Having just replaced my original axle (4.55 ratio) with an axle with a 3.77 power-loc, we of course also freshened all the bushings etc.

As part of the effort, new spring pads were fitted. We elected to stay with the oem style rubber pads, not the updated poly ones.

Anyhow, upon removing the old springs and pad the plates that secured the pads around the center of the springs were flush (no gap) to the mating brackets fixed to the frame. Of course the old pads were shot and totally squeezed thin.

Upon fitting the new ones, it seems there is no way to completely tighten the 4 bolts to mate the bottom plate to the frame. With the pads being new, they are of course nice and thick. We have tightened them to what we think are very tight, but as the photos show there is still quite a bit of gap to be closed to get the plate flush to the frame.

Should the plated be tightened flush. Am not sure we can get there with out striping bolts/nuts. Looking at the old pads (pretty sure were original) the new one would have to be squeezed almost to half their original thickness and then some.

New grade 8 hardware was fitted. I do think that as the car is driven and the suspension settles that the plates should be tightened to take up any give of the new rubber pads. One thing that could help would be to fit metal spacers between the plate and the frame of suitable thickness to help stabilize the attachment.

Comments as to what is correct.and what am I missing here as to proper fitment.

Thanks
jjjsandsms
60 MK2 originally a 240, now fitted with a 3.8, moss 4sp with OD, and now the correct rear axle ratio.

 

The pads look wrong to me. The wider part of the rubber should be on the side away from the spring. Also, on the photo, there seems to be a plate between the rubber and the spring. I don't remember that as being there. I'll try to find some photos of mine tomorrow.

 

Did you remove the plate for the old rubber on both sides of the spring before fitting the new one?

This was the one I did on my MK2 2.4 a year or so back.

 

Yes both the top and bottom pads were replaced. Here is one of the pads from Moss of which of course 4 were needed


As far as fitting, the pads can only really go one way as despite the photo of the pad the center hole is much larger on one side than the other to allow for the bolt that holds the springs together. So the hole is recessed larger on one side and that side gets mated to the top and bottom of the spring.



jjsandsms

 

As far as the fitment of the pad see my reply to Homersimpson. The new pads were installed in the same orientation as the old ones. And as I pointed out in the other reply, the center hole in the pad is larger on one side than the other to allow clearance for the bolt that holds the springs together. Here is a better photo of what I mean, so they can only go one way around the spring. As far as seeing an extra plate, I believe what you are seeing is part of the spring itself as there is a piece of flat stock held by the bolt..




Thanks
jjsandsms

 

When you mention a piece of flat stock is this the same size as the mounting? If so then this needs to be removed as its part of the old mounting. Looking at the picture it does look like at lease one metal plate from the old mounting has been left in place and if this has been done on both sides then that would explain most of the gap you are seeing.

 

Sorry, it's often difficult to judge from photos in such awkward positions. Just for completeness, it goes spring leaf, thin plate attached to the rubber, rubber and finally clamp. I guess the next question must be the thickness and possibly stiffness of the rubber? When I've taken my springs out, I've put them back with the original rubber mounts, which has avoided this problem. As I said, I'll try to find my spare springs tomorrow and take a photo and measurements.

 

Here are a few photos of the as removed springs and there is no reason to believe that they removed parts are not original and never been touched.

Also the new pads I received from Moss have no steel plate as part of the part. They are all rubber. Which might lead one to believe that original pads might have had a steel plate as part of the part...or maybe. But in my case as the photos show, the extra plate being discussed seems to be actually part of the original spring and is captured by the bolt. So the mystery broadens.......

 

There is your issue, the rectangular metal plate is part of the old rubber mount, it would have originally been bonded to it but over time they become delaminated.

The new mounts you have should have a metal plate on the back of them, it may be that its inside them covered by a layer of rubber, if its not there and the new mounts just have a large hole in them then aren't made correctly. The mounts shoud be like this:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223623331...UaAq1HEALw_wcB

The rectangular plate needs removing from both sides of the spring.

 

With regard to the rectangular plates. The plates seem to be part of the spring design at least on my car, an early MK2 1960. Here are a couple of photos showing MK2 springs just like mine with what appear to be the plates bolted to the springs. Other than the photo I posted earlier I don't have pics of my removed springs but they are identical in construction to these.

I am not sure now if the pads I got from Moss have a plate in them or not since they are now installed, but they look identical to those just posted by Homersimpson.

To fix the issue I see maybe 2 paths. Path one is to remove the springs and remove the the plates which will seem to alter the original design of the spring. I am a bit reluctant to do that at the moment.

Path 2 I am thinking to make spacers (8) the equivalent of the thickness of the two plates and install them on the retaining bolts. This would seem to stabilize the plates and retain the proper tightness. Any thoughts on this approach.





Thanbks
jjsandsms

 

Looks like I am totally wrong with my installation. When all else fails read the manual and listen to the knowledge of forum members.

I do indeed have the pads installed wrong. The plates in the photos and still on my springs are from the old rubber pads which have separated from the the rubber as one of my photos show upon disassembly.

The manual has the center bolt being removed and the pad installed as per this drawing from the manual. So off come the springs to take out the center bolt, remove the old plates, flip over the pads from how i had then and then they get captured by the reinstallation of the bolt thru the spring.

Sorry to exercise this forum with my mistake, but I hope it might help another in the future.

The only question is I sure hope the pads purchased from Moss do indeed have the plates bonded in them




Thanks
jjsandsms

 

Exactly, the plate you see in Fig 5 is part of the rubber pad. Over years on the car, it separates from the rubber, but remains bolted to the spring. My factory original spares (if I could find them) came with the whole lot bolted together, springs and pads. Struggling with leaf springs makes the whole idea of converting to coils more attractive.

 

The pads come with the metal piece moulded in.
There should be no other parts or shim pieces in this mount system.
The rubber pad including the metal piece moulded in is 3/4 inch (19mm) thick.
I have just measured this on a spare set I have in storage.
I have replaced this spring mount pad system on a number of MK1 and MK2 cars and have never had any problems.
While you are working on the rear end have a serious look at the trailing link arm rubbers. Again and again I have seen these badly decayed.

 

I think this problem has been resolved, however, for future reference, here are some photos of factory original springs with their Metalalstik pads attached. As Bill wrote the thickness of the pad with its (just discernible) steel plate is a whisker under 3/4 inch.







In the last picture, you can see (a bit blurred) the BL tag with the part number. And yes they do deserve a bit of a clean and polish ...

 

I just finished removing the springs, installing the pads "correctly" I hope, and have everything back together. Road test tomorrow.

Just one comment, with the new pads it still takes quite a bit of force drawing up the 4 bolts to get the bottom plate mated to the flange. The pads supplied by Moss are correct with the metal plate bonded.

Many many thanks for all the advice and photos. I am not sure why I missed catching the proper installation as I do have the manual.

But anyhow THANKS

jjsandsms

 

Yes the rubber is quite tough but it does have the weight of the rear of the car on it, its quite common for the lower plate to be bent and you see some with a section of box section welded to them to strengthen them.

Glad you got it sorted.