droopy behinds

[mpvue]

I see this all the time and I wonder about it. explorers seem to be some of the worst offenders. the rear springs are sagging and the tail is drooping. saw a olds toronado like that this morning.
the 'give them the benefit of the doubt' answer is that they are hauling something, or they can't afford to fix it, which is fine.
but I wonder what else on the car they are neglecting if they are willing to drive with worn out suspension components.

what cars do you see with drooping behinds?

 

[cp3]

I notice the Explorers as well but I think at least part of it is an optical illusion. I believe if you were to measure, the top of the front wheel wells are higher from ground level than the rear, giving it a "sagging" look right from new.

Not drooping but I've seen several of the previous generation GM vans (Venture/Montana/Silhouette) that seem to have no shocks at all in the rear. I don't know how they don't get car sick with all the bouncing.

 

[thr_wedge]

Don't see a whole lot of droop around here, cops are pretty aggressive to pull you over for that due to smuggling (human or drugs). 3/4 and 1 tons are high theft risks because of this.

 

[01rangerxl]

'95-'01? Explorers with Eddie Bauer and Limited trim could be optioned with an air suspension IIRC. A failure in the system could cause a droopy suspension.

Also, Sport models used a monoleaf setup in the rear. With just one leaf spring on each side, it looks like the rear sits lower than the front. It's normal.

Lots of air suspensions from the '90s are on their last legs or have already failed. It's not uncommon to see Town Cars driving around with the rear slammed to the ground.

 

[GMBoy]

The "king of droop" has to be any K-car. Every K-car I've ever saw was sagging in the back like it had a load of concrete in the trunk.

 

[PF52]

Toyota Four-Runners and the early versions of their full-sized pickup. All of them have the droop!

 

[Hokiefyd]

I see lots of Panthers sitting on the ground around here. Not because the owners want it to be that way, but because the rear air springs have failed.

GM G-bodies were known for that too. I put variable-rate "cargo coils" in both of mine to fix it.

I think many of Honda's vehicles settle in the back also.

 

[Topo]

I know lots of Lincoln Continentals that had droop in the rear end, it's because of the air suspension system not pumping up properly.

 

[NateDN10]

Around here I've seen lots of older Explorers and Tauruses that seem to be sagging.

 

[sciphi]

Buick LeSabres are very prone to this. The older ones almost universally have a saggy behind.

There are add-on helper springs of the metal or air variety to combat this. Our Fit has a set, and the Cruze will be getting a set in the spring.

 

[mpvue]

I didn't know so many had air suspensions. yes, those do fail after a while. I had a '96 MPV known for that problem.
which begs the question: why don't they get it fixed? a town car is an expensive car, they obviously purchased it for the luxury status, why treat it like a hoopty?

the K cars and related (chargers, lasers, daytonas, etc) had a torsion bar that ran from side to side that would break, causing the rear to sag.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Ford garbage springs and shackle rustout failures (recall). I put a modest load in my 93 ranger WT and the rear spring never recovered. Add it up to Poor heat treating with substandard materials. All too common everywhere.

 

[crw]

Originally Posted By: mpvue
I didn't know so many had air suspensions. yes, those do fail after a while. I had a '96 MPV known for that problem.
which begs the question: why don't they get it fixed? a town car is an expensive car, they obviously purchased it for the luxury status, why treat it like a hoopty?


I have a Lincoln Mark VIII. It had the air suspension, and the front would drop to zero overnight. It would fill up OK once the car was started, but it was ready for attention. Anyway, the short answer is that those air struts are expensive. I don't know why they are but they are. I think they run about $250 a corner, just for the part.

I ended up buying a kit to replace the air suspension with springs, all the way around. I think for around $400 and doing the work myself I got it done. This was perhaps one of the most adventurous things I've done on a plain garage floor.

So, if someone wanted this done, to have someone replace all four corners, and maybe the pump with all new air components, your talking $2000+, which is approaching the value of the vehicle in many cases.

 

[Spazdog]

Seems like the 67-68-69 Firebirds were like that on purpose.

Maybe for weight transfer, maybe just for styling

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Ford garbage springs and shackle rustout failures (recall). I put a modest load in my 93 ranger WT and the rear spring never recovered. Add it up to Poor heat treating with substandard materials. All too common everywhere.


How funny.

We overloaded one of our poor little Couriers to the point where it looked like the 14" tires were going to pop and the back suspension was efectively flattened out. Had to be well over 1000 lbs. If you attempted to get over something like 40 mph, it would start to sway real bad and with no weight on the front tires you couldn't counter it. You had to slow back down to walking speed and try again. And brakes?

Yeah, not so much. It could barely stop. The little Mazda carb'd Ford 2.3 could pull the load just fine, but it was too heavy to do anything else properly.

But once unloaded, it was back to normal. No rear sag. No problems whatsoever.

One might expect the Ranger to be an improvement over that. Maybe they just used softer riding springs for more comfort

 

[01rangerxl]

I've never had an issue with sagging springs on either of my Rangers. Both have carried over 1500 lbs. in the bed without any problems.

But, Ford has offered a multitude of spring options, including fiberglass monoleafs on Splash models. Some Rangers only have two leafs and an overload. Mine have always been optioned with three leafs and an overload.

The shackles are an issue in the rust belt though. It's a good idea to keep an eye on the rear shackles because those will be the first to rot. Never had an issue on my Southern trucks.

One thing I did notice, my old 2.5L XL Ranger sat about 1" higher than my 3.0L XLT does. It could be attributed to the much heavier engine if it was just in the front, but it's front and rear. I suspect the XL may have been optioned with the heavy payload package, but I never was able to find out from Ford. I requested a build sheet for the truck, and it made no sense. Lots of Explorer and Ranger EV parts that the truck clearly did not come with.

 

[MNgopher]

Part of the issue with the 2nd Generation Explorers is a bit of an optical illusion. If you look at the drawings of the Explorer in the manual, it even looks slightly "drooped" to the back.

That being said, my '97 Explorer, as well as many other 2nd Gens, suffers from "gangster lean" to the drivers side - between the extra weight of the driver and gas tank both on the drivers side, the rear springs sag slightly to the drivers side.

Jeep Cherokees, particularly if the run regularly heavy, also suffer from droopy rear leaf springs.

 

[PF52]

1988 Fieros all seem to have a droopy rear; it seems to be a characteristic of the all-new 1988-only suspension (as opposed to the earlier Chevette- and Citation-derived parts). Even when new, the front end appeared to be too high.

I have a pair of front lowering springs for mine (an inch, I think) which ought to even things out just right, whenever I get motivated enough to wrestle with those front springs.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Fieros are cool!

 

[mechtech2]

Older Firebirds were the worst. They looked saggy from day one [rear end].
I always hated that droop.