Is this normal for new leaf springs?

[84FLH]

Brand new Dayton 43-1159 spring set. No weight in vehicle. Nothing in cargo area but jumper cables. Less than 100 miles on vehicle when pics taken last week. Dayton rep says this is normal. I say it's not. Spring pack not just flat, but has reverse bow over spring perch (a/k/a shock mount).

 

[BKennedy]

Looks like they are already sagging. Are they sitting on the overload leaf, because that's not right.

 

[84FLH]

That's right BKennedy. And the vehicle is empty. No occupants, nothing in cargo area. Can't imagine the springs could handle 1,100 lbs in this condition without taking a permanent bend and endangering safety and handling. But a Dayton rep tells me Dayton's "SRI" (spring rate index?) says these springs should have 1.5" reverse bow in the arch at full load (1,100 lbs). I'd find that hard to believe except tonight I read in my research that some springs are designed to have a reverse bow ("negative arch") under load.

But these Dayton's are still putting my rear end about 1.5" lower than stock springs.

 

[J_C]

If they leave the ride height lower than stock (new, before years of continued sagging) they are not right. Doesn't matter what their system states is acceptable for the part, if it is performing to their specs then it is still an inappropriate match for the vehicle.

Looking at their part #'s, it seems like instead of the 1100lb rated 43-1159, you should use latter link below, the 1250lb rated #43-967 ... I could be wrong! The 1250lb have less arch so maybe Dayton has dropped the ball and getting Chinese springs now?

Web Hosting by InMotion Hosting

Web Hosting by InMotion Hosting

Consider that even their Explorer Sport (which weighs less) part #43-1183, is an 1131lb rated spring:

Web Hosting by InMotion Hosting

 

[BKennedy]

If their sitting on the overload leaf, its not going to ride correctly. That lower spring is for when it has a more than normal load to keep the springs from going negative. Those are not right. I remember my OEM springs having quite a bit of arch to them.

 

[84FLH]

JC;

All the oem Ford parts websites show the 1100 lb spring (pn F57Z-5560-A and D) for the 4DR Mounty and Explorer. I don't know what Ford/Merc model the 1200 lb springs are for. A local spring shop told me they use the 1200 lb spring all the time instead of the 1100 lb on Explorers. At that time I didn't know enough to ask if it changed ride height, so I ordered the 1100 lb springs from Stengel Brothers, online. Jack Stengel there has treated me very well.

In his two emails to me, the Dayton guy hasn't said the springs are sitting correctly. All he said is they're designed to have 1.5" negative arch under full load. I find that hard to believe for two reasons. (1) My original springs never sat like this. (2) I can't imagine these springs in this position (flat) can handle 1100 lbs without compromising handling and safety, or even cracking. That said, springs are the Dayton guy's living and Dayton could've engineered their springs this way. But again, my OEM springs (when new) didn't sit this way.

I'm going to the local spring shop today for their opinion. Tomorrow I'm going to a Ford dealer for their opinion. Here's the email I'll be sending the Dayton rep today.

Jordan;

The pics I sent show each spring sitting on it's overload spring. That's in a vehicle with no occupants and nothing in cargo area. This was not how my OEM Ford springs (FOMOCO marked) sat when the vehicle was new. Just so I understand, are you claiming these springs:

1. Are designed for all 3 leaves to sit flat on the overload springs in an empty vehicle?

2. Which are riding flat on the overload spring, can handle 1,100 lbs without compromising vehicle handling and safety?

3. When subjected to 1,100 lbs, won't take a set, but will return to their current, albeit flat, position?

Also, see here:
Is this normal for new leaf springs?

Thanks,

 

[CDW6212R]

JC;

All the oem Ford parts websites show the 1100 lb spring (pn F57Z-5560-A and D) for the 4DR Mounty and Explorer. I don't know what Ford/Merc model the 1200 lb springs are for. A local spring shop told me they use the 1200 lb spring all the time instead of the 1100 lb on Explorers. At that time I didn't know enough to ask if it changed ride height, so I ordered the 1100 lb springs from Stengel Brothers, online. Jack Stengel there has treated me very well.

In his two emails to me, the Dayton guy hasn't said the springs are sitting correctly. All he said is they're designed to have 1.5" negative arch under full load. I find that hard to believe for two reasons. (1) My original springs never sat like this. (2) I can't imagine these springs in this position (flat) can handle 1100 lbs without compromising handling and safety, or even cracking. That said, springs are the Dayton guy's living and Dayton could've engineered their springs this way. But again, my OEM springs (when new) didn't sit this way.

I'm going to the local spring shop today for their opinion. Tomorrow I'm going to a Ford dealer for their opinion. Here's the email I'll be sending the Dayton rep today.

Jordan;

The pics I sent show each spring sitting on it's overload spring. That's in a vehicle with no occupants and nothing in cargo area. This was not how my OEM Ford springs (FOMOCO marked) sat when the vehicle was new. Just so I understand, are you claiming these springs:

1. Are designed for all 3 leaves to sit flat on the overload springs in an empty vehicle?

2. Which are riding flat on the overload spring, can handle 1,100 lbs without compromising vehicle handling and safety?

3. When subjected to 1,100 lbs, won't take a set, but will return to their current, albeit flat, position?

Also, see here:
Is this normal for new leaf springs?

Thanks,

That message to send, is missing a major item for an inquiry or complaint. It needs a suggested remedy included, some direction they see that you want to go. I would suggest either a refund, or the heavier spring set they have.

Try to word messages with proposals to correct the problem. Otherwise they see them as just a complaint, and either become defensive, or ignore it.

I hope you get a good resolution.

 

[84FLH]

That message to send, is missing a major item for an inquiry or complaint. It needs a suggested remedy included, some direction they see that you want to go. I would suggest either a refund, or the heavier spring set they have.

Try to word messages with proposals to correct the problem. Otherwise they see them as just a complaint, and either become defensive, or ignore it.

I hope you get a good resolution.

Hi Sailor,

Dayton has offered to send replacement 43-1159 (1100 lb) or 43-967 (1250 lb) and UPS label to return these.

But they haven't answered my questions, hence the (3rd) email to them.

Not sure which way I'm going yet on this.

 

[Mbrooks420]

Those springs aren’t heavy enough. Swap for heavier, or return for your money back and buy them from somewhere else like OME.

 

[BKennedy]

I would take them up on the heavier springs and return those

 

[Mr. Alligator]

There sure seems to be a problem here, just looking at your photos. I doubt you will get a satisfactory answer to your interrogatories.

Since you have an offer for a replacement, take action. I would go with the heavier springs.

Good luck.

 

[CDW6212R]

Ditto, accept the heavier springs if you think they will meet your needs. If you suspect that there's something wrong with the quality, or customer service, you might do better to get your money back.

 

[Mr. Alligator]

That message to send, is missing a major item for an inquiry or complaint. It needs a suggested remedy included, some direction they see that you want to go. I would suggest either a refund, or the heavier spring set they have.

Try to word messages with proposals to correct the problem. Otherwise they see them as just a complaint, and either become defensive, or ignore it.

I hope you get a good resolution.

Yep. Should have a proposed resolution for sure.

Another idea for these type of messages is to include genuine compliments. Example: “I have always appreciated the honesty and integrity of Dayton Spring Company”, or something else sincere. This can sort of obligate the company representative to do their best to be decent and helpful. And it is the opposite of “look at these stupid inferior springs”.

Good luck with this!

 

[84FLH]

There sure seems to be a problem here, just looking at your photos. I doubt you will get a satisfactory answer to your interrogatories.

Since you have an offer for a replacement, take action. I would go with the heavier springs.

Good luck.

Ahhhhh. "Interrogatories". Correct, counselor; I assume? Probably correct assessment. Hard to find honest business these days. Everyone obfuscates, misdirects. It's never their or their company's fault. No one takes responsibility. Just like Congress.

Will consider those heavier springs. Thank you for the advice.

 

[84FLH]

Those springs aren’t heavy enough. Swap for heavier, or return for your money back and buy them from somewhere else like OME.

Thanks, Brooks. Consensus growing springs not heavy enough. Will look into OME.

Ditto, accept the heavier springs if you think they will meet your needs. If you suspect that there's something wrong with the quality, or customer service, you might do better to get your money back.

Dayton's offered to exchange for another pair of 43-1159 or 1,200 lb 43-967, and provide UPS return shipping label. That's pretty good, but then again the pictures are shocking.

The one thing Dayton hasn't done is answer my questions. So I modified and sent the email I posted someplace in this thread to Dayton. I want to know if they're claiming that leaves collapsed onto the overload spring is normal for this spring. Ditto for the slight reverse bow under the axle.

 

[Mbrooks420]

I’d want a better resolution than replaced springs. My time is worth more than free return shipping.

 

[joney]

Thanks, Brooks. Consensus growing springs not heavy enough. Will look into OME.

Dayton's offered to exchange for another pair of 43-1159 or 1,200 lb 43-967, and provide UPS return shipping label. That's pretty good, but then again the pictures are shocking.

The one thing Dayton hasn't done is answer my questions. So I modified and sent the email I posted someplace in this thread to Dayton. I want to know if they're claiming that leaves collapsed onto the overload spring is normal for this spring. Ditto for the slight reverse bow under the axle.

Honestly, the replies you got from Dayton seems like the rep doesn't know what he's talking about. NEVER have I seen any leaf spring designed to go flat like that.

 

[BKennedy]

He knew what he was talking about, he also knew he did not want to eat a set of leaf springs. Customer service is not what is used to be so the customer has to be more assertive when dealing with them.

 

[Mbrooks420]

Lots of leaves are supposed to go flat, but only at their load rating.

 

[dvdswan]

I’d want a better resolution than replaced springs. My time is worth more than free return shipping.

Sadly, customer service isn't there like it was 40 years ago. Companies used to go "above and beyond" for customers.