phutch11

Since you are going Pro-Touring and have a big $ front suspension why not go fiberglass?

http://www.flex-a-form.com/

MonsterBilly

i have the 4.5 mideyes in my 66 coupe. i feel that the car should sit lower. i am running 17x8" wheels with 245 45 17s.
the ride is fine.
i purchased them from laurel mountain mustang so im not sure who manufactured them. I also bought the factory replacement shackels

sentipede

I am trying to figure out what to go with on my 67FB. I am ordering a set of Koni Classics and reverse eye leaf springs. Just trying to figure out whether I should go with 4 or 4.5-Leafs? I do not want to be bottoming out, but I do want a comfortable ride.... Suggestions?

2+2GT

I have stock GT 4-leaf. Only way it bottoms is if I do the Dukes of Hazzard over RR crossings.

67mustang302

Leaf selection depends on what you want to do. I run 5 leaf mid eyes, but the car sees the track(when I have money). I don't find it too stiff, but it definitely is firm. The biggest problem with rear leaves is that most traction devices cause binding, which gives the rear an excessively high spring rate. So once the suspension travels enough to bind up, the spring rate goes up towards infinity(the spring no longer functions as a spring, but as a structural member).

Adrenolin

I've got 4.5 Std Eye leafs with Competition Engineering Slide-A-Link traction bars and have about a 3/8" gap for the urethane shock pad for road use. I have the Edelbrock IAS shocks in the rear with an AJE front coil-over suspension. Add to this a sheet of 5/8" plywood, battery, MSD ignition, 2 amps, 2 subs, etc in the trunk. The ride is very firm!

sentipede

Lol, I guess my only concern that with there being more give and the car being lowered there may be a risk of the wheels rubbing the fender, but if that risk is only warranted when I jump my car then that is a risk I am willing to take for the additional comfort. I assume that with the Koni's the 4-leaf reverse eyes will still be sufficient for some occasional 'spirited' street driving.

Thanks again!