Properly made tool got the job done

LOVE IT!! Now that's a great tool, easy to use, safe looking and you should get together with MATCO or Snap-On and have your socket manufactured LOL

Good use of thrust bearings, good angle on those threaded rods to make it easier to get your loooooong socket on things, just nice job all around.

I see you even captured the spring positively - with bolts holding the sides together.

http://theamcpages.com

http://antique-engines.com

Did you or could you raise the opposite rear corner to compress the spring somewhat before, uh, compressing the spring?
That's what we typically did - raised the opposite corner and while I held the Kent-Moore tools up to get them in place, my boss leaned down on that front corner. (he was a not tall guy, and barely 160 pounds, I bet, so he didn't add much to the compression, but it was just enough)

Anyway, again, nice tool. Your fabrication and planning look pretty good.
And you have solved the "how do I release them if I want to replace the springs" problem. No hoist or press needed here.
With those bearings and a little puller lube on the threads, it should work easily, too.

Personally, I'd like to see this example somehow stick around here for others to see.

http://theamcpages.com

http://antique-engines.com

That's really good stuff right there. I love the art work.

amcenthusiast wrote:

The (Nash engineering) idea was/is to place the upper spring mounting points as high as possible in the unibody chassis, which by relation 'lowers' the car's center of gravity -so the car's center of gravity has less leverage to compress the springs, which promotes better handling and reduced need for heavy sway bars... quick sketch to help convey idea:

THIS. you're the only one i recall mentioning this rather subtle (apparently) design feature -- the spring over the knuckle up front, looking at the dynamic geometry of the chassis in roll -- the spring doesn't lose (as much) it's "leverage" over the shifting weight. a GM-style spring in the lower arm does, badly; a GM system, as the car rolls longitudinally in a turn, the effective fulcrum point shifts, giving the mass MORE advantage over the spring. its as if the spring "weakens" as it's compressed, a sort of negative-progression.

(the DOWNSIDE of the AMC design is that it limits styling -- the system is very tall, and in the 60's lowering of whatever that style line is above the beltline, AMC was at a disadvantage. but technically it's great.

a very large amount of the understeer in AMC leaf spring cars is int he REAR. the springs are very far inboard (especially in the pre-64 Americans), the longitudinal angle (front mounts more inboard than rear mounts) and the height diff conspire to make a LOT understeer -- not only do the spring "fulcrum" knuckle under -- like GM fronts -- the geometry causes each rear wheel to shift fore (outside wheel) and aft (inside wheel) very slightly, i think like 3/16", in a turn making the rear of the car.

(the torque tube cars dont do this!)

i installed a rigid wishbone and airsprings and panhard in the rear of my american, with the springs under the "frame rail" sitting on pads on the axle tube -- as physically far out towards the wheel as possible. it vastly reduced understeer, alone.

1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto
1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5
http://www.ramblerLore.com