0647    <<    Message Index    >>    0649
Number: 0648
From: cigarsandy
Date: Mon Mar 11, 2002  7:33 am
Subject: Re: "Shocking Theory"

Body:
I am about the farthest thing from being mechanical, or knowledgable
of things mechanical, but common sence seems to say that our
convertibles are much heavier than the little 2-door sedan they began
as. What with all of the under-body add'l. bracing asc installed,
the add'l. weight of the folded down top stack, I don't know the car
seems, feels & drives much heftier than a "stock" Mustang Coupe.
Therefore, it would seem to say that the problem must lie in the
SPRINGS. Is not the schocks main purpose to absorb shock, and the
spring do more of the job of keeping things level??? I would, if I
am correct so far, seem to say, Okay, our springs are 13-15 years
old, and have lost their "springy-ness" so I'd kinda look at them,
more so than the shocks. If you guys have replaced the factory
shocks, and still have tail-droopage, then don't 'ya think it's the
springs? My two personal choices would be a set of new original
springs, from Ford (order them for a 1993 Mustang), and a set of
Monroe Load Levelers (adjustable shocks). Just my .02 cents.
S A N D Y



--- In ascmclaren@y..., hanksgt <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I understand-its a fine line between self defense and excessive
> force. Depending on the judge and jury.
>
> I thought my '89 ASC was sagging in the rear. I bought the FRRP
> lowering springs. It still sits at exactly the same height as the
> ASC spings that were 10 years old. I bought the Tokico non-
> adjustable shocks at the same time. Not happy with them at all. Too
> soft and the driver side started to leak after 1,000 miles. I'm
> saving for a set of Koni's. Had them on my '69 Mach I. they were
> awesome. Great handling and not too firm.
>
> Let us know if you plan on visiting Phoenix again. Did you make it
> to the Pavillions in Scottsdale on Sat nite?
>
> Hank
> '89 ASC #176
> Phx, AZ
>
>
>

--- In ascmclaren@y..., "nysfop" <rc@f...> wrote:
> > Just got back from Ft. Lauderdale on business and while there
> found
> > and left a note on a dark brown, tan interior black topped 83-84
> Capri
> > based Roadster. Ratty shape BUT good for parts. No plates,
etc.
> > Just abandoned in a lot. This is the only other ASC I have ever
> seen
> > outside of my own, "live". Next: Hanksgt: I was in Phoenix in
> August
> > for ten days. As the crime and stolen vehicle stats are so high,
> I
> > would tend to agree with Sandy and perhaps wish for a return
> of "wild
> > west justice". Keep in mind however, the recent case where an
> injured
> > perp ( struck in the head by his victim ) wound up in court where
> he
> > SUCCESSFULLY won a case claiming "excessive" force by the
> victim ! !
> > as he protected himself from the robbers handgun. ( He beat him
> over
> > the head with a Bat ). Victim ordered to pay not only med
> expenses
> > but additional $$$$$ for "pain and suffering". And on that note,
> > should I go for any particular set of shocks ( ie. extra firm )
> for my
> > '85 Capri based ASC now that I have made the decision to run it
> for
> > the upcoming Summer. ALSO, mechanic said he was not sure why the
> car
> > sits somewhat lower in rear and that the replacement of the four
> > shocks ( with one presently leaking ) will not raise the rear.
> Anyone
> > have any thoughts. He also thought springs were fine...???