road rig and DD