By Craig on Wednesday, August 15, 2001 - 02:41 pm: Edit

anyone have any specs on SsfariGard's ome 753 front springs? thanks in advance-
Craig

By JEEPETR on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 04:00 am: Edit

I've been told that they are approx. 150 Lbs/inch rate and 19.2" long. This was a long time ago, and an off the top of Greg Jevne's head specification, but the best I can do, hope it is of some help. I know they were used as front springs for Stage III Defender kits at one time, they are in mine....

~Scott T.
'95 D-90 (JEEPETR)
'96 Discovery (5-Speed)

By Discosaurus on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 05:15 am: Edit

753
150 lb/in
19.2" long

764
220 lb/in
17.9" long

hmmmmm...better to just use OME764's on a heavy Disco. leave those lite-ass boingers for the defender guys...

keith
discosaurus

By Ron on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 05:27 am: Edit

I think you are about an inch tall on the 764s

16.9
16.5

Ron

By Discosaurus on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 05:39 am: Edit

nope - verified the unweighted height before I put 'em on.

17.9"
17.6"

keith
discosaurus

By Ron on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 06:26 am: Edit

Interesting.

Ron

By al hang on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 06:35 am: Edit

i had a set that i sold to john lee, those were much closer to ron's specs. i think OME switched factories at a point in time cause i see a lot of variance with some of the OME springs.

By JEEPETR on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 06:51 am: Edit

Hey Keith,

I think we had this conversation once before. It seems that OME changed the 764 spring somewhere along the line of production, with the springs you have being an earlier variation. Last size I saw quoted from people who measured more recent springs was 16.9" for the tall one.

I used OME 758 (old medium duty rears 200 Lbs/inch, 17.2") with a 10 mm spring packer on the short spring in the front of my Disco, the 751's (230 lbs/inch, 16") were not cutting it, and the nose is still a little low (ARB Bumper, X9 winch) with the OME 759 rears and no cargo.

~Scott T.
'95 D-90 (JEEPETR)
'96 Discovery (5-Speed)

By Ron on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 06:55 am: Edit

The magic numbers for me are (I hope)

220# 17.5in fronts and
250# 18.25in rears

They are going in the mule this weekend so we shall see. Have to finalize the 110 spring choice before I spend $$$ on customs for it. Weekend after this I am going to drive around in Tom's back yard for a few hours and drive on the ramp and see how they do.

Ron

By JEEPETR on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 07:04 am: Edit

Hey Ron,

Ultimately I would have wanted a little more lift in the front. The truck had 751 front, 759 rears when I bought it, and I had the 758's sitting around, new in box so that's why I tried them. I ended up with measurements of 21.25 front and 21.75 rear (measured wheel center to fender lip). It evens out pretty well when I pack the back up with gear though, and my Wife likes the ride better to boot (still firm, but not quite as harsh on the sharp bumps)..... Good Luck with you testing this weekend!

~Scott T. (Posting more Silly Shit)
'95 D-90 (JEEPETR)
'96 Discovery (5-Speed)

By Craig on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 07:35 am: Edit

thanks for the help fellers-
I had a set of 753's fall in my lap. i think I'll go with the 764's.
Craig

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 07:50 am: Edit

How do you "old salts" feel about the no longer availiable 759 Spring. I have been thinking of re-introducing the spring(tweaked) as a rear retainment style spring.Any input to that?

By Ron on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:09 am: Edit

I am not old nor am I salty, but how much different would it be from the 285-325 lb/in progressive you have now?

I mean it was 260-300 progressive right?

Or am I missing something about it that was special?

Ron

I am hoping the 250# will stretch enough.

By Craig on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:11 am: Edit

John-
how do feel about using that 759 as a front? I believe that they are prog. 260-300lb-in. 764's are 250-290. I always felt that 764's as fronts were just a tad too soft. both are ps- 450mm and ds- 460mm. watcha think?
Craig

By Ron on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:12 am: Edit

My back hurts just thinking about those as fronts.



Ron

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:12 am: Edit

Is 759 benefit that extra 1-inch+, or are there other benes?

By Tom P. on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:18 am: Edit

John,

How about a 759, but 315lb. single rate???

Tom P.

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:25 am: Edit

The 260 part of the spring wrap is a close wind coil allowing more stretch with weight on it as well as more collapse, its a different prog rate approach than my 280 prog rate spring. The different type of winds create a different spring action really. I am using that prog rate close wrap approach on my new front spring which is a 22" spring but is a 225 rate on the reg part of the wind giving only a 3" lift with a 225 rate ride. And I dont think I would like that 759 spring on the front...bad back and too many years.

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:29 am: Edit

Tom, a 315 linier rate is a no-no....but your rears are riding about there now...

By Craig on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:38 am: Edit

I ran 764's in front before I went with John's early 3" fronts. the thing rode like a hovercraft. super extra bouncy. I could not find a decent setting for the Rechid 9000's to control the porpoising (sp?). You guys think that 10lbs per inch will make that much differnce?
spring talk makes me dizzy.
Craig

By Ron on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:42 am: Edit

John,

I will be interesting in the extra long progressive fronts when they come out.

Any chance we could make something similar for the 110 rears? (shut up Ron you think you know what you want!!!!! commit son commit!!!!)



Ron

PS if I know anything about springs it is that EVERYONE has different tastes!

By Craig on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:43 am: Edit

note-
not really stiff bouncy, but worn out caddilac shocks bouncy.
thanks
Craig

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 08:49 am: Edit

110 stuff is like the rest of the truck,,,expensive because its custom...but if you wish....hehehe

By Discosaurus on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:05 am: Edit

Hmmm - 759's, 'eh ?

I still run those in the back of the Disco w/ 0.5" spacer. They're kinda stiff, not tall enough for the evidently OLD style 18" 764's in the front AND the coils pack up under heavy compression.

Other then that, they're OK

I'm holding out for those 22 inchers, John !

keith
discosaurus

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:05 am: Edit

Yes Ron ,sorta like the metal tube with the rod in it...


Kyle

By Discosaurus on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:08 am: Edit

BTW - 764's are NOT progressive. They are a 220 lb/in straight rate spring. The commonly available info on the web is incorrect.

keith
discosaurus

By Ron on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:10 am: Edit

,sorta like the metal tube with the rod in it...

Huh?

Is this like the poodle analogy?

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:11 am: Edit

Ron, glad to hear you'll be installing John's springs this weekend. I look forward to your 762s. The 751 front / 762 rear OME setup should last me until my Disco is really MINE (read: until I get the wife her own LR). Then I can go with 3" RTE lift and all the associated goodies (already pushing the height limits for the wife, baby, and garage). An interesting side note - my 764s are destined for the front end of a D90...

By Ron on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:18 am: Edit

Yup the D90 guys always run them up front. Gives like 2.5 inches. The 17.5 220s I got were made by a D90 guy who wanted a little extra hieght up front but then went to a 3-link and . . . well springs change hands a lot.

Cheers
Ron

I will be installing them assuming the UPS guy or whoever John uses gets them to be in time for me to install them.

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:19 am: Edit

I want to do them an inch taller with the extra inch on the open wind for the packing problem. You say stiff ride which comes from the 260 rate packing so you are primarily on the 300 rate, which is a firm ride, but supports upper body roll better on RR'ers and esp. disco's at a 3" lift.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:29 am: Edit

Metal tube with a rod in it would be your shock..

kyle

By Discosaurus on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:34 am: Edit

Actually, a 759 that still has some 260 left and was, say 1.5-2.0" taller in the 260 would be cool ! When combined with that 22" front - well, sign me up !

Since there is a question about the 764 length, let me just say that using the DiscoWeb lift measurement standards, I'm running 21.75" in the front with a $G bumper and X9000 winch (with yarn). That's a 3" lift category spring - which it wouldn't be if the 764's I have were only 17" long...so, I guess they have changed.

Well, they'll be available if John get's those 22" units on the market ! I've got a freakin' spring farm next to my garage, already...

keith
discosaurus

By Ho Chung (Ho) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:37 am: Edit

john, 759s sound interesting.

however, there are several problems. the tight winds of the progressive spring will make the install of the retainer more difficult than in the non progressive rate springs. also, unless the EE spring retainers are used, other beef retainers are just too thick to be used with progressive rate springs without interfereing with the spring's compression.

if you are interested in making springs for the retained vehicles, look at an OME 781 which is just in between the current HD and MD. that woudl be a good spring for rear retained suspension setup. it's 295 lb/in rate, similar to my rear blue monsters. and 16.7 - 16.3 inches tall.

whichever way you go, just don't copy the EE retainers.

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:49 am: Edit

Ron, one thing to consider on the 250 rate linier...they will give a 250 ride which feels soft for the rear, but being linier doesnt say they are stretchy to what you may want..not knowing what you want in stretch...I feel a stretchy spring for the rear is still a close wind prog rate design...It will be interesting, but if they dont suit you I will take them back as we spoke of. Thats why I am looking for that 759 as a base spring to work from for retaining on the rear, it has merit, just needs tweaking.

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:53 am: Edit

Ho, the top wind will have notches to accomdate 1/4" retainers with built in bungee cords for extreme flexing...your retainers are outdated now...hehehe

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:56 am: Edit

But what happened to the ice cream cones ?? I was just about to get some.... damn the bad luck

kyle

By Ron on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 10:00 am: Edit

John,

I think I will be happy, I don't want that much stretch (say 3in tops) as the front won't flex that much (it will flex as much as a stock LR with 13year old bushings can ) so I think they will work great. I wanted to avoid the close wound progressive to keep the compressed hieght of the spring short as possible (whether this will happen or not I am not sure) but I will definately let you know how it works out. On the 110 I might go progressive for the rear as the compressed hieght of the spring will be much less of an issue as the tires will hit the top of the wheel well sooner.

Cheers
Ron

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 10:08 am: Edit

Improved ice cream cones are here as well, with a strenghtened web with a rod hole for inserting a rod between the coils thru the web, with a hitch pin each end to hold the rod in place, for random spring retention or for using the high lift jack in which case they take the travel out of the suspension. You can order now.

By Ron on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 10:13 am: Edit

Improved ice cream cones are here as well, with a strenghtened web with a rod
hole for inserting a rod between the coils thru the web, with a hitch pin each
end to hold the rod in place, for random spring retention

The "disco"nect idea!

Woo hoo!

You have to call them "disco"nects John.

Ron

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 10:15 am: Edit

So its a cone retainer,,,,,I see .

By John Lee on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 10:45 am: Edit

This may be the ideal test vehicle for the KKC.

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 10:53 am: Edit

I dont propose these to be in competition with EE spring retainers, as permanent spring retention is not the purpose intended. Its primary purpose is for taking out the susp. travel in using high lift jacks, and also can be used selectively in spring retention as needed. I personally do not want to start another contest, debate, ballyhoo, etc over this product. This is simply another product I see is needed in its intended use with the interested buyer purchasing these for their particular purpose.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 11:28 am: Edit

Man all I did was called it what it is ?? Debate? Cmon man , "selectable cone retainer" better? I think its pretty decent that you have addressed one of the reasons that the whole drop thing is over rated. I am just saying that in the end , there will be this big circle , all the way back to where everyone started.

Kyle

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 11:42 am: Edit

Kyle, nothing has been addressed to you,I even laugh about ice cream cones which is as good a name as any. I am clarifing to John Lee I have no interest in the KKC and its outcome or want to personally offer a product to do his test, nor am I addressing the big circle. I am just offering another cone product, and a retentive spring pattern because there are people looking for both.As always I want to give the people what they ask for. So....no problem here.

By John Lee on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 11:43 am: Edit

John,

LOL, take it easy. You're getting pissy again without any good reason. This wasn't some kind of showdown or something. I just threw out the KKC thing because you said this new retainable cone could be used for "for random spring retention".

If so, then I was thinking that Tom Pearson's KKC could be greatly simplified with the infusion of such a product. If Tom had such a product, he could run the KKC without having to dismantle his rear springs in the field. That's all I meant. No showdown intended.

Kyle falls just a hair short of calling your products crap and you don't say anything to him. Why is it I try to make a constructive post and you get pissy with me?

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 11:50 am: Edit

"So....no problem here."

As I said, just claifying...nothing else...nothing intended, nothing pissy...
So, no problem here....

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 11:52 am: Edit

Hmm
Damn Man , crap??? Naaaa , if I thought his stuff was crap I would say that. He knows it and I think everyone else knows it. I think he makes the best there is to be had. But , I think the dropping is a waste of time... Now I think drop is crap... that what you mean John Lee?? Man , that too much typing how about J1 and J2 ? You know I cant type....

Kyle

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 11:53 am: Edit

And you two be nice , I dont want some East Coast West Coast thing going on ending with someone getting shot at the MTV drop awards...

Kyle

By John on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Just another day on the web....

By Craig on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 12:57 pm: Edit

This is exacly why I don't post often. each time it turns into either an EE or RTE ad, or some pissing match about someone's dialouge.
signing off-
Craig

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 01:23 pm: Edit

boo frickin hoo

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Cmon Craig , dont be like that. You have to give both Johns some credit. I think it takes some balls to come here in an open forum and open yourself to public scrutiny . I give JBS shit , and I know he gets bent some times but he doesnt run off and pout about it. He still comes back and posts for people to read. John Lee is the same. Both are vendors and have something to lose . You dont see any other vendors here mixing it up with the people that buy what they got to sell and I think that says allot for both of these guys. At the same time you cant expect them to come here and not plug what they have to sell. They inturn cant cry when someone has an opinion about it and run off and hide. I cant see either of these two doing that , could happen I suppose but I think we would have lost if that does happen. I think the days of politely keeping your mouth shut about things because you dont want to rock the boat has come and gone.

Kyle

By Craig on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 02:40 pm: Edit

I hear you Kyle- calming down now
Gil- those weren't tears, it was spit.
I think somewhere up there Scott answered my question.
best of luck.
Craig

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Craig , I have also seen first hand that those springs suck. Chris has them on his stage three and that bastards leans one way one day and another the next.

Kyle

By Craig on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Kyle- thanks
Does Chris have a 3-link? We initially installed these springs on a Disco w/o the 3link. After installing the 3link, they seemed way too soft. hence the question about 759's. the 764's in front seemed too soft under an $G bumper w/winch and RTE front arms.
Craig

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 03:05 pm: Edit

No , the stage three arms which are just offset. I hear word that they arent using what Chris has now but I am not sure I would trust it. Just cause they say thats what the rate is I wouldnt buy it. If you still want em I think we are taking them out in the near future , I am sure he would sell em to ya...

Kyle

By Craig on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Kyle-
I have a set right now, just not installed. forgot I had them. If someone is looking for a set let me know.
Craig

By Chris von Czoernig (Chrisvonc) on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Since I think I am the only Chris with the Stage III kit (non-3link)that Kyle knows, I will safely assume he was talking about my springs.
Yes, their performance has been less than joyfull. Just stretched out OMEs and once they start sagging, man they go fast.
The primary parts of my kit (springs, Fox resevoir shocks, shock mounts, and bump stops) will be coming off VERY soon.