CC651 vs CC627

[tminer]

Yea, another spring thread. Sorry, but I want to make sure before I buy.

The MC list says that the cc651 is the Moog recommended cargo coil for g-bodies and that it could raise the rear end up to 1/2". I also saw where it will be about 1/2" lower than the cc627, which I have also seen as the recommended cargo coil for an '87 GN.

I want the cc's because of passenger weight (I'm one of them full figured fellas) and don't want any lower that stock with no passengers. I plan on using 5660's up front which should be about 1/2" lower than stock.

So, can anyone confirm the cc651 info (0-1/2" higher)? Will the cc627s jack it up even more?

Thanks,
Tom

 

[GNVAIR]

IMHO, I would stay away from the cargo coils. I had a lot of roll in the rear end of the car with them. By swapping to the 6435's, I have it almost completely eliminated.

 

[Jimn8or]

I installed CC627's and 5606's. The top of the front wheelwell sits 261/4" off the ground with a 205/70/15 T/A. I do not feel any additional body role I can account to the CC's, but do feel support and 'planting' power off the line. Only the rear upper control arms left to do on my car as far as all the suspension being replaced goes though.
HTH
Jim

 

[tminer]

Lee,
I am going to go with a bigger sway bar (1-1 & 1/8") to compensate. A lot of the aftermarket performance springs are progressive rate like the cargo coils. My understanding is that linear are better for cornering performance, but the progressive will be a softer better ride. The bar will take up the slack in the twisties without harshening the ride. The progressive are also better for straight line traction too.

Hey, I was right about that ATR bar, so maybe lightning will strike twice!

Tom

 

[GNVAIR]

MAP was the one who suggested the 6435's and they work like a champ with the stock bar AND there is no difference in ride quality. I think the Bilstein's made it stiffer than the coil springs.
I would like to try a slightly larger bar in the back just to compare and maybe fine tune it a little more. My car had the cargo coils on it already when I bought it and it just was way too soft in the back. The ATR bar just masked it. Basically, the ATR bar just binds the rear suspension up much the way the polyurethane bushings do. I am very pleased with the 6435's in combination with the 5660's on the front. I just have to drive the thing some more to get the springs to settle.
Jimn8or......with 205/70R15's, I honestly dont think you will be taking any corners very quickly to give an accurate comparison.
timiner........if it makes you feel any better, then yes, you are/were right about the ATR bar. I just know that the 6435's made a big difference with the stock sway bar. Cargo coils are not performance springs and are a little too soft for my liking.

 

[tminer]

Lee,
Did the 12" conversion lower the front any? I am not going to do that and am using the same 5660 fronts as you. I am concerned that the 6435s will be too low for me. It sounds like your stance is what I want, but I am thinking that the 12" lowers the front about 1/2".

Tom

 

[GNVAIR]

I could really give you an honest answer as I did the b body spindles and the springs at the same time.
My car sits up in the back right now. Then again I have barely drove it 100 miles with the new rear coils.

 

[Jimn8or]

Lee; The 205's are 2 weeks old and noted merely for the wheel well height as a refferrence. You are absolutely correct when you assumed that my car does not corner nearly as it did with all the rims the same size. I was under the assumption that the original Poster was looking for data concerning straight line acceleration, with the ability to handle temporary additional weight when accompanied by friends, thus my refference to the cc627's. In no way was I eluding to my car car out handling an office desk, let alone your car and its set-up.
Tminer; the link in my sig will show you empty ride height with the cc627's. The shot was taken prior to my new front end, skinnies and 5606's up front. HTH.
Regards,
Jim