SS Springs for a 72 Duster...

I was looking for a pair of SS Springs on Mancini Racing's site...There's a bunch of different ones with different weights...
I weighed the 69 Dart and it was at 3240 so thinking the Duster may be a little heavier at 3300 or so.
The springs are for a 72 Duster with a 416 and a 727. 8 3/4 rear and 4.56 gears.
Which one would be the best to use? 3300 lb springs #MOP 865-866 or something different???

I ran the 002-003 springs in mine.........

I have the older 002-003's on mine... I think they have a thicker, stronger main leaf. they ride pretty high...

I've always ran the 456/457 B-Body springs on my stuff. Worked fine.

Matt beat me to it. This is what we used in a '72 Duster with a small block. Plants the tires hard,lots of extension, but it rides a little stiff in a street car.

002-003 here in 72 Demon

002/003 superstock springs on mine also. It sat way too high so I flipped the front hanger. To do this you need to open up the holes a little. Make sure you check the pinion angle afterward.

002/003

When we put the Dart together I had swapped the front perches upside down in it to lower the ride height too.
The rear is a 65 B Body 8 3/4 that I mocked up to use for the 69 but it was just a little too wide.
I just ordered the 002-003 but by the looks of things I'm not sure it matters a lot. Most of you guys in this thread are running faster than this ever will...
Thx all...

I used to have the 002/003's in my Duster but man it was violent. I had a friend video the launch one time and you could actually see it lifting the left rear tire off the ground while both front tires were off the ground as well. I decided to ditch them and went with CalTacs used their mono leafs and adjustable shocks. Didn't make the car any faster but it calmed it down considerably and made it way more consistent. Car ran mid tens.

Is this a track only car or a street car? I'm running two passenger side 2800lbs SS springs in bith my 3700lbs A-Body and similar weight E-body. They are the perfect spring rate for street use.

For a track only car, I would have used the specific left & right side springs to flatten out the body lean on hard launch.

Unless you strip a bunch of weight out of the Dart the Duster should be lighter than the Dart I've owned, built and race both, several different Dusters and all of them where lighter than my 1969 Dart GTS BB car stripped of the heater, radio and seats, it had a five point NHRA legal chrome moly bar in it with stock leaf springs and later the Mopar brand SS 002, 003 leaf springs It did have a all iron 440 motor with a 727 and 8 3/4 in it back then also

002 AND 003
if you do something silly like "lower" the high side etc you just ruined all of the research and development that Chrysler put into those items--it was extensive and cost a wad back in the day--They sit the way they sit so the car will LAUNCH correctly--change it so it "looks" better and you ruined it.
Super stock springs rely on the correct shocks to work right--they are designed for DRAG cars so the shocks that work on drag cars are dangerous on the street
You need something like Koni SPA-1's on the front set to full loose and some serious adjustables on the back NOT Ranchos etc Most stock guys now run the Caltracs but they are harsh on the street
McCandless ALWAYS insisted on 002 003 on an A Body They WORK !!!!

Define ruined. I just beat a Hellcat in a flag drop drag race with a 410 hp EFI'd 408 Magnum while running a pair of driver's side SS springs and Koni's all the way around set-up for open road handling.

Could my car be even quicker out of the hole for drag only use set-up with the original staggered spring rates, drag only shocks, and a pinion snubber. I'm sure by a few 10ths, but the trade off for the average person in drivability, ride quality, looks and overall performance is hardly worth paying for a negligable reduction in straight line launch times.

I'm just saying that a person has to use their own judgment and do some experimentation to find what works best for them. That's what Bob Tarrozi explained to me that he did when he spec'd out the SS springs and a pinion snubber they used on the Hemi cars of the late 60's.

I had a best 1.36 60 ft. with a set of 002/003 SS springs with 2 in. lowering blocks. They were on a Stock interior 72 Demon with a 360 on 100 shot NOS.

Well I have put SS springs on many cars and you cant leave it sitting as it is on some since they sit so far off level. I adjust the torsion bars to get the cars close to level and had never had a problem. I wont drive down the road with a car 4 inches high on one side then the other and they have all still hooked fine. I had to adjust the bars on my 63 after installing 3400 lb SS springs and it hooks great. I also dont use any special shocks as all I have in the back is the longer MP shocks that are basically a normal shock that extends farther. I did put a set of 90/10's up front and they work fine on the street as I drive it all the time on the street since my car is a 99% street car.
Here is a pic of my sons Dart with the 002 & 003 SS springs and this is how it sits after installing the SS springs and me adjusting the torsion bars so it sits close to level. Ron

I did the same. 456 and 457 springs on my '63 Dodge. I leveled it out and used CE 90/10 front shocks with the upper control arm bumper removed. Best of 1.60 60 ft. with 275'a so far but I have yet to race on a really good and warm prepped track.

As far as ride, it rides really nice! I figured it would be stiff but it's not! The car drives great on the street but I don't take corners fast with /6 torsion bars and no sway bar!

I couldn't be happier with it on the street.

I had 003's on both sides on a 65 dart (came to me that way as a roller) & they were great, it rode high and tight, daily driver. not sure if the 002 and 003 have a different height or a different rate (or both) but I'd look into that if that is a concern. EDIT I had 14's on there & it definitely was not jacked up from how the wheels looked but shock extensions were neeed

Even though I did something silly like "lowering" the high side by flipping the front hangers over if you look at the attached log sheet of a day at the track for the Duster and specifically at the 60 foot times for that day I think you might agree that it really didn't affect it. I know it's not a fast car but I think the repeat-ability in the 60 foot is "pretty" good. This is with the long Mopar shocks on the back with 255/60/15 MT ET street's and CE adjustables on the front with 6 cyl. with ac torsion bars. The second picture has the 2 best timeslips for the Duster. The 60 foot times on those aren't too bad either. The third picture is my Valiant that the springs were originally in. It seems like that car was working pretty good too. If Chrysler didn't want you to lower the front of the spring why did they make and sell adjustable front hangers through Direct Connection. Some say that lowering the front of the spring flattens it and increases the stiffness in the front segment. That may help some and hurt others but until you try it you won't know. To say that all Chryslers research has been ruined is silly. They were the KING's of trying different things.

Me thinks the Valiant had a signifenct oil leak onto the passenger headers, I'm sure you survive that run or you wouldn't be posting the picture. Did you get the oil leak or the cause of all that smoke corrected? If so what was it

It was a valve cover leak. I had the valve cover off just before that pass. They were cork and didn't like to be taken on and off. It ruined a good picture. Fixed it by getting better gaskets but don't remember which ones. That picture was from around 1995.

Make your choices on spring rate vs the car's weight.
Getting a 002 or 456 because you want the car to sit at a certain height is leaving a lot on the table.

The ride height can be corrected by, as said, flipping the front hanger, which is another tool to change the leverage of the front segment. Like D50, use lowering blocks. Or my favourite, have a local spring shop re arch or de arch to your liking.

As for front shocks, loose on extension and tight on compression. For the rear, they must be long enough to not prohibit travel on a launch and tight enough to control the extension.

Something different than antiquated 60s technology would be my choice. Like a mono or split mono spring

I'm all up for new and improved designs but how is a single leaf supposed to control axle wind up?

If its strong... but also.. those springs are meant to use
with the caltracs.. as long as the front section in front
of the caltrac is strong it will work fine... years ago
I made up my own set of springs with a 3/8" thick spring
steel mounted from the axle housing to the front eye and
left the back segment totally stock... the rear segment
is the ride rate and holds up the body..I drove that
every day so I didnt want a rough ride

Cal tracs will take the job of controlling wind up. As long as we all undertand you can not use mono leaf in place of Super Stocks.

I do like the idea of a mono spring weighing less than a SS spring but add in a set of Cal tracs and its probably just as heavy.

Cal-tracs work to the tune of a 1.04 60 ft. and the car sits and leaves nice n straight. I wouldn't ever want to go "backwards" personally........

Super Stock springs are VERY old tech. Yeah they may work decent, but there are better options. Seems to be pretty common knowledge that the springs just flat are not as GOOD as they used to be either, like the quality of the spring steel isn't what it was.

If I wasn't going to a Cal-Trac or similar, instead of buying Super Stock springs, I would scrounge some junkyard springs and build my own spring packs. There is NOTHING special about them. Stiff in the front, loose in the back.....nothing more. That's why the front segments are usually shorter, in an attempt to stiffen the front

FWIW.....I use the 456/457 springs on my 71 Demon.Has a 440 in it.

I backed my Caltracs off in a mis-guided attempt to make them livable on the street. The car quickly bent the front spring segment of the mono-leaf due to spring wrap. I ended up pulling and selling the set-up. They are great for a smooth race track, but brutal on the back on the open road.

My buddy had Cal Tracs on his street car and they were pretty noisy and rattled some. No big deal but I always like how the SS springs rode for me in my cars over the years so I went with the SS springs on my 63 and the car rides and drives very nice on them. I agree there are better options out there and if my car was a race only car I would have looked at it different. But the SS springs were much cheaper then the full Cal Trac setup and they do work fine for a mild street car like mine that see's the track once or twice a year at the most. I am not out to set a record and I can still race in some NSS races that use a full tree and even cut some decent lites on a full tree. Can I run on a Pro Tree ? Sure but I will get my butt kicked as I know my car wont do well on a Pro Tree with SS springs and no trans brake but I dont race on a Pro tree. I guess my point is that yes SS springs are old 60's technology but they do still work ok for me and what I do and I am sure they fit the bill for some others. If I was a serious racer I would be running Cal Tracs for sure but I like the ride the SS springs give me and I can still go to the track and have fun and do ok. I completely agree they are not the best in todays world but for a guy on a tight budget with a mild driver street/strip car like me they work ok. Ron

The JRS springs that Mancini sells as USA made SS springs sagged about a year or so after they were installed. They worked okay but not optimum and as you'll probably already know, weight was not the culprit.
Like 383 said, they are okay for a mild to warmer/street/strip combo. Keep in mind that these newer springs may work better on some cars more than most and that is factored with many variables like convertor, driver, tires, track conditions, tuning, etc etc.....
The old original USA and Canada made SS springs were the darlings of yore, but only a true few NOS specimens are still around in peoples basements and are the likes of a treasure hunt to find.
I know of a 002-003 set of springs still in possession of someone here in Brooklyn since the 70's, but he does not want to sell 'em even though he is not racing anymore.

I personally love the old stealth look and to a certain extent, the old performance of the old original SS springs, but to try and catch up with today's technology, the only viable set ups that I have seen that work are the Tri-city launchers. Surprisingly, they are maybe a pound or two in weight over the Mancini SS springs and like Monte mentioned, it's all about the main spring, the thickness and the spring rate at front compared to the rear.
I have recently SPRUNG for a pair (They are up to or just under the cost of a Caltrac system) and we'll see how they fair after more TNT. So far, they are potent.
I bet some people have made their own and come off with good numbers.

Just the other day when I was calibrating my
speedo I had my buddy ride along...he commented
how nice my car rode.. thats with ladder bars
and struts in front. with coil overs in back..
he thought it was gonna be a rough ride.. he said
it rides better than his truck with caltracs and leafs

Here is the thing many miss, even the guys with Cal-Traks, ladder bars, struts, 4 links, whatever. The car does NOT ride bad because you have one of the above for suspension. It rides bad because MOST people grossly overspring their car. You put log wagon springs on it, don't be surprised when it rides like one. Guys with cal-tracs, it's NOT the bars that makes it ride rough, it's the spring. The rear segment of the spring is what the car rides on, with bars and if it rides really hard, you have too stiff a rear segment most likely

Yep.. I think I have 100#/per inch springs on
my Rampage.. they might be 110#..I had to get
a different set for both ends of the car.. the
fronts were too stiff and the backs were a bit
light(with a full tank of fuel).. I missed it by
10# on the rear springs