I know this question has probably been answered a thousand times, but are the 140 and 160 crossmembers the same? More specifically are the front springs interchangeable? If so, could one of you 160 guys out there please check your manuals for the front spring rate. I'm looking for an easy way to find a stiffer front spring for my 142 while maintaining the stock ride height.
Thanks
Aaron

First I'd try changing up the shocks and put in an IPD swaybar
if you want better cornering. I think the 164 springs will make
your car's nose sit up several inches over stock height.

If you've got new busings / ball-joints / IPD swaybar, good
shocks and you're still not happy, see if john parker (v-performance.com)
can whip up a set of progressive springs for you. That's what I'm
planning on doing for my 145 and 144.
chris

Front springs are interchangeable. 164 springs are m-u-c-h stiffer but switching is easy, just give it a try if you can find the springs at a decent price.

Martin
--
'65 121, '73 165

Er, springs that are stiff enough to give stock ride height on the front of a 164 will push the much lighter nose of a 140 up way above stock ride height... If you want stiffer springs, they also have to be shorter for the ride height to stay the same.

If you look in the gallery at the pictures of my 145 (the older one with chrome grille and foglights,not the one with the yellow hood) That car had ipd 164 lowering front springs and ipd overload coils in the rear.The ride height was not lowered but it handled EXCELLENTLY.Rear end was too bouncy when I first installed the overloads but swapping out the KYB gas shocks for Bilsteins fixed it all (bilsteins fix everything!)

Well, I still advice him to try since things - no doubt about it - will change. But ride height may or may not be an issue, in this kind of suspension springs don't compress that much and height therefore isn't drastically affected by different rates. I wouldn't recommend going from well worn 140 springs to brand new 164 ones, though - wear imo affects ride height in a far worse way than stiffness.

Obviously I also should have mentioned in the first post but I've tried both setups in my 120, converted with 140/160 front suspension.

Martin
--
'65 121, '73 165

How about telling us a little more about the conversion -
what changes you had to make, how difficult it was,
how much difference it made in handling, etc?
--
George Downs, The "original" Walrus3, Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Sorry, but since the car isn't by far ready for the road I can only tell ride height is ok, and during a short test drive the increased stiffness (combined with a 26 mm Peugeot 504 sway bar) also felt great for handling.

Now the 164 springs i put in the car were used - too many people tell horror stories about cars rising one or two inches simply with the change to new springs and the last thing I want is a car sitting high.

Mods to get the pieces in there included widening the crossmember by approx 3 inches and modifying its mounts to fit the 120 frame. With this action I also lowered the entire mounting by approx 15-20 mm's since the car had to come down a bit (only because of the basic differences between 120 and 140/160 suspensions, 140 and 164 springs were compared after this). I also choose this way to avoid lowering springs which will easily ruin handling.

Difficult? People ask now and then but I really don't know what to say anymore, almost anything is modified in my cars and I seldom find the work difficult - but I can confirm that some projects are more time consuming than others..:-)

Widening crossmembers (done it twice) however is a bit difficult because the parts don't offer any good reference measure points. I welded reference beams to the crossmember before cutting when performing this job the second time. Modifying mounts to fit in the car is more of an intuitive act, I basically placed the car on the new suspension and immidiately noticed a lower ride height would look good. Took everything that could be sacrificed at the mounts and now it sits perfect. You btw can't lower that much this way since you'll introduce interference between engine oil pan and crossmember. With the crossmember widening, engine mounts also have to be moved equally.

In the previous reply I also forgot to mention that with the extended wheel base of the 164's, front/rear weight distribution is affected in a positive way. The front suspension therefore doesn't have to take all of the increased mass from the heavier engine and options, some of it actually is 'distributed' backwards. This is one reason behind the perfectly even weight distribution of my 165 and one people often forget about when discussing the so called heavy 164 front end. The difference in front axle pressure between 140 and 160 isn't as big as you could suspect - especially not if you compare a late 140 to an early 164.

Martin
--
'65 121, '73 165