{Chrysler 300} New Springs Leaf

Hi All,

I talked with Mike (Eaton) about springs for the 300K. I mentioned that I liked the 7 leaf 300K RAM (I assume 300J also) springs better than the 6 leaf. My folks 300K had the six and I had switched it to the 7 leaf a couple of years before I sold it (Yes, I am an idiot).

We did a trip from San Francisco to Texas in 1964 and two trips down into Mexico in 1968 and 1969. When loaded with full baggage and a kid in the back seat the car hanged down very low in the rear. I remember on dirt roads in Mexico the tailpipe bottoming out in places.

The seven leaf 300K RAM spring specifications are:

Rate 125 (as is the front torsion bars) and the load is 800.

Mike has a set (part number ML9083) that is a seven leaf with a 135-pound spring rate and a 1000-pound load rating, it is also 1.5 inch higher.

Mikes take is that the rearends on these early 1960’s Chryslers were under-sprung.

Has anyone used the ML9083 spring? I would appreciate thoughts on this. For road trips we would be hauling a lot in the trunk, and we may have a couple of electric bicycles hanging off the back (hitch to be designed and implemented and that will add weight).

Also, can a couple of people with a 300J and 300K not RAM and 300K with RAM do me a favor? Can you measure the center of the rear wheel opening arch to the ground so I can get a baseline on rear ride height. I want to take that measurement and jack up the body 1.5 inch more and see how it will look.

Thanks, James

PS. Why am I changing 93K miles springs? Some idiot placed a “helper leaf” between the main leaf and the next one in the stack. The ends were cut crude with a torch, and it has no taper or anything else. Also, on the drive side it spit out a little to the right and was hitting the front housing as they also made it too long. I could see an unnatural slight bend in front couple of inches of the main leaf do to the point pressure of the helper spring. Of course all this because the stock 6 leaf if loaded has the ass on the ground, Mike is correct I think on this.