Did a search and couldn’t find anything definitive so I thought I’d see if any 69 H/O owners here have recently replaced their coil springs. Am working on a friends car and want to get the correct ride height.

Obviously, no listing for this specific application but figured I’d be safe using the 442 (non-AC) as a guide. Looks like Moog is out of the spring business?

Aftermarket spring reviews are all over the map....

Thanks!

Joe

 

I believe Eastman spring company makes the correct spring for front and back, also a little taller if you want that check them out. Guy

 

SORRY my bad its Eaton Spring

 

Best I've been able to decipher on springs, the 69 H/O rear spring is 9792489 [NP], around 127 lb/in rating, same as a 68 H/O and 442 and 69 442. Spring rate around (Front springs are 41420 [RX], about 485 lb/in rate w/o air. P/N 400334 [RI] for A/C cars)

Moog equivalent for the rear, which is a general part number that usually covers several spring part numbers, but 69 442 included, is 5401. 69 bucks per pair at Summit it shows as of this post.

Your discoveries may be different.

Eaton springs lookup tool says their part numbers are MC5294 for front and MC1293 for the rear for 69 H/O. You can get +2" for rear or stock ride height. You can get stock or + or - height for the fronts. All at extra cost of course.

 

I have the following specs for the Moog 5401 springs:

Spring #..Inside Dia...Bar Dia...Installed Height...Load (lbs)...Spring Rate (Lbs/in.)....Free Height........Type...............Application
5401.........5.58..........0.531............7.5... ...............727................128............. ........13.15.........Pigtail Ends.......2 Door coupe & convertible

 

Looks like those springs could be very viable, at least the ride part. As far as ride height, I've found MOST of the aftermarket variants to be a tad higher than stock. Don't know why. 5401's ok back there? I dunno. I have some springs on the shelf I got eons ago but never installed them.

PIM specs out 6.49" from top of rear axle tube to bottom of frame arch directly above it. I know I'm probably odd man out on this, but factory springs allowed for a bit more droopy look in the back and I find it completely acceptable. Annnd...a bit of a droopy look in the front too. An almost level droop, as it were. A lot of the H/O guys get it right, but some don't seem to worry about it and toss in whatever spring fits. Usually jacking the car up too far in the back.
Acceptable:

 

Man this conversation is very timely for me. I too am looking for the correct F/R springs for my '69 H/O. I went up and talked to Fusick and they said they could have them made for $165 pr. that would provide a stock height, not sure who is doing the actual manufacturing. My car is also a little "droopy" very similar to the picture above..., but I'm OK with that.

Maybe the correct path is the Eaton Springs...

 

If you have a 1969 Cutlass/442 Assembly Manual some where in there it will tell you what the (stock) ride hight should be, unfortunately my book is no longer complete. But I vaguely remember the rear of the our car you measure roughly a foot forward from the front of the rear wheel opening, and from the bottom edge of rocker panel (not the pinch weld) to the ground should be approximately 9 1/4 inch. I don't remember what the front was but its in the manual as well. Please look it up if you have the manual and if my numbers are off a little Don't Shoot Me!!! its been a number of years. Guy

 

You've got a pretty good memory Guy!
9.33" Rear
9.46" Front

 

I spent a lot of time investigating springs for my '70 a couple of years ago. Looked at the multiple retailers specs for spring rates, diameters, number of turns, etc. Even generated a couple of plots to try to determine installed height for the various choices. For the rear I selected Moog 5385 and for the front Moog 5536. Sorry I have yet to install them so my choice may end up to be a mistake. However, after all the homework I came to the conclusion all the springs available in the current market originate from Moog. I could certainly be wrong, anyone found differently?

 

Eaton Detroit Spring Co. They are a family owned Co. and they make their springs right in Detroit. I've dealt with them and they are good people. Look at their web sight and make your own decision.

 

I am an advocate of the 5536 front springs. I have posted many times that they give a nice ride height while maintaining exceptional ride quality - they are firm but not harsh.

 

I second Eaton Detroit Spring. They hooked me up with somewhat customized, but factory rated springs. Their website used to have a chart/form where you could select your year and car, then select among various versions of spring that would work (shorter, longer, stiffer, softer, and other combos). I'm not one for the lowered look - I bought my new springs from them in a 1 inch longer version so the car will ride higher both front and back when I get to the point of putting back down on the wheels from the jack-stands.

 

Some great feedback here helped me make my decision. I've ordered the Eaton Springs, #MC5294 & MC1293.

Thanks!

 

Just for Grins and Giggles, and argument. Does anybody have the specs. on the original GM springs that came in our cars?

 

From an earlier post in this thread- Best I've been able to decipher on springs, the 69 H/O rear spring is 9792489 [NP], around 127 lb/in rating, same as a 68 H/O and 442 and 69 442. Spring rate around (Front springs are 401420 [RX], about 485 lb/in rate w/o air. P/N 400334 [RI] for A/C cars).

I left out the "0" in the front spring part number earlier, but added it back in there (in bold). The spring rate info I have was garnered from OLD azz Oldsmobile mailing list posts back in the late 90s to which pieced the information together and then I memorialized on a Word document note. I don't know if these are GM specs or not. Part numbers were snagged from the PIM. Since these are 442 numbers, they still apply to both 442 and H/O. The NP and RI spring codes are documented from a 69 H/O with A/C build sheet. The "equivalent" Moog 5450 spring rate for the 400334 (A/C) front spring is listed as 450 lb/in. The "equivalent" Moog 5536 for the 401420 spring is listed at 487 lb/in. The "equivalent" Moog 5401 for the 9792489 rear spring is listed as 128 or 129 lb/in (seen it listed both ways).

As far as other makes/models/options, I'm sure Eaton springs has that info at their fingertips. Regardless, if I had a spring question, I'd probably give Eaton a call.

I'm sure there's a specification documentation for the factory springs somewhere.

 

Exactly. Without having the two spec. sheets side by side its a question mark. Both springs are fine, I do know that Federal Moog makes there parts in 16 different countrys including the USA. I like to be able to call someone up and talk to them about any question I would have, That means a lot to me (because I'm not real bright) and I can do that with Eaton. Like I said earlier everybody can make up their own mind for their own car and good for them. Guy

 

So I finally got the new Eaton springs installed and the engine back in the car. The issue I have now is the car is sitting at 11" from the rocker to ground level, approx. 1.5" higher front and back than it did on the original springs (in fact, the front sits a little over 11"). The car doesn't look right sitting this high. I was wondering if the new springs need to "settle in", but 1.5" is a lot to settle.

The Eaton site only lists one set of springs for the 69 H/O front and one set for the rear, which is what I ordered and received. I'm going to give them a call tomorrow and see if they are available to discuss.

Has anyone else experienced this??

 

As posted previously, I used Moog 5536 up front and the ride height is correct per the manual and hasn't changed noticeably in many years since installation.

 

Here’s the car I just finished for a friend. Eaton springs front/rear. Maybe sits a little high? But I’ve thought that with about every A-body I’ve done.

Owner loves how the car looks/sits.....

 

Still a tad high IMO. But certainly not objectionable.

This is a pic of an H/O in the showroom. Not the prototypes or promo cars, or overloaded convertibles in a parade, PIM information, etc. Just a car that the average 69 H/O potential owner would buy off the showroom floor. Literally. This is what I would consider a good example of a baseline ride height. Your opinion may differ. Assuming the gas tank is not full. The rear tip of the rear wheel well trim would split the rear center cap insert in half, or come in just below that, if you drew a horizontal line across it, and the rear of the front wheel well appears to have the body break line at the bottom of the fender would have that horizontal line lay on top of the wheel center cap insert. Roughly speaking.

 

Joz, I love the stance of your customer's car! I've always felt that most of Olds' cars sit too low. You can see in my signature below the '68 Cutlass on the left and the '69 4-4-2 in the middle are a tad higher than stock. I had changed out the springs on both to raise them a bit. The '68 4-4-2 on the right, in that picture, had not yet been lifted. It is currently on the jack-stands in my garage for a full mechanical resto, along with a few body and interior updates. I have installed taller springs (Eaton-Detroit) in the front, and have new/taller to go in the rear this summer. I will update pics when I get that part done. I like 'em a bit taller, as does your customer.

 

Thanks, good info. Judging by your description, I'm about 1" high in the rear and almost 1.5" high in the front. I was able to speak to a rep at Eaton earlier today. I told him the car is completely assembled except for the hood not being installed. He suggested I install the hood and drive the car for a period of time, thinking this could make it "relax" about an inch. That seems a bit hopeful to me but I'm willing to give it a try. If it doesn't come down after trying this, he asked me to call back in for further discussion. It will be a few more weeks before I get to take the car out, I'll let you all know how I make out.

Thanks for all your input!!

 

It may not settle much. In my limited experience in replacing springs, the springs don't sag about an 1" for YEARS.

 

Here's what I find in my references for the 1969 H/O OEM springs.

Front:
11.3" design height (install height I believe), 3.60" inside diameter
0.629" diameter wire, 109.0" length
Spring rate 435 lb per inch

Rear:
7.62" design height (install height), 5.50" inside diameter
0.540" diameter wire, 96.2" length
Spring rate 122 lb per inch

As a reference the Moog 5536 front:
11.00" install height, 3.60" inside diameter
0.687" diameter wire
Spring rate 487 lb per inch

My guess is the 5536, as it has a higher spring rate than the OEM, may actually have an install height more than the 11.00" stated. We'd have to compare free height (uninstalled height) for the two. The Moog 5536 is 15.06" but I don't know what the OEM is.

Please let us know what you ultimately figure out so we can learn from your experience.

 

Briane, where'd you get that info? I got the below part numbers out of the PIM. I wasn't aware H/Os were built with different springs than the 442.

 

Remember our cars came off assembly line as 442's with the 455 engine not much else different. The weight difference between the 400 and the 455 should be minimal

 

I have Moog 5536 springs up front and while I never measured the installed height, I measured the ride height per the CSM. I think my tires are 2" shorter than original equipment tires:

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...-height-73619/

 

The spring data I posted came from the Automotive Manufacturers Association form Oldsmobile filed for the 1969 Hurst Olds. It is interesting that they entered slightly different data for the 442. If we could compare original spring tags we's know if they were actually different or the same.

The problem with the information is they don't give the free height, only the installed height. Someone like Moog gives both. But we can't directly compare Moog's installed height to the Oldsmobile data as we don't know what weight Moog assumed.

Fun71, do you know what springs you have in the rear?

 

Interesting. The parts book information does not differentiate 69 H/O parts and 442 parts when it comes to springs, except for 4 speed or TH400 rear application for 442. And the PIM seems to be the only place that it seems to matter if there's A/C or not. Again, it's only showing 4400 series. And the AMA specs for the 442 are different than those you stated. I'm assuming since the AMA only shows one spec that I can find, it's for the base 442 model without any regard for options like A/C or like the way GM's parts book differentiates between rear springs based on transmission type. As usual, I could be wrong.

Regardless, if you can get the springs generally close, and the ride height where you like it, then really nothing else matters. It would be nice if there was a standard spring source to get it as close to "right" as it were.

442 AMA specs for reference:

 

This diagram is directly out of the '69 PIM. I never did accurately measure where my car sat for dimensions W and X before I disassembled it, but I would say it was pretty close to the numbers listed using the "calibrated eye" method. As I said I took the measurements after everything went back together and came up with the 11"+.

 

Could someone at Eaton have inadvertently made a mistake and sent the wrong springs? We are all Human. Except my Mother in Law I don't have any idea what she is!!!

 

Kind of. I replaced those in the 1990s with a set of springs from PST (Performance Suspension Technology). I just dug out the receipt and they are listed as "442 rear coil springs" with no specs provided. Sorry but not any help there.

 

The spring tag from my 19000 original mile Hurst Olds says "RX" as the spring code. This is a non air survivor car although the springs seem to have settled so measurements of ride height may not be all that helpful in a comparison. I have done several cars and always use Moog 5536 for non air and 5450 with air conditioning, finishing up a 69 Hurst Olds right now and it has 5536 in front seems a bit high right now but bumper and inner fenders are not installed yet so should settle in right where it should be when finished.

I even used the 5536 in my aluminum motor air conditioning car and ride height seems right where it should be although I have not measured this car either.

The pricing for Eaton seems very expensive compared to Moog

Off topic here does anyone have a part number for the 69 Hurst Olds dual gate cable??

 

ha!!!!

 

Good piece of information Fred. So your '69 Hurst Olds, and probably all of them, uses the same RX spring as the 442 w/o AC. It's interesting that the AMA sheet is slightly different for the two. Perhaps when that was prepared they envisioned using a different part for the two. What Moog spring have you decided works best for you at the rear?

 

I have been using Moog 5401 for my rear springs

 

I found this site where you can look up the Moog spring specs by part number. Some of the specs are slightly different than what is in my Excel database so perhaps the web site has updated (current) specs compared to my very old database.
https://www.moog-suspension-parts.co...il_springs.asp

 

Good info thanks for sharing.

 

BTW, I haven't run across a GM part number for the 69 H/O dual gate cable. I do know was originally obtained through Hurst if you needed a replacement. I used to have the Hurst p/n for it but misplaced it a long time ago. I still am running my original cable but I had contemplated on getting the repro. Why it is 53" is anyone's guess. I guess it was just a "standard" part for them that would/could fit 547 different vehicles for whatever they installed one of their shifters in.