Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,454 Posts
according to the information from fastpartsnetwark the spring codes at the bottom of the chart do not exist. The spring codes that are not filled out though do exist.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,124 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
These were all available at one time as these numbers originally came from Torrie at FPN. Ford I'm sure has discontinued many of the parts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
How about GUY/KUM or.......nevermind

But actually, whats the shortest rear spring besides JAR? Like what matches the RAN fronts in an actual "slo" setup.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,482 Posts
The weaker the better up front if you ask me. Get that front to sag as much as the back :lol2:

Though I bottom out enough as it is, but then again im running on orignal shock/springs at 150k miles. Yikes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
Hence the RAN/JAR springs: Sink the bow and raise that ass like the Titanic :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,124 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Gen 3 Taurus OEM springs 101

1. All the same axle springs use the same lbs per sq inch rating wire, i.e. 155 lbs for the front springs. The rears are less, 100 lbs.

2. All the same axle springs have the same ends so are interchangeable between vehicles.

3. All have the same axle springs are wound with the same number of coils.

4. The only thing that determines ride height and load capacity is the length of the spring. The SHO springs, which are the highest capacity and are also the longest, will give the lighter engined Vulcan and Duratec a higher ride height.

5. None of the springs are stiffer than the others. What is different is the amount of spring travel before bottoming out.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,124 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
More related info

Specification FENDER OPENING TO WHEEL CENTER
Vehicle Front Rear
1986-91 Taurus Sedan 399mm (15.69") 334mm (13.13")
1992-95 Taurus Sedan 409mm (16.10") 384mm (15.10")
1996-97 Taurus Sedan 415mm (16.34") 398mm (15.67")
1986-91 Taurus Wagon 403mm (15.87") 317mm (12.48")
1992-95 Taurus Wagon 414mm (16.29") 315mm (12.42")
1996-97 Taurus Wagon 413mm (16.26") 402mm (15.83")
1986-91 Sable Sedan 399mm (15.69") 268mm (10.57")
1992-95 Sable Sedan 409mm (16.10") 315mm (12.41")
1996-97 Sable Sedan 415mm (16.34") 398mm (15.67")
1986-91 Sable Wagon 403mm (15.87") 317mm (12.48")
1992-95 Sable Wagon 414mm (16.29") 315mm (12.42")
1996-97 Sable Wagon 413mm (16.26") 402mm (15.83")
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
So would it be good for me to go with the highest load capacity springs (KUM?) with new shocks to try and raise my rear end up and prevent it from sagging in the future, or does the Monroe Quick Strut Kit normally do it?

Or are Quick Strut users just having the same problems a few years down the road?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,800 Posts
I haven't heard of Quickstruts sagging prematurely like the stock rear springs do - mine definitely raised the rear back where it should be, but I can't speak personally on longevity since they only have about 100 miles on them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,124 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
You won't find the KUM springs unless used. And they will really raise the car up and show quite a bit of wheel gap.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,800 Posts
Every car is going to sag given enough time and exposure to the elements...tbut it did take them until 2004 to stop the springs from deciding they'd rather be in two pieces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
My 96 Sable wagon has TAX in the rear and LOW in the front. The chart does not provide the TAX spring ratings.

How will the Moog progressive springs for the rear work out. Will the load rating and ride be relative to what is on it from the factory.

Anyone who has put the MOOGs on a wagon(front or rear) care to share their experiences.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top