Chris_1

iTrader: (1)

'95 F150 2wd reg cab longbox. Just bought the truck a few months ago and doing a restoration. My front end is sagged a bit, about 2 1/2 " lower than the front. I want to pick the truck up a bit without going all crazy on it. I'll let my kid do that to his truck.
I've read that some guys liked the moog 824's, but I'm leaning more towards the 844's. But I also see the 844s, which might be more what I want, but I'm wondering about fitment issues and ride quality. I want a tall, stiff spring but I don't want my truck to ride like a tank.
Does anybody have experience with these springs ?

tvand13

sub'd

choate

Yeah I just had the 844s put on about a two months ago. Rides good. It's not too stiff by any means at all. My buddy that is a mechanic did mine. Said the hardest part was getting the old bushings out

clarkbre

Depending on your engine, with or without AC, and single or dual front shock configuration, your truck came with the equivalent to either the Moog 820 or 822. That being said, the 820 is a shorter (installed) spring than the 822.

I recently used the 824's that were quoted as the heavy duty replacement for my truck (Supercab, shortbox, 4x4 5.8L w/ AC). It originally came with the equivalent to the 822's. After 24 years I imagine they had sagged a bit as well.

My results were exactly what I wanted: a level truck with a similar ride to stock. I did notice it was slightly firmer but not by much at all. Overall, the truck rides great but now sits completely level. It will soon get 31x10.5r15 tires to raise it about another inch total. Pics below:

Comparison of stock and Moog CC824 springs.


Truck now sits completely level.

93F-150

mine has the 844. it sits pretty level

sdmartin65

The concensus I've seen on this site is the ride height between cc824 and cc844 will be about the same. Main difference is the cc844 are meant to support a Diesel engine and have a much higher spring rate. The cc824 increases capacity and height by increasing the amount of spring bar.
cc844 630 spring rate. 1557 load
cc824. 366. 1442
cc822. 366. 1230
cc820. 366. 1428
cc818. 337. 1258

clarkbre

I would agree. The difficult part is that they all have different free and installed heights. So, just because one has a higher rate or load doesnt make it equal in height prximity. I dont think you can really go wrong with any of them though.

Let us know what you decide on.

Mista_Breeze

I would recommend the 824s for a regular cab 2wd. They brought my truck up about 3 inches and it sits great now, looks like a 4x4, and allows plenty of movement for bigger tires. I feel like the 844s would throw your camber WAY off. The 824s corrected my camber issues, / \. If anything they over corrected a bit. They sit slightly out \ / now. Not enough to make it undrivable or destroy your tires though. If 824s make that big of a difference I wouldn't risk the 844s. Not on a standard cab at least. It all depends on the weight of the motor as well. I only have a 4.9, if you had a 5.8 maybe the 844s would be more beneficial?

choate

Yours looks just like mine. It's still lower by 3/4'' in the front but I'm fine with that.

Chris_1

iTrader: (1)

Thanks guys, the pictures and ratings really help. It's kinda between the 824 and 844 - I'm leaning toward the 844, besides the bit of lift, I'm hoping they'll help it corner like a rock without riding like one.