| neuspeed | 05-09-2005 11:06 PM |
WRX in STX (flipping coilover springs question)
�
�
If I flipped JIC FLTA1US coilover springs woudl there be anyproblems? They come with 7kg front and 5 kg rear, but I want to flip the springs so they'd be 5kg front and 7kg rear, so I have more turning ability and not huge understeer, would it be good to do or st00pid?
| thechickencow | 05-09-2005 11:10 PM |
Depending on goals, I'd go higher rates (8k/10k maybe). I think 5k would be pretty soft in the front and you'd get a lot of roll, lose a lot of camber, etc.
Jay
Jay
| neuspeed | 05-09-2005 11:12 PM |
So 7 in front is better if left?
| makofoto | 05-09-2005 11:18 PM |
yes ... but get heavier springs in the back, ie. go 7/9
The engineers at Tein think we're a bit nuts to go heavier in the back ... but their Gymkhanas are very tight ... and they use very late breaking (weight transfer), eBraking and first gear. If they went heavy in the back ... their rear ends would skitter in those tight turns ... according to them ...
The engineers at Tein think we're a bit nuts to go heavier in the back ... but their Gymkhanas are very tight ... and they use very late breaking (weight transfer), eBraking and first gear. If they went heavy in the back ... their rear ends would skitter in those tight turns ... according to them ...
| neuspeed | 05-09-2005 11:22 PM |
[QUOTE=makofoto]yes ... but get heavier springs in the back, ie. go 7/9
The engineers at Tein think we're a bit nuts to go heavier in the back ... but their Gymkhanas are very tight ... and they use very late breaking (weight transfer), eBraking and first gear. If they went heavy in the back ... their rear ends would skitter in those tight turns ... according to them ...[/QUOTE]
That'd be one stiff car :( .. I need to daily drive too lol
The engineers at Tein think we're a bit nuts to go heavier in the back ... but their Gymkhanas are very tight ... and they use very late breaking (weight transfer), eBraking and first gear. If they went heavy in the back ... their rear ends would skitter in those tight turns ... according to them ...[/QUOTE]
That'd be one stiff car :( .. I need to daily drive too lol
| Jsortor | 05-10-2005 12:10 AM |
[QUOTE=neuspeed]That'd be one stiff car :( .. I need to daily drive too lol[/QUOTE]
If the dampening is right, it is no problem. I run 8/10 on my daily driver. My biggest complaint is getting in and out of my fixed position Pro2000 Seat.
If the dampening is right, it is no problem. I run 8/10 on my daily driver. My biggest complaint is getting in and out of my fixed position Pro2000 Seat.
| DrBiggly | 05-10-2005 01:02 AM |
[QUOTE=Jsortor]If the dampening is right, it is no problem. I run 8/10 on my daily driver. My biggest complaint is getting in and out of my fixed position Pro2000 Seat.[/QUOTE]
I run 10k/12k on mine and with proper valving it's tolerable. Huge dips in the road though are just going to suck a bit. I'm working on finding the best damping settings to deal with such big drops in some highway spots. Other than that, anything else is suprisingly comfy. :)
-Biggly
I run 10k/12k on mine and with proper valving it's tolerable. Huge dips in the road though are just going to suck a bit. I'm working on finding the best damping settings to deal with such big drops in some highway spots. Other than that, anything else is suprisingly comfy. :)
-Biggly
| makofoto | 05-10-2005 03:46 AM |
I loosen up the dampening on my Tein Flex's 450/550 ... and it's fine ... easy to get to the adjusters on my wagon of course.
Yah .... getting in and out of my Cobra Suzuka GT is the PAIN ... although it's a lot better now that I took the couple of lbs penalty and installed the adjustable runners! :-) Now I can even let others drive my car. When I bought the Suzuka ... very popular in our club/region ... the standard seat was tooo tight. I've now lost enough weight that I have a nice snug fit in the standard, and my over sized GT is too wide. :-(
Yah .... getting in and out of my Cobra Suzuka GT is the PAIN ... although it's a lot better now that I took the couple of lbs penalty and installed the adjustable runners! :-) Now I can even let others drive my car. When I bought the Suzuka ... very popular in our club/region ... the standard seat was tooo tight. I've now lost enough weight that I have a nice snug fit in the standard, and my over sized GT is too wide. :-(
| neuspeed | 05-10-2005 09:03 AM |
[QUOTE=makofoto]I loosen up the dampening on my Tein Flex's 450/550 ... and it's fine ... easy to get to the adjusters on my wagon of course.
Yah .... getting in and out of my Cobra Suzuka GT is the PAIN ... although it's a lot better now that I took the couple of lbs penalty and installed the adjustable runners! :-) Now I can even let others drive my car. When I bought the Suzuka ... very popular in our club/region ... the standard seat was tooo tight. I've now lost enough weight that I have a nice snug fit in the standard, and my over sized GT is too wide. :-([/QUOTE]
So you have 4kg/5kg? too soft? so would my 5/7 be ok or does the stock 7/5 work better?
Yah .... getting in and out of my Cobra Suzuka GT is the PAIN ... although it's a lot better now that I took the couple of lbs penalty and installed the adjustable runners! :-) Now I can even let others drive my car. When I bought the Suzuka ... very popular in our club/region ... the standard seat was tooo tight. I've now lost enough weight that I have a nice snug fit in the standard, and my over sized GT is too wide. :-([/QUOTE]
So you have 4kg/5kg? too soft? so would my 5/7 be ok or does the stock 7/5 work better?
| Jsortor | 05-10-2005 09:27 AM |
[QUOTE=neuspeed]So you have 4kg/5kg? too soft? so would my 5/7 be ok or does the stock 7/5 work better?[/QUOTE]
450/550=8k/10k
450/550=8k/10k
| neuspeed | 05-10-2005 09:29 AM |
[QUOTE=Jsortor]450/550=8k/10k[/QUOTE]
Carp that seems very stiff
Carp that seems very stiff
| rautox | 05-10-2005 10:04 AM |
You get used to it :) Though, my wife hasn't ...
| KC | 05-10-2005 10:06 AM |
56lb per k.
8k/10k = 448lb/560lb
But rounding to 50s isn't that bad being off by only a few lbs.
--kC
8k/10k = 448lb/560lb
But rounding to 50s isn't that bad being off by only a few lbs.
--kC
| thrdeye | 05-10-2005 11:30 AM |
I've got 500 front/600 rear. I thought I was 'hardcore' and would not have any issue adapting to a stiff suspension....It really sucks until you get used to it, but once you do, it isn't that bad. The handling aspects are worth the sacrifice of comfort, IMO.
| Butt Dyno | 05-11-2005 01:23 AM |
JIC's, 500/550. Sucked for a day, started playing with the damping, slightly annoying for a couple weeks, and now it's just sorta rough. Then again I have another car I can drive to work :)
The JIC's I have came from JIC with 10kf, 9kr, and we swapped them f/r, no problems.
john
The JIC's I have came from JIC with 10kf, 9kr, and we swapped them f/r, no problems.
john
| wrx2.0 555 | 05-11-2005 06:29 AM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]JIC's, 500/550. Sucked for a day, started playing with the damping, slightly annoying for a couple weeks, and now it's just sorta rough. Then again I have another car I can drive to work :)
The JIC's I have came from JIC with 10kf, 9kr, and we swapped them f/r, no problems.
john[/QUOTE]
Did you auto-x the car with the 10f--9r setup first?
If not...how did you know you needed that extra k in the rear?
My point is..with 20% more weight in the front of the car, I have never understood the point of a "higher" rate in the rear.
It would seem that you could simply put a "high enough" rate in the rear and accomplish the same goal without the "high enough" rate being greater than the front.
I'd be curious to know how much the 9k was compressed during an auto-x vs. the 10k--in the rear of course.
I also think you could make better use of the extra 1k spring rate in the front moreso than you could in the rear. You have more potention of roll in the front.
I'm just thinking out loud here, so feel free to dispute--which I am quite certain someone will.. ;)
Scott
The JIC's I have came from JIC with 10kf, 9kr, and we swapped them f/r, no problems.
john[/QUOTE]
Did you auto-x the car with the 10f--9r setup first?
If not...how did you know you needed that extra k in the rear?
My point is..with 20% more weight in the front of the car, I have never understood the point of a "higher" rate in the rear.
It would seem that you could simply put a "high enough" rate in the rear and accomplish the same goal without the "high enough" rate being greater than the front.
I'd be curious to know how much the 9k was compressed during an auto-x vs. the 10k--in the rear of course.
I also think you could make better use of the extra 1k spring rate in the front moreso than you could in the rear. You have more potention of roll in the front.
I'm just thinking out loud here, so feel free to dispute--which I am quite certain someone will.. ;)
Scott
| Scooby Freak | 05-11-2005 07:50 AM |
From what I understood, having the stiffer rate in the rear helps keep both front tires planted on corner exit. With the open diff in the front this is important so that all your power doesn't just spin the inside wheel.
I'm also just thinking out loud.
-jeff
I'm also just thinking out loud.
-jeff
| Butt Dyno | 05-11-2005 07:57 AM |
Scott you sent me a PM a while back about this that I never got around to responding to. (sorry)
Short answer is - just trying to go with conventional wisdom I guess. I see what you're saying and if I ever get a chance to try both I will. I still have a lot of tweaking to do. Mostly I just want to stop dicking around with setup and drive the same car on the same tires for more than three events in a row :)
Thanks tho.. food for thought.
john
Short answer is - just trying to go with conventional wisdom I guess. I see what you're saying and if I ever get a chance to try both I will. I still have a lot of tweaking to do. Mostly I just want to stop dicking around with setup and drive the same car on the same tires for more than three events in a row :)
Thanks tho.. food for thought.
john
| wrx2.0 555 | 05-11-2005 08:46 AM |
Thanks for the honest response.
I currently have a 10/9 setup by shear coincidence. I bought my coilovers used from Kiko and thats the way he had it on his STI. I left it that way just to try it out.
Unfortunately, my experiences so far dont tell me much---I found at the Atlanta Nats, the I had more of an alignment issue then anything and the car pushed really bad.
I've got that cleared up now and just from "spirited" daily driving, I see no signs of a lack of "rotation" or turn in ability.
Our next event is the 22nd, so I'll get a better picture then.
Also, my buddy Bridrive, has new Zeals with 10/8's so that'll be an interesting comparison.
We plan on co-driving each others cars for comparison sake also--so it'll be interesting.
Scott
I currently have a 10/9 setup by shear coincidence. I bought my coilovers used from Kiko and thats the way he had it on his STI. I left it that way just to try it out.
Unfortunately, my experiences so far dont tell me much---I found at the Atlanta Nats, the I had more of an alignment issue then anything and the car pushed really bad.
I've got that cleared up now and just from "spirited" daily driving, I see no signs of a lack of "rotation" or turn in ability.
Our next event is the 22nd, so I'll get a better picture then.
Also, my buddy Bridrive, has new Zeals with 10/8's so that'll be an interesting comparison.
We plan on co-driving each others cars for comparison sake also--so it'll be interesting.
Scott
| Jsortor | 05-11-2005 09:38 AM |
[QUOTE=wrx2.0 555]Did you auto-x the car with the 10f--9r setup first?
If not...how did you know you needed that extra k in the rear?
My point is..with 20% more weight in the front of the car, I have never understood the point of a "higher" rate in the rear.
It would seem that you could simply put a "high enough" rate in the rear and accomplish the same goal without the "high enough" rate being greater than the front.
I'd be curious to know how much the 9k was compressed during an auto-x vs. the 10k--in the rear of course.
I also think you could make better use of the extra 1k spring rate in the front moreso than you could in the rear. You have more potention of roll in the front.
I'm just thinking out loud here, so feel free to dispute--which I am quite certain someone will.. ;)
Scott[/QUOTE]
Look at it from this theory of suspension though. If you have push, theory says soften the front and/or stiffen the rear. Using a 50%/50% spring rate will apply evenly the weight that is currently at that end. Which means 60% of the car weight will be applied to the outside front, and 40% to the outside rear. That in theory will cause push. Too much weight on the front. To counter that, run a 40%/60% spring rate. The stiffer springs at the back transfer more of the front weight to the rear axle in a turn causing a better balance of weight applied to the 2 outside tires. Going higher in the front only compounds your initial issue of understeer.
If not...how did you know you needed that extra k in the rear?
My point is..with 20% more weight in the front of the car, I have never understood the point of a "higher" rate in the rear.
It would seem that you could simply put a "high enough" rate in the rear and accomplish the same goal without the "high enough" rate being greater than the front.
I'd be curious to know how much the 9k was compressed during an auto-x vs. the 10k--in the rear of course.
I also think you could make better use of the extra 1k spring rate in the front moreso than you could in the rear. You have more potention of roll in the front.
I'm just thinking out loud here, so feel free to dispute--which I am quite certain someone will.. ;)
Scott[/QUOTE]
Look at it from this theory of suspension though. If you have push, theory says soften the front and/or stiffen the rear. Using a 50%/50% spring rate will apply evenly the weight that is currently at that end. Which means 60% of the car weight will be applied to the outside front, and 40% to the outside rear. That in theory will cause push. Too much weight on the front. To counter that, run a 40%/60% spring rate. The stiffer springs at the back transfer more of the front weight to the rear axle in a turn causing a better balance of weight applied to the 2 outside tires. Going higher in the front only compounds your initial issue of understeer.
| subieworx | 05-11-2005 09:46 AM |
[QUOTE=neuspeed]That'd be one stiff car :( .. I need to daily drive too lol[/QUOTE]
You have JIC's the ride will never be comfortable.
You have JIC's the ride will never be comfortable.
| jcroy66 | 05-11-2005 10:27 AM |
[QUOTE=subieworx]You have JIC's the ride will never be comfortable.[/QUOTE]
That's a gross generalization. :rolleyes: And inaccurate!
I daily drive my JIC FLT A2-RSs on Cleveland roads. 8K/10K spring rates, using helper springs. Shocks are custom valved to match the spring rates. I have no problems with the ride.
That's a gross generalization. :rolleyes: And inaccurate!
I daily drive my JIC FLT A2-RSs on Cleveland roads. 8K/10K spring rates, using helper springs. Shocks are custom valved to match the spring rates. I have no problems with the ride.
| wrx2.0 555 | 05-11-2005 10:48 AM |
[QUOTE=Jsortor]Look at it from this theory of suspension though. If you have push, theory says soften the front and/or stiffen the rear. Using a 50%/50% spring rate will apply evenly the weight that is currently at that end. Which means 60% of the car weight will be applied to the outside front, and 40% to the outside rear. That in theory will cause push. Too much weight on the front. To counter that, run a 40%/60% spring rate. The stiffer springs at the back transfer more of the front weight to the rear axle in a turn causing a better balance of weight applied to the 2 outside tires. Going higher in the front only compounds your initial issue of understeer.[/QUOTE]
Bare in mind--I am NOT overly educated in this matter, just analyzing this with my built in logic.
I see it this way----
By stiffening the rear of the car, whether it be springs, sway bar and/or alignment settings, we are DECREASING rear grip, giving us the illusion of less understeer. I believe the actual understeer problem has not gone away, but been compensated for by the lack of rear grip.
I believe there is definately a point of dimishing return with high rear spring rates.
I see stiffening the front of the car as less roll, thus allowing more tire foot print to stay on the road and also allowing the opposite side of the car to stay more planted, thus taking advantage of grip from that side.
Scott
Bare in mind--I am NOT overly educated in this matter, just analyzing this with my built in logic.
I see it this way----
By stiffening the rear of the car, whether it be springs, sway bar and/or alignment settings, we are DECREASING rear grip, giving us the illusion of less understeer. I believe the actual understeer problem has not gone away, but been compensated for by the lack of rear grip.
I believe there is definately a point of dimishing return with high rear spring rates.
I see stiffening the front of the car as less roll, thus allowing more tire foot print to stay on the road and also allowing the opposite side of the car to stay more planted, thus taking advantage of grip from that side.
Scott
| Scooby Freak | 05-11-2005 10:56 AM |
Decreasing rear grip does decrease understeer. That is not an illusion, that is part of the definition of understeer. Certainly increasing front grip is a better way to deal with it, but after the front grip has been maximized, we can further decrease rear grip till we get the balance that we like.
-jeff
-jeff
| subieworx | 05-11-2005 11:05 AM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]That's a gross generalization. :rolleyes: And inaccurate!
I daily drive my JIC FLT A2-RSs on Cleveland roads. 8K/10K spring rates, using helper springs. Shocks are custom valved to match the spring rates. I have no problems with the ride.[/QUOTE]
I know. I was more messing around than anything, although I have ridden in a car with them use the 8/6 springs and it was bouncey. Handles well though.
I daily drive my JIC FLT A2-RSs on Cleveland roads. 8K/10K spring rates, using helper springs. Shocks are custom valved to match the spring rates. I have no problems with the ride.[/QUOTE]
I know. I was more messing around than anything, although I have ridden in a car with them use the 8/6 springs and it was bouncey. Handles well though.
| Jsortor | 05-11-2005 11:57 AM |
[QUOTE=wrx2.0 555]Bare in mind--I am NOT overly educated in this matter, just analyzing this with my built in logic.
I see it this way----
By stiffening the rear of the car, whether it be springs, sway bar and/or alignment settings, we are DECREASING rear grip, giving us the illusion of less understeer. I believe the actual understeer problem has not gone away, but been compensated for by the lack of rear grip.
I believe there is definately a point of dimishing return with high rear spring rates.
I see stiffening the front of the car as less roll, thus allowing more tire foot print to stay on the road and also allowing the opposite side of the car to stay more planted, thus taking advantage of grip from that side.
Scott[/QUOTE]
Scott, I understand your concept and I too dislike decreasing grip in order to create balance and try any method available to avoid it. This is just the way to go on this one. I tried a bigger front bar with this set-up to control front roll on turn entry and my times went to the pooper, pushed on entry, had to wait for the front to grab to make the turns. In the end, it was a bad idea.
To get back to the spring rate deal, splitting the load on the front and rear outside tire 50/50% creates the max lateral grip. Otherwise, the more heavily loaded tire reaches max first, and the other tire does not reach full potential. So, you are actually effectively INCREASING total grip by biasing the spring rates to the rear to achieve 50/50 midcorner.
I see it this way----
By stiffening the rear of the car, whether it be springs, sway bar and/or alignment settings, we are DECREASING rear grip, giving us the illusion of less understeer. I believe the actual understeer problem has not gone away, but been compensated for by the lack of rear grip.
I believe there is definately a point of dimishing return with high rear spring rates.
I see stiffening the front of the car as less roll, thus allowing more tire foot print to stay on the road and also allowing the opposite side of the car to stay more planted, thus taking advantage of grip from that side.
Scott[/QUOTE]
Scott, I understand your concept and I too dislike decreasing grip in order to create balance and try any method available to avoid it. This is just the way to go on this one. I tried a bigger front bar with this set-up to control front roll on turn entry and my times went to the pooper, pushed on entry, had to wait for the front to grab to make the turns. In the end, it was a bad idea.
To get back to the spring rate deal, splitting the load on the front and rear outside tire 50/50% creates the max lateral grip. Otherwise, the more heavily loaded tire reaches max first, and the other tire does not reach full potential. So, you are actually effectively INCREASING total grip by biasing the spring rates to the rear to achieve 50/50 midcorner.
| DrBiggly | 05-11-2005 12:07 PM |
[QUOTE=wrx2.0 555]Bare in mind--I am NOT overly educated in this matter, just analyzing this with my built in logic.
I see it this way----
By stiffening the rear of the car, whether it be springs, sway bar and/or alignment settings, we are DECREASING rear grip, giving us the illusion of less understeer. I believe the actual understeer problem has not gone away, but been compensated for by the lack of rear grip.
I believe there is definately a point of dimishing return with high rear spring rates.
I see stiffening the front of the car as less roll, thus allowing more tire foot print to stay on the road and also allowing the opposite side of the car to stay more planted, thus taking advantage of grip from that side.
Scott[/QUOTE]
Scott,
Look at it from a different perspective. All of this is in pursuit of less body roll. You can stiffen the front or the rear of the car and the reduction in body roll applies to the entire chassis (unless it's made of some sort of rubber and twists.) Where the over/understeer changes come from is from individual tire loading.
The more one loads a tire, the less grip it will have. So on a huge swaybar in the rear, you're overloading that outside tire upon turning and then it slips, creating oversteer. Same in the front; overloading the outside tire creates understeer. So you place your springs where they can most effectively overload the tire that needs the least amount of grip and retain the type of rotational balance that your vehicle needs. On the WRX, a large proportion of this is sent to the rear since the front is already loaded up quite a bit. You're essentially moving the weight to the rear with a higher springrate (as in weight dealt with by the outside tire) as you also would do with a larger rear swaybar.
Hope that helps. :)
-Biggly
I see it this way----
By stiffening the rear of the car, whether it be springs, sway bar and/or alignment settings, we are DECREASING rear grip, giving us the illusion of less understeer. I believe the actual understeer problem has not gone away, but been compensated for by the lack of rear grip.
I believe there is definately a point of dimishing return with high rear spring rates.
I see stiffening the front of the car as less roll, thus allowing more tire foot print to stay on the road and also allowing the opposite side of the car to stay more planted, thus taking advantage of grip from that side.
Scott[/QUOTE]
Scott,
Look at it from a different perspective. All of this is in pursuit of less body roll. You can stiffen the front or the rear of the car and the reduction in body roll applies to the entire chassis (unless it's made of some sort of rubber and twists.) Where the over/understeer changes come from is from individual tire loading.
The more one loads a tire, the less grip it will have. So on a huge swaybar in the rear, you're overloading that outside tire upon turning and then it slips, creating oversteer. Same in the front; overloading the outside tire creates understeer. So you place your springs where they can most effectively overload the tire that needs the least amount of grip and retain the type of rotational balance that your vehicle needs. On the WRX, a large proportion of this is sent to the rear since the front is already loaded up quite a bit. You're essentially moving the weight to the rear with a higher springrate (as in weight dealt with by the outside tire) as you also would do with a larger rear swaybar.
Hope that helps. :)
-Biggly
| neuspeed | 05-11-2005 06:46 PM |
Who sells springs for low costs? And also 7kg/5kg would be way too soft if I went with the 5kg/7kg route correct? and also when installing what are the precautions?
| DrBiggly | 05-11-2005 07:10 PM |
I'd say go 7k/9k or something like that. Springs are typically 2.5" ID and pretty easy to find. Call the vendor you bought them from or a vendor that sells that brand of coilover. (I forget which ones you have.)
Precautions: As long as it's a double-adjustable collar system then there is typically 0 preload on it and you can unbolt the thing with no worries and swap springs in record fashion. :)
-Biggly
Precautions: As long as it's a double-adjustable collar system then there is typically 0 preload on it and you can unbolt the thing with no worries and swap springs in record fashion. :)
-Biggly
| neuspeed | 05-11-2005 08:02 PM |
[QUOTE=DrBiggly]I'd say go 7k/9k or something like that. Springs are typically 2.5" ID and pretty easy to find. Call the vendor you bought them from or a vendor that sells that brand of coilover. (I forget which ones you have.)
Precautions: As long as it's a double-adjustable collar system then there is typically 0 preload on it and you can unbolt the thing with no worries and swap springs in record fashion. :)
-Biggly[/QUOTE]
I got them cheap from a friend that barely used them
Precautions: As long as it's a double-adjustable collar system then there is typically 0 preload on it and you can unbolt the thing with no worries and swap springs in record fashion. :)
-Biggly[/QUOTE]
I got them cheap from a friend that barely used them
| jcroy66 | 05-12-2005 07:30 AM |
Oh, you've already got them? Urgh. See, the problem IMO that most people encounter with the JICs is that they try to put stiffer springs on without revalving. Which is what it sounds like you're contemplating. The OTS valving just can't handle the stiffer springs and they bounce. Bad for daily driving, bad for autocrossing. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me, but...
| neuspeed | 05-12-2005 09:10 AM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]Oh, you've already got them? Urgh. See, the problem IMO that most people encounter with the JICs is that they try to put stiffer springs on without revalving. Which is what it sounds like you're contemplating. The OTS valving just can't handle the stiffer springs and they bounce. Bad for daily driving, bad for autocrossing. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me, but...[/QUOTE]
He used them for like 350 miles.
He used them for like 350 miles.
| jcroy66 | 05-12-2005 09:22 AM |
The number of miles isn't my point. My point is that the off-the-shelf valving will not be appropriate for 7K/9K springs. Even if there are zero miles on them.
I had originally presumed that you didn't yet have the JICs, so you could order them with custom valving. As it is, you'd have to pay for a rebuild of nearly-new struts to get appropriate valving for your stiffer springs. Hardly cost-effective.
I had originally presumed that you didn't yet have the JICs, so you could order them with custom valving. As it is, you'd have to pay for a rebuild of nearly-new struts to get appropriate valving for your stiffer springs. Hardly cost-effective.
| wrx2.0 555 | 05-12-2005 09:23 AM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]Oh, you've already got them? Urgh. See, the problem IMO that most people encounter with the JICs is that they try to put stiffer springs on without revalving. Which is what it sounds like you're contemplating. The OTS valving just can't handle the stiffer springs and they bounce. Bad for daily driving, bad for autocrossing. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me, but...[/QUOTE]
OTS JIC valving doesnt handle soft springs very well either.. ;)
OTS JIC valving doesnt handle soft springs very well either.. ;)
| jcroy66 | 05-12-2005 09:25 AM |
:lol: That's what I'd figured, but since I don't personally know anyone who's tried that, I didn't point that out. :)
| Butt Dyno | 05-12-2005 10:20 AM |
My JIC's were ordered custom 10/9, and while you can make the bounce go away with damping adjustments, the ride quality is still pretty harsh compared to other setups I've driven/ridden in (mostly Teins)
Again, I stress that I'm used to it but it seems like overall the ride quality on a set of JIC's is not going to be as good as a comparable set of coilovers from someone else.
john
Again, I stress that I'm used to it but it seems like overall the ride quality on a set of JIC's is not going to be as good as a comparable set of coilovers from someone else.
john
| Jsortor | 05-12-2005 11:18 AM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]My JIC's were ordered custom 10/9, and while you can make the bounce go away with damping adjustments, the ride quality is still pretty harsh compared to other setups I've driven/ridden in (mostly Teins)
Again, I stress that I'm used to it but it seems like overall the ride quality on a set of JIC's is not going to be as good as a comparable set of coilovers from someone else.
john[/QUOTE]
If you want to get a good set-up from inexpensive, yet high quality coil-overs, check into Progress. (progressauto.com) The're what I run and they work great.
Again, I stress that I'm used to it but it seems like overall the ride quality on a set of JIC's is not going to be as good as a comparable set of coilovers from someone else.
john[/QUOTE]
If you want to get a good set-up from inexpensive, yet high quality coil-overs, check into Progress. (progressauto.com) The're what I run and they work great.
| ChrisDP | 05-12-2005 12:49 PM |
I promise your front/rear-spring bias is not worth worrying about when you have less than 1 hour car driving experience in your lifetime and zero autocross experience. National-setup STX cars rotate VERY quickly and can/will get an inexperienced/overexuberant driver into trouble very quickly.
| Butt Dyno | 05-12-2005 05:45 PM |
[QUOTE=Jsortor]If you want to get a good set-up from inexpensive, yet high quality coil-overs, check into Progress. (progressauto.com) The're what I run and they work great.[/QUOTE]
I searched w/ your name and Progress and only got one other thread.. how much did they set you back? Any other things you like in particular? Their website is a navigation DISASTER..
john
I searched w/ your name and Progress and only got one other thread.. how much did they set you back? Any other things you like in particular? Their website is a navigation DISASTER..
john
| Jsortor | 05-12-2005 11:18 PM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]I searched w/ your name and Progress and only got one other thread.. how much did they set you back? Any other things you like in particular? Their website is a navigation DISASTER..
john[/QUOTE]
I assisted with developement on these coil-overs for Progress. I believe the are going for 1100-1300$ on the market. If you get them straight from Progress you can ask for my set-up and take all the guesswork out of the set-up. My dampening is set up for the 450-550lbs rates. You could use 350-450 and be ok w/o being overdamped. They are not externally adjustable, and I have a 5 way adjustable rear Progress bar for the fine tuning. I have run all of the West Coast surfaces and don't feel that I am at a loss without external adjustment. If needed, you can get shipped a shim pack and revalve these yourself, or send it back to them and have them revalve and dyno them for you. I have run them for 1 1/2 years, including about 30,000 daily driver miles and have not had even one issue with wear or breakage.
john[/QUOTE]
I assisted with developement on these coil-overs for Progress. I believe the are going for 1100-1300$ on the market. If you get them straight from Progress you can ask for my set-up and take all the guesswork out of the set-up. My dampening is set up for the 450-550lbs rates. You could use 350-450 and be ok w/o being overdamped. They are not externally adjustable, and I have a 5 way adjustable rear Progress bar for the fine tuning. I have run all of the West Coast surfaces and don't feel that I am at a loss without external adjustment. If needed, you can get shipped a shim pack and revalve these yourself, or send it back to them and have them revalve and dyno them for you. I have run them for 1 1/2 years, including about 30,000 daily driver miles and have not had even one issue with wear or breakage.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét