• Hi Guest!
    If you appreciate British Car Forum and our 25 years of supporting British car enthusiasts with technical and anicdotal information, collected from our thousands of great members, please support us with a low-cost subscription. You can become a supporting member for less than the dues of most car clubs.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Identify these BJ8 springs?

Share this page

CLEAH

CLEAH

Jedi Warrior
Country flag
Offline
Much to my surprise, the rear springs from my BJ8 are different. My dad bought the car in 1978, and these were already on the car, but we never noticed that they are different. One is much heavier duty, with a lot less arc. The ride height is identical side to side. Are they both Austin Healey, but possibly from different models?
 

Attachments

  • BJ8 Springs.jpg
    BJ8 Springs.jpg
    76.4 KB · Views: 192
The guess here Hugh is yes:

A previous owner used different springs to get the ride height the same on both sides of the car.

My guess says the heavier spring was on the driver's side.

However,The rear spings for a BJ8 come in Identical pairs and are unique to each model car.
 
Keoke said:
My guess says the heavier spring was on the driver's side.
Click to expand...

Nope. The heavier spring was on the passenger side. The lighter weight one looks like AH to me. Wondering if the heavier one was from an earlier big Healey, or if it is off of something else altogether.
 
Well the heavier spring does not look like a BJ8 spring to me>-????

Prolly had a fat passenger.:glee:
 
I do not think so Rick.

If you open his pcture up of the bettom spring you will see the leaf one up from the bottom appears to have its end bend down @ 90 Deg.???
 
Keoke said:
I do not think so Rick.

If you open his pcture up of the bettom spring you will see the leaf one up from the bottom appears to have its end bend down @ 90 Deg.???
Click to expand...

Definitely the same:

20rletw.jpg


Pay no attention to the spring leaf with the red arrow. That's the "traction master" leaf I added. Look at the two yellow arrows. You'll see the spring ends are bent at 90 degrees as you mentioned. Moss shows this style spring as being fitted from BN1s through BJ8 chassis #26704

AHY-052_1.gif


And the top spring in CLEAH's photo looks like the spring Moss shows for the later BJ8s

AHY-053.gif

The difference in springs may be no more exotic than the car broke a spring at some point and the owner went to a junkyard to get a replacement and grabbed one from an earlier car, not realizing there was a difference.

Edit - On second look, CLEAH's top spring doesn't look exactly like the Moss later BJ8 spring, either. Maybe someone with a later BJ8 can identify the top one?
 
OH OK Rick, I missed the folded down leaf in your picture, I see it now . I have never run into
an early set like that.

Course i do not work on em OLD cars.:glee:
 
Last edited:
The bottom one appears to be the early type as mentioned by Rick. The top one is arced like a PhaseII BJ8 spring, which is softer but gives the higher and unattractive ride height. It's slightly strange if your car rides level.
 
Thanks guys. I had intended to reuse the original springs because the ride height is the way I like it and I do not want to deal with new springs putting the rear end of the car up in the air, which ruins the line of the car. I guess I still will reuse the springs, since they worked fine before disassembly.
 
As Rick indicated, the bottom spring is a BJ8....a P1 spring and the top spring looks like an aftermarket P2 spring. Moss sold a number of aftermarket springs that were not exactly as original. By the look of the springs, I would guess your BJ8 is a Phase 1 as the bottom spring looks original. However, if you have a P2, I would surmise that both springs were changed, but not at the same time. In either case, one spring is wrong for the car.

I appreciate your desire to keep the ride height you have but the springs you have will react differently and unevenly. I would suggest you consider replacing both springs with a matched set designed for your model BJ8.

Ray (64BJ8P1)
 
Thanks Ray. The car is a P2, and yes, I thought about the potential that the springs may behave differently, but we've driven the car with these springs since 1978 without complaint. I never noticed a difference until I removed them from the car and plunked them on the bench! I'll put these aside for now and worry about it once I get farther into the restoration.
 
Hi Hugh,

Not wanting to continue this discussion if you are satisfied but I am a little confused. If you have a P2 BJ8, the lighter spring would be appropriate and not the heaver straighter one. The suspension was altered in the P2 to provide a more subtle rear suspension by increasing vertical travel by arching the frame and lightening the springs. Along with other complementing changes, this was to provide better traction and ground clearance. The P1 retains the straight frame with the stiffer straighter springs.

If you have a P2 BJ8, how is your suspension set up? Do you still have the shock links ?

Ray (64BJ8P1)
 
If you have a P2 BJ8, Do you still have the shock links ?

Yep shock links are still used.
However, putting P1 springs on a P2 car will put the resonators down in harms way.
Additionally, installing aftermarket matched springs will not guarantee that you car will set level side to side and some fiddling may still be required.
 
All interesting comments. The P1 spring was on the right side of the car, and I can say that we never dragged a resonator on that side. Also Ray, both shackles are P2, and both sides had the P2 u bolt plate, locating plates, and seating pads. All I can say that whatever I do, my priority will be ride height. In my opinion, many restored cars sit too high, compromising the design, and some cars sit so high they look silly.
 
Hugh,

Totally agree with you. It's hard to tell what was going on with BMC/Healey near the end of production. I think there might have been some last ditch efforts to try to meet the bumper height safety standards that were coming into play in 1968. But the Phase II rear wheel fender spacing just looks wrong and doesn't help the classic Healey lines. I'd want to make my Phase II look more like the earlier cars, too, if it were me. BTW, always enjoy you BaT comments.
 
Back
Top