MG-Cars.info
MG TD TF 1500 Leaf Spring Repairs versus Replacement BBS discussion at MG-Cars.info
MG-Cars.info
Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.
Parts
MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.
|
|
MG TD TF 1500 - Leaf Spring Repairs versus Replacement
| My 52 TD body sags about 3/4 inches at the right rear axle. No frame twist or damage, just tired leaf springs and deteriorated rubber pads. Local leaf spring repair shop wants $125 per leaf spring set to individually re-arch each of the seven leafs to WSM specs. If I add in two buffer plates and all the necessary rubber pads, bolts, etc. and some paint including shipping from Moss my total cost is around $360 to re-build However, if any of the leafs break or crack during re-arching or if the re-arched leaf spring sets re-sag again within a short time the repair shop does not want responsibility. If I buy new leaf springs from Moss plus two buffer plates my total cost plus shipping would be about $460. Those who have gone down this path before does it make more sense to pay the extra $100 and replace the leaf springs with new ones and be done it, knowing in my lifetime (I am the same age as my car) I probably won't have to deal with leaf springs again. Or do I try to preserve the leaf springs and stay original and roll the dice? Your thoughts are welcomed. Tim |
| Tim Debes |
| My experience is ALWAYS rebuild if possible. Usually replacement parts bring hidden gotchas you don't find out until later. Having said that I have never had my springs re-arched so I don't know what the likelyhood of them breaking after the fact are, but I would suspect very small. There is not much stress on these leaves since the car is so light. For normal driving I would think you would be OK. For racing or if it was a truck, maybe not. The only TD I ever saw with significant broken leaves was the TD pickup truck. We put a ton of stuff in that thing. |
| Christopher Couper |
| Since your sag is only one side you might try shuffling/exchanging the leaves left to right. Might not get you back to perfect ride height, but would at least get you even. Wouldn't cost much to try-- just the rubber bits. |
| David Littlefield |
| IMHO, I would go the new route,, then you don't have to.use any buffers between the leaves,, and you are working with new leaves, not ones that have already lost their ability to hold their shape,, In this case , new is better!! Steve |
| Steve Wincze |
| If you do replace your interleaf buffers then make sure they aren't too thick as this can increase the camber with potentially disastrous results to the rear apron & guards! Same applies if they get the camber wrong. See pic. Cheers Peter TD 5801 
|
| P Hehir |
| I reconstructed my springs and did not re-arch them, thinking along similar lines as Christopher. However, I did allow chance to rule as to which leaf returned to which spring. I used latex paint and primer to minimize reaction with the rubbers. Warmly, dave |
| Dave Braun |
| When I rebuilt my TF in 1970 I had a new top leaf made for each spring, and the others were then cut down to the size of the one below. The bottom leaf was thrown away. As far as I know (I sold the car and brought it back later) I'm still running the same springs. Incidentally, I didn't use inter-leaf rubbers. I greased all the leaves and bound the springs with friction tape. The action was beautifully smooth. Regards, David |
| David Provan |
| Peter, how does one determine that the interleaf buffers are too thick? In my case I've already rebuilt the springs so I can't measure the original eye to eye difference. However, too much camber from too thick buffers might explain a couple of other issues I'm having. |
| David Littlefield |
| Tim, If you decide to go down the rebuild route you may wish to contact John James, the editor of TTT2. He has available improved interleaf pads made of nylatron and also polyurethane pads for the spring clips, neither of which have I seen elsewhere. (I have recently bought them both and they look excellent). He also has the more commonly available poly bushes for other locations in the suspension. His prices are in my experience very reasonable. Michael |
| M R Calvert |
| I found out the hard way David. I assembled the springs & fitted them three times before I finally figured out what the problem was. With the new Moss (Grrr!) inter-leaf rubbers fitted, the rear shackles would suddenly spring up without warning, scaring the bejesus out of me! Fortunately the guards & apron weren't fitted, however I subsequently discovered that at least 3 other owners here weren't so lucky! Once the springs were reassembled with the original rubbers & the eye to eye measurement marked out on the floor, only then did I realize what what the problem was. After comparing that dimension to the decreased dimension between the eyes with the new rubbers, all became clear. As I mentioned on an earlier thread I had the original leaves sandblasted which revealed a set of punched dimples on the edge of each leaf. The set on one side had one dimple & the other had two so I was able to reassemble them as a a set. I also agree that in addressing Tim's issue above it MAY be as simple as swapping the driver's & passenger set, however this would be the normal remedy for a RHD car which more often than not has just one on board. But as this TD trundles about on the wrong side of the road in North America, this does not compute, unless of course there was always one seriously over-sized passenger! Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
| P Hehir |
| What? I think there may be one too many "what"'s in the post above.. Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
| P Hehir |
| Peter: I think Tim was advocating he randomly mix up the leaves, not just swap the spring sets left/right. I never saw the thread about the leaf pads so I guess I will have to seek it out. I cannot fathom how they could drastically change the pads enough to cause the problems you encountered. Must be huge! BTW I once swapped out the springs with the fenders in place. It's not an easy task (nar say impossible) because of the way they are set in on an angle. |
| Christopher Couper |
| With my restoration, I considered spring work... Either new or rebuilt. I was coached to take the springs apart, clean, replace rubbers and then check the camber against the WSM. I was not surprised that before I started, checking camber, the springs were not to spec. i was more surprised, that after cleaning, replacing rubbers, and re-assebly the springs were within spec. I was further coached to swap the springs side to side to counter the effect of the driver side sag. Worked a charm... cost of restore.... rubber kit, and paint. .. CR |
| C.R. Tyrell |
| Thanks for all the responses. Some additional facts about the TD. Car was completely restored 20 years ago by the PO who unfortunately died of cancer and I did not have the opportunity to discuss what was specificially done to the car. His restoration records (the ones which could be found) are incomplete. It appears to me the leaf springs were probably re-built in 1995 and they may have moved the left spring set over to the right side to compensate for the weight of the driver over time. That may explain why the right side now sags and not the left side as might be expected on a LHD car. Who knows if any re-arching was done twenty years ago. I may gamble and rebuild using the upgraded components from the Totally T Type recommendation and mark my garage floor documenting eye to eye measurements and arch curvature for each spring set. Then on reassembly experiment with mixing the leaf springs to create two reasonably equal leaf sets. I will check against the WSM dimensions for compliance to original standards as I do this exercise. Does seem like a reasonable path forward? |
| Tim Debes |
| I think he real answer is in the first post; >>However, if any of the leafs break or crack during re-arching or if the re-arched leaf spring sets re-sag again within a short time the repair shop does not want responsibility.<< Go new,,, Steve |
| Steve Wincze |
| It was the cumulative effect of the thicker interleaf rubbers that caused the problem Chris thus reducing the eye to eye measurement considerably. I was just lucky I caught it before the damage to the panels. Others here only found out after their cars were completely restored. And they were not at all happy! CR, Section I of the WSM deals with the rear springs however I could find no mention of the correct camber. The only reference to camber is a note that states; "When fitting new leaves it is important that they are of the correct length & thickness & have the same curvature as the remaining leaves." Tim my strong recommendation would be to ensure you don't reduce the existing assembled eye to eye measurement. Unfortunately there are no WSM dimensions. Measure the completely assembled sets prior to disassembly & however you reassemble them, DON'T reduce that dimension. Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
| P Hehir |
| Peter.. you are correct. I think the info I have on camber is in the TD restoration manual. Which one I don't exactly remember. I think Tim has got a good handle on the task. ... CR |
| C.R. Tyrell |
| I kept the offending rubbers & when I find them I'll measure their thickness with my digital vernier & post the result. Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
| P Hehir |
| Saw a reference in another thread to Bob McCluskey's website. Somehow he came up with 10.4 cm as the correct camber. Unfortunately, he doesn't name his source and isn't even sure how to measure it: http://members.optusnet.com.au/bobmccluskey/camber.html |
| David Littlefield |
| I know Bob so I'll give him a call. I had an email on this topic which I'll include my edited response to here; "All I can relate is my experience & that of others here. The eye to eye difference between the assembled set with the original rubbers, which are about half as thick as the Moss version, was about 2”. I had them in & out of the car & disassembled 3 times. This difference was enough to cause the rear shackle to travel upwards about 140 degrees. Had the guards & apron been fitted they both would have been trashed. This actually happened to 3 other TD owners here who also used the same interleaf rubbers. And boy were they p$#@*ed off! The problem only disappeared when I reused the original rubbers which were still in quite good condition. This was the only change that was made. The shortening of the eye to eye dimension & the springing up ONLY happened with the Moss rubbers. After much head scratching we decided to mark the eyes on the garage floor, first with the springs assembled with the Moss rubbers & then they were stripped & reassembled with the originals & again marked out on the floor. Same springs, original interleaf rubbers. This was the only change. The problem was immediately obvious! The dimension had increased by about 2” & the springing up of the rear shackle completely disappeared when the originals were reinstalled. Once fitted, no amount of levering could entice the rear shackle to spring up. We clearly had located the cause of the problem. There is only one possible conclusion that can be drawn from this & that is the thicker inserts DO affect the spring geometry by shortening the eye to eye dimension considerably & that effect is visible, measurable, radical & causes actual panel damage… Unless it’s me that’s missing something? Maybe Moss have subsequently changed the rubbers for something more like the originals. I certainly bloody well hope so! The offending Moss rubbers were purchased through Sportsparts here in Sydney about 6 years ago. The problems with the other TD’s go back about a decade. My sole motivation with my posts, apart from seeking information on repair rather than replacement, is to help prevent others from making the same mistakes that I’ve made either by using inappropriate methods or substandard aftermarket parts. I do appreciate your comments though even if you doubt the merit or veracity of our observations here". Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
| P Hehir |
| Tim, If you choose to rebuild your old springs, be aware that all the helper springs have a different dimension from the center pin to their respective front and back. That is, there is a long side and a short side. If you get it wrong, you will experience exactly what the gentlemen in Australia is struggling with. Putting the helper leads the wrong way around changes the eye to eye dimension, and puts the rear-most leaf stack clamp in a position where it will foul on the fender. You might experiment changing every other helper leaf left to right to cure your sagging problem. Good Luck. Gregory S. (708) 715-5517 LaGrange, Il (USA) |
| GMS Serduke |
| You are correct Gregory, there is indeed a long & a short side, however we did ensure that the springs were assembled on each occasion with the fronts to the front. Apart from the obvious difference in length the other guide is that all of the punched dimples on the edge of the springs are on the same side of the spring & line up in relation to each other, when assembled correctly. Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
| P Hehir |
| Peter, 2" is huge! As I understand, the thicker buffers are causing the springs to bend. It seems that tightening the clamps on the springs would be much more difficult with the thicker buffers, as well. Did you find that to be the case? In any case, I'm going to have to revisit my springs as I rebuilt them with Moss buffers over 20 years ago and I'm only just getting to the point in my restoration where the weight of the body and motor will be on them. The suspension is currently hanging while the car is on the lift and I find that the rear axle is too low to be able to fit the driveshaft or to route the exhaust properly under it. I had ascribed this to the lack of weight on the rear suspension, but it could be because there is too much camber in the springs. Did you measure the camber in the two cases, or just the eye to eye distance? If you did, what was the delta? Many thanks for keeping us informed. |
| David Littlefield |
| Hi David. Agreed 2" IS massive. We didn't bother accurately measuring this as the difference was blatantly obvious & we could see we'd clearly found the issue. The leaves were compressed together at the bolts & gradually opened out towards the thicker buffers. The nuts on the bolts were tightened to about the same torque in each case. I've subsequently looked at the gallery on Chris's site & elsewhere to see what an original set looked like on other cars. They all suggest there is no appreciable gap between the leaves, just as it was when we reinstated the original rubbers. We just compared the eye to eye on the garage floor. I now wish I had had my camera with me then as a picture is worth a thousand words. This problem was encountered & solved about 6 years ago. Thinking more about Gregory's comment if the springs were fitted "back to front' as he suggests surely the whole rear end would no longer be centered in the wheel well opening? As the dimples were all aligned in each case, the leaves were definitely correctly assembled. One dimple on each leaf in one set, two on the other. Once you lower your car the leaves will straighten under the car's weight. Look for the dimples on the edge of each leaf first though. If you have any concerns at all, remove the apron & rear guards as a precaution, prior to lowering the car. Good luck buddy. Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
| P Hehir |
| That's Peter's reply to my email above. I've had no problem with the Moss inserts. Here's part of what I sent him, which pertains to my experience in rebuilding my springs in 2010: The picture shows a rebuilt spring with the Moss inserts and a spring with what was left of the 60+ year old original inserts. I didn't measure the eye to eye distances while the springs were off the car and there's inevitably some distortion in the photo, but I did some playing around with photoshop and discovered that the radii of the two springs are identical, at least as far as I can determine graphically. The two eye-to-eye lines are exactly the same length and, again graphically at least, they match both springs. The camber is also the same as far as I can determine graphically. The two vertical lines are the same length. Joe 
|
| Joe Olson |
| David, Do you have the axle check straps on ? If not, the axle will hang down too far. This seems to be a recent problem, so something from 20 years ago likely fine. I had no problem in 2007, but have no clue where my pads came from. Of course 60 year old pads that have been in use will be flattened to paper thin, were true NOS pads measured for thickness? George |
| George Butz |
| Thanks Joe. Clearly my experience isn't universal. Hopefully David & Tim don't have the same problems that I & others here encountered. Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
| P Hehir |
| George, good question! No, the axle straps are not in place. That was going to be my next step before I read this thread. I would have to compress the spring to install them. Is that typical? |
| David Littlefield |
| I went down this road. I bought new springs on the advice that modern steel is better than the Post War steel they used back in the day. I fitted the new springs and it still sagged on the drivers side. A friend advised me to swap the front springs over. Fixed the problem straight away! AJ |
| A R Jones |
| The straps are made to limit downward axle travel. If they weren't there, the axle could travel down so far it would hit exhaust, break or bend shock links, etc. Put the wheels on and lower it on to the ground, not sure if enough weight without the body on but worth a try. George |
| George Butz |
| Peter, Maybe I did not state my initial post with sufficient clarity. I will try again. Obviously, the main leaf cannot be turned front to back,as the center-pin determines the location of the differential. However, all the other leaves have a front and a back. If you get them wrong, it changes the spring's weight carrying characteristics, and reduces the eye to eye dimension, I don't know what you are referring to with dimples, as I have never experienced this, but when properly installed the rear shackles will not be as inclined as you have shown in your picture. They will point in a more downward direction. I have used the parts available from Moss and have had no problem. I don't remember if the short side goes to the front or to the back, as I don't have a TD in my shop right now. I am speaking from experience, as I have made this same mistake myself, and had to scratch my head for awhile. Gregory S. |
| GMS Serduke |
| I understood you perfectly Gregory. The "helper" leaves as you describe them can all be installed back to front. No argument. Next time you're near a TD check out the edge of the springs. If you look carefully you will notice that each of the springs has a small dimple punched into the edge of the leaf, including the long spring with the eyes. These dimples are placed at exactly the same point on the spring set, above & below each other & were probably punched after the set was initially assembled. On each of the 3 times that I assembled the set these dimples were perfectly aligned. We both made sure of that. If there was no dimple on the long spring then you could possibly be correct, however that is NOT the case. These dimples were first discovered after I had the springs sandblasted. I kept them in two separate piles at the blasters to ensure that they weren't mixed up. On examination after blasting I then noticed that one set had one dimple & the other had two. On the first assembly with the new rubbers, we ensured that the smaller springs were in the correct orientation observing that all the dimples were perfectly aligned with the dimple on the long spring. When next at the car I'll take a snap & post a pic here. (Maybe these dimples are not ex factory & could have been placed there by a PO). But they DO exist on my car & were used as an aid to assembly of the springs. Had they been reversed as you suggest then they couldn't possibly have aligned. The dimples on the shorter springs would obviously then all be on the opposite side! Not sure what you mean by "inclined as you have shown in your picture"? The initial installation was as is shown. The car in the pic isn't mine & the pic was used just to illustrate the problem. As weight is added, (observe there is no body on the chassis), the shackle will certainly point in a more downward direction. The arrow in my pic indicates what happened to the shackle not that long after installation. As I said above maybe my experience isn't universal but there were four instances here of springs rearing up due to oversize interleaf rubbers. The problem disappeared once the thicker rubbers were replaced. My advice remains. (1) Check the eye to eye dimension before disassembly & after assembly of the set. (2) Examine each set for the punched dimples & ensure they align. Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
| P Hehir |
| Believe it or not, but long time back, when I was young, I worked in a workshop for lorries, where it was part of my job to, as you call it, re arch spring leaves for lorries by placing them on an anvil and giving them number of heavy blows along the whole length with a sledgehammer. To me it would have been more logic to place the leaves upside down. However, it worked and we could lift the chassis several inches by doing so. Sometimes we added an extra leaf and to lengthen the U-bolts we heated them in place with a gas torch and gave them also some blows to lengthen them enough to accept the extra leaf. I fully understand if you don't dare to try that on your car. A question is also how many km. it would last. But on the other hand, how many km per year do we drive our cars? |
| YS Strom |
| YS, For the few that only go a couple hundred miles each summer,,, re arch them,, but for the owners who drive their cars and enjoy them,, by all means, GO NEW !! Steve |
| Steve Wincze |
| Hello Tim. If interested I have a spare T.D. rear spring ( relatively new )in excellent condition C/W a new set of pads. Please e-mail me for further particulars or a photo . Thank you John |
| J .R.C Cavey |
| A maker of new springs in the UK is Jones Springs. www.jones-springs.co.uk Dave H |
| Dave Hill |
| A final thank you to all who have responded. Peter thank you for your wonderful detailed insight. As an engineer I will put this new knowledge to use and not make the mistake you discussed. Steve, going with new leaf springs will be my default option after I invest about $100 and try a re-build effort without re-arching. I am going this route first just for the experience and fun and hope I can stay original. There is no substitute for the knowledge gained by others who traveled this path before. Thanks to all for sharing their experiences. Peter, if you get to Ballarat say hi to Gwenda Bayley my mother-in-law's, brothers wife. My mother-in-law (since passed along with her brother) was a WWII bride to a US marine Master Sargent from the 1st Marine Division. Tim |
| Tim Debes |
| Tim I won't be at Ballarat but I'm sure Matthew will. I spend all of my spare time plodding away on the car, tackling each task after first gathering as much info as I can. Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
| P Hehir |
| Sometimes leaning to one side can be caused by a front spring not seated correctly around the upper spring retaining cup. This only happens when a coil is replaced and hangs up on one edge. I had that problem and it took me a long time to figure out why my car was a little higher on the right side, when I popped it in place, the car leveled out. PJ |
| Paul161 |
This thread was discussed between 23/01/2016 and 31/01/2016
MG TD TF 1500 index
This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG TD TF 1500 BBS now