MGExp

MGB & GT Forum

Anyone else have an issue with the Moss Suplex front springs?

Moss Motors
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor

tdskip Tom Smith
SoCal, CA, USA   USA
1959 MG MGA
I installed the Moss lower kit for the rear springs on my '75, and Moss said that the Surplex #264-381 front springs would lower the car a matching one inch.

Not even close, the springs are the same length as the ones I removed and don't have any extra compression just from the weight of the car.

Not overly happy at this point....super annoyed they apparently gave me the wrong part number and now I have to do one more round of R&R. Grrrr.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-10 05:49 PM by tdskip.

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
pdrsn Avatar
pdrsn Silver Member Eric Pedersen
Tualatin, OR, USA   USA
1974 MG MGB "Barnacle"
I too had ride height issues with the Suplex springs. My car is a '74 chrome bumper so your options may be different.

My experience is detailed in this thread: http://www.mgexp.com/phorum/read.php?1,3385822

Hoping it helps...

momsauto Avatar
momsauto Gold Member Dan Craig
Ozark, MO, USA   USA
1953 MG TD MkII "Margaret"
1960 MG MGA 1600 "Michael"
1972 MG MGB GT "Redrum"
1974 MG MGB GT V6 Conversion "Mel"    & more
Used 264-396 and lowering blocks in rear of my 78 - nice attitude and decent handling

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
DB Wood Avatar
DB Wood Gold Member Daniel Wood
Tumalo, OR, USA   USA
1969 MG MGB GT "Clyde"
1970 MG MGB GT
I replaced the sagging 8 year old red 550# 1" lowered springs with the same in the Suplex. I have been very happy with them. Proper ride height and no sagging in 3 years.



Dan Wood
70BGT driver, OD, Pertronix, HS4's, Peco, .060 over, Elgin cam, Superlite wheels, poly bushings, panhard rod, rear tube shocks, 1" lowered front end, HD shock valves, etc, etc.
68 MGB rebuilt engine D9 cam balanced, still a work in process but runs real nice.
88 Saab SPG Turbo
86 Vanagon Westy (South African conversion engine 2.0 OHC 135HP)

Lucas= Loose
Unsoldered
Connections
And
Splices

tdskip Tom Smith
SoCal, CA, USA   USA
1959 MG MGA
Thanks for the reply and shared experiences.

I think I need to call Moss and make sure they actually send the right ones over this time.

mgblestyle Avatar
mgblestyle Philip Shave
Olympia, WA, USA   USA
Tom, the Moss catalog has a recommendation to use #264-386 (480#) to lower the rubber bumper B. That's what I used and it worked out perfectly. There's a chart in the paper catalog showing ride heights for the various springs and it indeed shows the #264-381 as giving the HIGHEST ride height of any spring--those springs will not lower your car. Phil

Thurlowb Avatar
Thurlowb Silver Member Brad Thurlow
Coquitlam, BC, Canada   CAN
I added the “updated road - 264-386” from my stock ‘77, then later replaced those with the “road lowered”-264-389.

386 springs are visibly shorter than the stock ‘77 springs. They lowered the car by about 1”.

389 springs appear to be identical in height to the 386, but are stiffer. They did not change the the ride height from the 386 springs.

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
tdskip Tom Smith
SoCal, CA, USA   USA
1959 MG MGA
In reply to # 3679430 by mgblestyle Tom, the Moss catalog has a recommendation to use #264-386 (480#) to lower the rubber bumper B. That's what I used and it worked out perfectly. There's a chart in the paper catalog showing ride heights for the various springs and it indeed shows the #264-381 as giving the HIGHEST ride height of any spring--those springs will not lower your car. Phil

Thank you Phil. What I'm pissed off about is I specifically asked for the part number after explaining my car and what I was trying to do, so now I have to do it all over again and the car will be laid up while I wait for parts.

tdskip Tom Smith
SoCal, CA, USA   USA
1959 MG MGA
In reply to # 3679480 by Thurlowb I added the “updated road - 264-386” from my stock ‘77, then later replaced those with the “road lowered”-264-389.

386 springs are visibly shorter than the stock ‘77 springs. They lowered the car by about 1”.

389 springs appear to be identical in height to the 386, but are stiffer. They did not change the the ride height from the 386 springs.

Thank you for the additional information Brad, I'm glad you got it figured out

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
cstrong45 Avatar
cstrong45 Charles Strong
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA   USA
In reply to # 3679517 by tdskip
In reply to # 3679430 by mgblestyle Tom, the Moss catalog has a recommendation to use #264-386 (480#) to lower the rubber bumper B. That's what I used and it worked out perfectly. There's a chart in the paper catalog showing ride heights for the various springs and it indeed shows the #264-381 as giving the HIGHEST ride height of any spring--those springs will not lower your car. Phil

Thank you Phil. What I'm pissed off about is I specifically asked for the part number after explaining my car and what I was trying to do, so now I have to do it all over again and the car will be laid up while I wait for parts.

I used 264 396 Road / Sprint 550 lb and it lowered my front by 13.5 measured from the wheel cap to the center of the chrome. Its stiffer than what I took out but it dropped the front end. My B is rubber bumpered 78 which I put chrome bumpers on and is a GM V6.

darkleaf Avatar
darkleaf Gold Member Leif Jacobsen
Goleta, CA, USA   USA
In reply to # 3679105 by tdskip I think I need to call Moss and make sure they actually send the right ones over this time.

Please do give us a call so we can fix it for you.

The 264-386 springs go well with the lowering kit and keep the stance about the same. You can use the 264-389 (or even 264-396) springs if you want it raked forward a bit.

Leif Jacobsen
Moss Sales
888-813-4689

tdskip Tom Smith
SoCal, CA, USA   USA
1959 MG MGA
Thanks Leif

mgblestyle Avatar
mgblestyle Philip Shave
Olympia, WA, USA   USA
Tom, I see that Moss has replied and I'm sure they'll get it right for you. You will enjoy the lowered car! Phil

tdskip Tom Smith
SoCal, CA, USA   USA
1959 MG MGA
Hi folks, I wanted to follow up on this and let you know two things.

First, I very much appreciate everyone's help on let me know what worked to get the right right height.

Second, I wanted to give credit where due in public that Moss was very responsive in fixing the error and made it a very straightforward thing to resolve. I would specifically like to thank Matt and Leif from Moss for their help.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-02-13 07:06 PM by tdskip.


Attachments:
IMG_4639.JPG    38.1 KB
IMG_4639.JPG

Be Coming Avatar
Be Coming Kelvin Dodd
So. Calif., USA   USA
Tom - Your issue pointed out one of the problems we have had moving to a new web platform. In the catalog and on the old website, we had a list of recommended parts specifically for easily and reasonably lowering a rubber bumper car safely without structural work.

We lost the web plate when moving to the new platform, so only the catalog listing remained and it is a bit buried in the busy suspension section.

Leif and I recommended that we build a kit of the parts, since that will make it easy to list on the web and be easier for our customers (and salespeople) to get the right parts the first time.

Feedback is really important, as it gives us ideas on how to improve.

Kelvin (with Moss hat on)

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <

To add your reply, or post your own questions




Registration is FREE and takes less than a minute!


Having trouble posting or changing forum settings?
Read the Forum Help (FAQ) or contact the webmaster