Is this how my rear springs should look?

[Bananaman]

Evening all,

So, i was under the back of my recently acquired daily, a VG (VN..) commodore ute. (Yes, i realise that such a car is the anti-christ on here, but oh well ).

We changed the front springs and shocks on sunday, and i changed the rear shocks tonight. Looking at the springs, something doesn't seem right to me, the way that the top few coils are compressed together.. The rear is also quite harsh, so my theory was that this is a progressive spring that has sagged, and is just leaving me with the overly stiff bit?



I'm yet to drive it with the new shocks, but this theory works in my head. Having the top few coils that soft for the sake of retaining the spring strikes me as a bit odd.

Any thoughts? Anyone got experience with these?

Thanks
Bardin

[Bananaman]

I should add that yes, these are king springs, and without looking i assume they are the same as the fronts and are lows, not superlows. Its not excessively low to the ground or anything like that..

[Norbie]

I think you'll find the upper coils are just there to ensure the springs remain captive at full droop, and are inactive during normal operation.

[Bananaman]

I think you'll find the upper coils are just there to ensure the springs remain captive at full droop, and are inactive during normal operation.

I wondered that as i said, but 3-4 coils seems excessive?

On a related note, i replaced the front springs to get a bit of extra height because it has a low front bar on it (HSV? Group A? i don't know) - anyhow, the kings required use of spring compressors, while the lovells that i replaced them with, did not, to the point where they could have been a bit taller and still not been captive. It would be interesting to see how the lovells rear compares...

[roadsailing]

yeah they are just dead coils to make sure they stay captive at full droop.
may be nosier for it, but this is what they should look like.