The spring pads are used to tune the ride height because the springs are not manufactured all that precisely. There are recommended pads based upon the specific equipment on the vehicle, but in the end, the ride height that you get determines the pads that you desire.

If you're replacing the springs, I'd stay with the existing pad thickness.

But, as mentioned, I would not spend the money to replace the springs unless I confirmed that the pads could not fix the problem. You might be spending good money for nothing.

Plenty of folks condemn the springs on here without the slightest hint of evidence that the springs are NG. It's just the first and easiest thing to do.

Today, I decided to take my initial measurements of the clearance between wheel well and the level ground. I have the original 14 inch wheels with original size tires of 205/14/70 with a decent air pressure. The fuel tank is pretty empty with about 2 gallons left in it. I have some clutter in the trunk like tools, accessories and some other stuff weighing about 60 pounds. Here are the results:

- front driver side - 27"
- front pass side - 27.5"
- rear driver side - 25.25" , 24"
- rear pass side - 25.5" , 24.5"

Please note that I put two different values for the rear suspension clearance. The second one represents a measurement with me sitting in the back weighing about 230lbs.

Do you still recommend replacing the front spring pads for thinner ones or I should keep them as they are? I think I had seen one of your posts saying that 27" clearance is about right. Looks like the rear ones would need to be replaced for thicker ones, possibly the thickest available. What do you think?

__________________
1985 300SD

Firstly, at 27", the front is too high. That's common on the SD and I found the original pads to be the thickest available............without any good reason. I replaced those pads with the thinnest available and the front end came down to 26".

The 25.5" dimension for the rear is very close to the dimension that you seek and new springs are definitely unwarranted. A thicker spring pad, new differential mount, and new shocks will easily gain another inch in the rear. 26.5" is about the limit............it starts to look ridiculous at 27".

Since it is a conventional suspension, you must suffer with decreasing ride height in the rear when weight is added. It all depends on how much you typically carry. You can set it up a bit high (27") with no weight and it will still do a good job with 400 lb. of payload.

I guess it would make sense to replace the front pads with the thinnest available to see how much clearance gain I would get in the back. The other thing is that I have been looking into replacing the subframe mount anyway. To summarize, thinner pads in the front, new subframe mount and thicker pads in the rear would do the trick. That, after all, would bring me to the 27" clearance in the rear without any weight.

__________________
1985 300SD

It's the "differential mount" that you're referring to.

If you want 27" in the rear, you'll need to thin the front pads, increase the thickness on the rear pads and change the differential mount. If the shocks are original, they should be replaced and you'll gain another 1/2" or so.

Yes, the differential mount is what I had in mind. I have seen people call it a subframe mount as well. Or these two are two totally different mounts? I shall get the rear end suspension done next week or so. Will send a follow up post.

__________________
1985 300SD

The subframe is held in place at three points. The two forward points are referred to as "subframe mounts" and the rear point is referred to as the "differential mount". In reality, all three are subframe mounts as they keep the subframe in the vehicle.