RayD wrote:You’re right Bob, I wasn’t expecting they did – it was the only thing I could think off that would account the motion ratio affecting the spring rate differently from old to new. I’m sorry about that.
The motion ratio only has to be taken into account when looking at wheel to spring loads the ratio does not change
RayD wrote:I made this point earlier, it’s hardly worth bothering making a miniscule adjustment to the spring rate to account for the effort in turning the wishbone if the rate is going to randomly increased later.
As with all these things it is a compromise unless you want to get special springs made which just bumps the price up, better to select the nearest off the shelf part.
Here is a range of springs rates that could be fitted to the front
This is by no means that accurate as none of the other factors has been taken into account like spring pre load or the dynamics of the whole but it does give an idea of the range that is possible but I would be inclined to use the centre half a dozen so from 263.8 lb/in (closest 250 lb/in), softer than standard to 591 lb/in (closest 600 lb/in) the latter being a race setup and may require a visit to the dentist if used on the road.
It follows the rear should be similar but the rates will be typically just a tad over half the front and should go up in relation to front as it would not be a good idea to put the same springs on the rear as the front.
Bob
,
) was being supported by Jedi force 
)
