| Drew888 | 05-25-2005 04:28 AM |
I am trying to understand something about springs/struts on a road course...
�
�
There are two things that I know the answer to because many here have said it over and over again but I would like to understand why.
1) I am using springs that make the WRX ride very low (Whiteline Flatout springs on stock struts). On just a height perspective, why is that a bad thing? All I can find is that I would get a bit more body roll because the suspension bits are not parallel to the ground (something like the control arm already being slightly bent and it would give more easily-imagine hitting a bag, first locking your elbow and then bending your elbow, I know dumb analogy-it's very late).
Now can I keep the roll in check, on low springs, with swaybars and with adjustible struts like the Koni inserts?
The other reason is less travel. Here I have not been on the bumpstops except for the largest of pot-holes at speed. Is there anything else?
2) I have a 2002 WRX wgn. I am having difficulty waiting for the new Koni inserts to arrive (first week of Aug. -or so). The reason I am waiting is because I was thinking of using the new STI springs which means I need the 04 rear top hats and the 04 Koni inserts. My original intention was to use Koni inserts with Prodrive springs and the occasional road coarse event (once or twice/yr.) or maybe even keeping my springs and just use the Konis. I am getting tons of advice to use the new STI pink (wagon) springs with the Konis as they should be much better. That's as technical an answer/advice I am seeing. Guessing as I am tired and I am forgetting, the Prodrives I read tested at 175/175 and the pinks around 230/195#. Now both mated to Koni inserts ...why would the pinks be better? Is it a faster time? If so how? Is it better feel? Or is it just to keep the tires from rubbing?
If you can shed some light I would be very grateful!
Thanks,
Drew
1) I am using springs that make the WRX ride very low (Whiteline Flatout springs on stock struts). On just a height perspective, why is that a bad thing? All I can find is that I would get a bit more body roll because the suspension bits are not parallel to the ground (something like the control arm already being slightly bent and it would give more easily-imagine hitting a bag, first locking your elbow and then bending your elbow, I know dumb analogy-it's very late).
Now can I keep the roll in check, on low springs, with swaybars and with adjustible struts like the Koni inserts?
The other reason is less travel. Here I have not been on the bumpstops except for the largest of pot-holes at speed. Is there anything else?
2) I have a 2002 WRX wgn. I am having difficulty waiting for the new Koni inserts to arrive (first week of Aug. -or so). The reason I am waiting is because I was thinking of using the new STI springs which means I need the 04 rear top hats and the 04 Koni inserts. My original intention was to use Koni inserts with Prodrive springs and the occasional road coarse event (once or twice/yr.) or maybe even keeping my springs and just use the Konis. I am getting tons of advice to use the new STI pink (wagon) springs with the Konis as they should be much better. That's as technical an answer/advice I am seeing. Guessing as I am tired and I am forgetting, the Prodrives I read tested at 175/175 and the pinks around 230/195#. Now both mated to Koni inserts ...why would the pinks be better? Is it a faster time? If so how? Is it better feel? Or is it just to keep the tires from rubbing?
If you can shed some light I would be very grateful!
Thanks,
Drew
| Scooby Freak | 05-25-2005 07:29 AM |
If the car is too low, you are making the camber curve worse. You will have more camber loss with a certain amount of body roll. You can reduce the amount of roll with stiffer swaybars, but the koni's won't affect the amount of roll, just the rate at which it is rolling.
How low is it?
How low is it?
| leecea | 05-25-2005 10:57 AM |
You should be aware that the Koni inserts are slightly longer than the OE strut body, so you lose some travel. If your car is very low, this could be a problem.
Regarding springs, all else being equal, going to a slightly stiffer spring will help control all the car's motions - roll, dive, squat, etc. The Koni's can handle rates up to about 300 ft/lbs I believe. At some point the stiffness can become too much for the surface and the car will loose grip because it is skipping. However, I don't think the rates you suggest will cause problems unless you typically drive on roads with very rough corners.
Regarding springs, all else being equal, going to a slightly stiffer spring will help control all the car's motions - roll, dive, squat, etc. The Koni's can handle rates up to about 300 ft/lbs I believe. At some point the stiffness can become too much for the surface and the car will loose grip because it is skipping. However, I don't think the rates you suggest will cause problems unless you typically drive on roads with very rough corners.
| goto_racing | 05-25-2005 02:34 PM |
We tested just how low we could get the car this month. The answer is, anything lower than the about what an STi is at really messes up the camber curve. We got a very unpredictable and twitchy car. We brought our ride height back up because of it.
also this might be of interest to you. We found the suspesion "bottoms" far before the struts do, with interesting results...
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=775587[/url]
also this might be of interest to you. We found the suspesion "bottoms" far before the struts do, with interesting results...
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=775587[/url]
| Joel Gat, 1.8L | 05-25-2005 02:43 PM |
Hello,
The explanation on the height is pretty simple. The hub/wheel is attached to the car in two places: at the bottom of the hub (ie, at the control arm (ball joint in front, the long bolt through the hub/lateral links in back) and at the top of the hub (ie, the shock).
In the "normal" configuration, the control arm is higher at the chassis side and lower (closer to the ground) at the hub side (if you look under a stock car, you will see the "car" at one height/clearance from the ground, and the lower clearance areas will be the control arms that slant downwards as they approach the hubs, plus some brackets and cross members and stuff). If the control arm is 12 inches long (pulling that number out of the air), and it's at a slightly downward angle, the bottom of the hub might be only 11 inches from the chassis. Make sense?
The top attachment - the strut location, doesn't change much since the strut basically moves straight up and down. It actually moves a little inward as you compress, but that's minor compared to the other effects going on:
As you go into a corner and the car rolls to the outside, the chassis drops lower on the outside side. On the hub side, the wheel/tire keeps the control arm end from changing height. So, with the chassis side lowering and the hub side staying the same, the control arm becomes closer to parallel to the ground. The bottom of the hub is pushed outwards until the control arm is flat, when the bottom of the hub is the full 12 inches from the chassis.
What happens when you push the bottom of the wheel out? You get more negative camber (the wheel becomes more tilted, with the bottom further out). So, during a corner, you get more negative camber, which is what you want.
BUT, what happens if the chassis get lower than the hub? IE, what happens once the control arm passes parallel-to-the-ground and starts pointing upwards? The distance from the hub bottom to the chassis starts decreasing. IE, as we went through roll, the hub bottom moved from 11 inches to 12 inches away from the chassis and we got more negative camber. Then, the hub bottom starts moving back towards the chassis, as the control arm starts to point upwards.
In a very hard corner, we start losing our negative camber! That's a bad thing... We never want less negative camber DURING a hard corner.
This is the "camber curve" that people talk about. As you roll, you get better and better negative camber, until you go too far and you start losing negative camber.
It just so happens that on the Subaru, depending on several factors, if you set the height of the car so that when you measure from the center of the wheel to the bottom of the fender, when that distance is somewhere around 12-13 inches, the control arms are parallel to the ground. If you set the car like that and drive, as soon as you start to corner, you go into that part of the camber curve where you lose negative camber (ie, the bottom of the hub gets pulled in as the car leans). This is bad for handling. This is a big part of why cars that are slammed handle for crap (ignoring roll centers and all that fancy stuff, nothing matters when you're basics are all screwed up).
Some numbers you'll often read on the forums are 13.5 and 14 inches. The highly competitive folks who care more about performance and less about looks, set their ride heights to 13.5~14 inches (meaning from the center of the wheel to the bottom of the fender). The reason is that this gives them an inch to two inches of travel within the "good" part of the camber curve, where any roll gives MORE negative camber. With a stiff enough suspension, you won't get more than 1-2 inches of roll, and you'll always be in that good camber region.
If you lower your car to 13.5 inches and you run 150 pound springs, of course, you'll go straight into that positive camber gaining region and the car will handle for crap (well, it will either go positive or more likely, you'll bottom out your suspension).
So... the moral of the story is that when your car is set the way you want it, when you look from behind, under the car, you want to make sure that the chassis side of the control arm is higher than the hub side of it. This is easier in the rear, because in the front, you actually have to compare the front pivot axis to the pivot point inside the ball joint... So unless you know what you're looking for, just follow the guidelines that many people have posted - depending on stiffness, at least 13.5 inches from center to fender, more if you have a soft setup.
Hope that helps,
Joel Gat
Crew Chief
Sheehan Motor Racing
The explanation on the height is pretty simple. The hub/wheel is attached to the car in two places: at the bottom of the hub (ie, at the control arm (ball joint in front, the long bolt through the hub/lateral links in back) and at the top of the hub (ie, the shock).
In the "normal" configuration, the control arm is higher at the chassis side and lower (closer to the ground) at the hub side (if you look under a stock car, you will see the "car" at one height/clearance from the ground, and the lower clearance areas will be the control arms that slant downwards as they approach the hubs, plus some brackets and cross members and stuff). If the control arm is 12 inches long (pulling that number out of the air), and it's at a slightly downward angle, the bottom of the hub might be only 11 inches from the chassis. Make sense?
The top attachment - the strut location, doesn't change much since the strut basically moves straight up and down. It actually moves a little inward as you compress, but that's minor compared to the other effects going on:
As you go into a corner and the car rolls to the outside, the chassis drops lower on the outside side. On the hub side, the wheel/tire keeps the control arm end from changing height. So, with the chassis side lowering and the hub side staying the same, the control arm becomes closer to parallel to the ground. The bottom of the hub is pushed outwards until the control arm is flat, when the bottom of the hub is the full 12 inches from the chassis.
What happens when you push the bottom of the wheel out? You get more negative camber (the wheel becomes more tilted, with the bottom further out). So, during a corner, you get more negative camber, which is what you want.
BUT, what happens if the chassis get lower than the hub? IE, what happens once the control arm passes parallel-to-the-ground and starts pointing upwards? The distance from the hub bottom to the chassis starts decreasing. IE, as we went through roll, the hub bottom moved from 11 inches to 12 inches away from the chassis and we got more negative camber. Then, the hub bottom starts moving back towards the chassis, as the control arm starts to point upwards.
In a very hard corner, we start losing our negative camber! That's a bad thing... We never want less negative camber DURING a hard corner.
This is the "camber curve" that people talk about. As you roll, you get better and better negative camber, until you go too far and you start losing negative camber.
It just so happens that on the Subaru, depending on several factors, if you set the height of the car so that when you measure from the center of the wheel to the bottom of the fender, when that distance is somewhere around 12-13 inches, the control arms are parallel to the ground. If you set the car like that and drive, as soon as you start to corner, you go into that part of the camber curve where you lose negative camber (ie, the bottom of the hub gets pulled in as the car leans). This is bad for handling. This is a big part of why cars that are slammed handle for crap (ignoring roll centers and all that fancy stuff, nothing matters when you're basics are all screwed up).
Some numbers you'll often read on the forums are 13.5 and 14 inches. The highly competitive folks who care more about performance and less about looks, set their ride heights to 13.5~14 inches (meaning from the center of the wheel to the bottom of the fender). The reason is that this gives them an inch to two inches of travel within the "good" part of the camber curve, where any roll gives MORE negative camber. With a stiff enough suspension, you won't get more than 1-2 inches of roll, and you'll always be in that good camber region.
If you lower your car to 13.5 inches and you run 150 pound springs, of course, you'll go straight into that positive camber gaining region and the car will handle for crap (well, it will either go positive or more likely, you'll bottom out your suspension).
So... the moral of the story is that when your car is set the way you want it, when you look from behind, under the car, you want to make sure that the chassis side of the control arm is higher than the hub side of it. This is easier in the rear, because in the front, you actually have to compare the front pivot axis to the pivot point inside the ball joint... So unless you know what you're looking for, just follow the guidelines that many people have posted - depending on stiffness, at least 13.5 inches from center to fender, more if you have a soft setup.
Hope that helps,
Joel Gat
Crew Chief
Sheehan Motor Racing
| Drew888 | 05-25-2005 07:29 PM |
Joel,
Yes that really helps!! It's soo clear now. I should have hung out here more than the suspension forum.
Whitline Flatout springs on my car put me at 13 7/8" front and 12 3/4" rear (only measured one side and +/- a 1/16"). These measurements are from the steel edge not the plastic fender liner/protector thing....
Your explanation makes it so clear that it should be a sticky for all us noobs lookin for more info.
In relation to my question #2 above, if I find that I cannot wait another 2 months or so how might Prodrive springs w/Koni inserts perform on a road course? Now for almost any kind of racing I understand that 175# springs are a little on the soft side, but for only 2 times/yr and just dialing the Konis stiffer...am I really going to suffer? What I am more interested in is understanding just what would be happening-how different this setup would feel/react compared to same inserts with a STI pink spring.
I would wait for a compelling reason. As it is now, replacement springs (for ride height) will soon be on order.
Thanks again!
Yes that really helps!! It's soo clear now. I should have hung out here more than the suspension forum.
Whitline Flatout springs on my car put me at 13 7/8" front and 12 3/4" rear (only measured one side and +/- a 1/16"). These measurements are from the steel edge not the plastic fender liner/protector thing....
Your explanation makes it so clear that it should be a sticky for all us noobs lookin for more info.
In relation to my question #2 above, if I find that I cannot wait another 2 months or so how might Prodrive springs w/Koni inserts perform on a road course? Now for almost any kind of racing I understand that 175# springs are a little on the soft side, but for only 2 times/yr and just dialing the Konis stiffer...am I really going to suffer? What I am more interested in is understanding just what would be happening-how different this setup would feel/react compared to same inserts with a STI pink spring.
I would wait for a compelling reason. As it is now, replacement springs (for ride height) will soon be on order.
Thanks again!
| AndyRoo | 05-25-2005 07:59 PM |
[QUOTE=Joel Gat, 1.8L]Hello,
The explanation on the height is pretty simple. The hub/wheel is attached to the car in two places: at the bottom of the hub (ie, at the control arm (ball joint in front, the long bolt through the hub/lateral links in back) and at the top of the hub (ie, the shock).
In the "normal" configuration, the control arm is higher at the chassis side and lower (closer to the ground) at the hub side (if you look under a stock car, you will see the "car" at one height/clearance from the ground, and the lower clearance areas will be the control arms that slant downwards as they approach the hubs, plus some brackets and cross members and stuff). If the control arm is 12 inches long (pulling that number out of the air), and it's at a slightly downward angle, the bottom of the hub might be only 11 inches from the chassis. Make sense?
The top attachment - the strut location, doesn't change much since the strut basically moves straight up and down. It actually moves a little inward as you compress, but that's minor compared to the other effects going on:
As you go into a corner and the car rolls to the outside, the chassis drops lower on the outside side. On the hub side, the wheel/tire keeps the control arm end from changing height. So, with the chassis side lowering and the hub side staying the same, the control arm becomes closer to parallel to the ground. The bottom of the hub is pushed outwards until the control arm is flat, when the bottom of the hub is the full 12 inches from the chassis.
What happens when you push the bottom of the wheel out? You get more negative camber (the wheel becomes more tilted, with the bottom further out). So, during a corner, you get more negative camber, which is what you want.
BUT, what happens if the chassis get lower than the hub? IE, what happens once the control arm passes parallel-to-the-ground and starts pointing upwards? The distance from the hub bottom to the chassis starts decreasing. IE, as we went through roll, the hub bottom moved from 11 inches to 12 inches away from the chassis and we got more negative camber. Then, the hub bottom starts moving back towards the chassis, as the control arm starts to point upwards.
In a very hard corner, we start losing our negative camber! That's a bad thing... We never want less negative camber DURING a hard corner.
This is the "camber curve" that people talk about. As you roll, you get better and better negative camber, until you go too far and you start losing negative camber.
It just so happens that on the Subaru, depending on several factors, if you set the height of the car so that when you measure from the center of the wheel to the bottom of the fender, when that distance is somewhere around 12-13 inches, the control arms are parallel to the ground. If you set the car like that and drive, as soon as you start to corner, you go into that part of the camber curve where you lose negative camber (ie, the bottom of the hub gets pulled in as the car leans). This is bad for handling. This is a big part of why cars that are slammed handle for crap (ignoring roll centers and all that fancy stuff, nothing matters when you're basics are all screwed up).
Some numbers you'll often read on the forums are 13.5 and 14 inches. The highly competitive folks who care more about performance and less about looks, set their ride heights to 13.5~14 inches (meaning from the center of the wheel to the bottom of the fender). The reason is that this gives them an inch to two inches of travel within the "good" part of the camber curve, where any roll gives MORE negative camber. With a stiff enough suspension, you won't get more than 1-2 inches of roll, and you'll always be in that good camber region.
If you lower your car to 13.5 inches and you run 150 pound springs, of course, you'll go straight into that positive camber gaining region and the car will handle for crap (well, it will either go positive or more likely, you'll bottom out your suspension).
So... the moral of the story is that when your car is set the way you want it, when you look from behind, under the car, you want to make sure that the chassis side of the control arm is higher than the hub side of it. This is easier in the rear, because in the front, you actually have to compare the front pivot axis to the pivot point inside the ball joint... So unless you know what you're looking for, just follow the guidelines that many people have posted - depending on stiffness, at least 13.5 inches from center to fender, more if you have a soft setup.
Hope that helps,
Joel Gat
Crew Chief
Sheehan Motor Racing[/QUOTE]
awesome post Joel, that was easy to understand! thanks.
- andrew
The explanation on the height is pretty simple. The hub/wheel is attached to the car in two places: at the bottom of the hub (ie, at the control arm (ball joint in front, the long bolt through the hub/lateral links in back) and at the top of the hub (ie, the shock).
In the "normal" configuration, the control arm is higher at the chassis side and lower (closer to the ground) at the hub side (if you look under a stock car, you will see the "car" at one height/clearance from the ground, and the lower clearance areas will be the control arms that slant downwards as they approach the hubs, plus some brackets and cross members and stuff). If the control arm is 12 inches long (pulling that number out of the air), and it's at a slightly downward angle, the bottom of the hub might be only 11 inches from the chassis. Make sense?
The top attachment - the strut location, doesn't change much since the strut basically moves straight up and down. It actually moves a little inward as you compress, but that's minor compared to the other effects going on:
As you go into a corner and the car rolls to the outside, the chassis drops lower on the outside side. On the hub side, the wheel/tire keeps the control arm end from changing height. So, with the chassis side lowering and the hub side staying the same, the control arm becomes closer to parallel to the ground. The bottom of the hub is pushed outwards until the control arm is flat, when the bottom of the hub is the full 12 inches from the chassis.
What happens when you push the bottom of the wheel out? You get more negative camber (the wheel becomes more tilted, with the bottom further out). So, during a corner, you get more negative camber, which is what you want.
BUT, what happens if the chassis get lower than the hub? IE, what happens once the control arm passes parallel-to-the-ground and starts pointing upwards? The distance from the hub bottom to the chassis starts decreasing. IE, as we went through roll, the hub bottom moved from 11 inches to 12 inches away from the chassis and we got more negative camber. Then, the hub bottom starts moving back towards the chassis, as the control arm starts to point upwards.
In a very hard corner, we start losing our negative camber! That's a bad thing... We never want less negative camber DURING a hard corner.
This is the "camber curve" that people talk about. As you roll, you get better and better negative camber, until you go too far and you start losing negative camber.
It just so happens that on the Subaru, depending on several factors, if you set the height of the car so that when you measure from the center of the wheel to the bottom of the fender, when that distance is somewhere around 12-13 inches, the control arms are parallel to the ground. If you set the car like that and drive, as soon as you start to corner, you go into that part of the camber curve where you lose negative camber (ie, the bottom of the hub gets pulled in as the car leans). This is bad for handling. This is a big part of why cars that are slammed handle for crap (ignoring roll centers and all that fancy stuff, nothing matters when you're basics are all screwed up).
Some numbers you'll often read on the forums are 13.5 and 14 inches. The highly competitive folks who care more about performance and less about looks, set their ride heights to 13.5~14 inches (meaning from the center of the wheel to the bottom of the fender). The reason is that this gives them an inch to two inches of travel within the "good" part of the camber curve, where any roll gives MORE negative camber. With a stiff enough suspension, you won't get more than 1-2 inches of roll, and you'll always be in that good camber region.
If you lower your car to 13.5 inches and you run 150 pound springs, of course, you'll go straight into that positive camber gaining region and the car will handle for crap (well, it will either go positive or more likely, you'll bottom out your suspension).
So... the moral of the story is that when your car is set the way you want it, when you look from behind, under the car, you want to make sure that the chassis side of the control arm is higher than the hub side of it. This is easier in the rear, because in the front, you actually have to compare the front pivot axis to the pivot point inside the ball joint... So unless you know what you're looking for, just follow the guidelines that many people have posted - depending on stiffness, at least 13.5 inches from center to fender, more if you have a soft setup.
Hope that helps,
Joel Gat
Crew Chief
Sheehan Motor Racing[/QUOTE]
awesome post Joel, that was easy to understand! thanks.
- andrew
| leecea | 05-25-2005 08:11 PM |
[QUOTE=Drew888]Joel,
Yes that really helps!! It's soo clear now. I should have hung out here more than the suspension forum.
Whitline Flatout springs on my car put me at 13 7/8" front and 12 3/4" rear (only measured one side and +/- a 1/16"). These measurements are from the steel edge not the plastic fender liner/protector thing....
Your explanation makes it so clear that it should be a sticky for all us noobs lookin for more info.
In relation to my question #2 above, if I find that I cannot wait another 2 months or so how might Prodrive springs w/Koni inserts perform on a road course? Now for almost any kind of racing I understand that 175# springs are a little on the soft side, but for only 2 times/yr and just dialing the Konis stiffer...am I really going to suffer? What I am more interested in is understanding just what would be happening-how different this setup would feel/react compared to same inserts with a STI pink spring.
I would wait for a compelling reason. As it is now, replacement springs (for ride height) will soon be on order.
Thanks again![/QUOTE]
I don't have any track experience but from autoxing with stock spring and Konis, I can tell you that the car is pretty capable. Tires and driver skill are going to be bigger issues than spring rates.
Yes that really helps!! It's soo clear now. I should have hung out here more than the suspension forum.
Whitline Flatout springs on my car put me at 13 7/8" front and 12 3/4" rear (only measured one side and +/- a 1/16"). These measurements are from the steel edge not the plastic fender liner/protector thing....
Your explanation makes it so clear that it should be a sticky for all us noobs lookin for more info.
In relation to my question #2 above, if I find that I cannot wait another 2 months or so how might Prodrive springs w/Koni inserts perform on a road course? Now for almost any kind of racing I understand that 175# springs are a little on the soft side, but for only 2 times/yr and just dialing the Konis stiffer...am I really going to suffer? What I am more interested in is understanding just what would be happening-how different this setup would feel/react compared to same inserts with a STI pink spring.
I would wait for a compelling reason. As it is now, replacement springs (for ride height) will soon be on order.
Thanks again![/QUOTE]
I don't have any track experience but from autoxing with stock spring and Konis, I can tell you that the car is pretty capable. Tires and driver skill are going to be bigger issues than spring rates.
| Drew888 | 05-25-2005 08:19 PM |
Ok, rereading your replies and thinking more :D it looks like it depends upon what racing I am doing and what how I would like the chassis to react.
I have my wife and 5 and 7yr olds in the car sometimes and I'd like it to be comfortable for them as well (a need to go with adjustable inserts). Now there are a ton of people that really like the Prodrive/Koni set up but I don't know of any racing with it (that might be telling me something)
Anyone know of anyone else on Koni/Prodrives? Know anyone that has attempted to race with them? Or more generically (SP?), have any of you guys run what you thought were too soft a spring?, and if so what happened to make you think so? What were the rates of the soft springs? More importantly how different was it when they were swapped out with stiffer ones? I realize I am "bench racing" but reality for me is still a little ways off and I'd really like to understand more. This I find fascinating and it feels like a drug...I want more :) Eventually getting to a HPDE (did I get that right?) event will be nirvana for me.
Thanks again,
I have my wife and 5 and 7yr olds in the car sometimes and I'd like it to be comfortable for them as well (a need to go with adjustable inserts). Now there are a ton of people that really like the Prodrive/Koni set up but I don't know of any racing with it (that might be telling me something)
Anyone know of anyone else on Koni/Prodrives? Know anyone that has attempted to race with them? Or more generically (SP?), have any of you guys run what you thought were too soft a spring?, and if so what happened to make you think so? What were the rates of the soft springs? More importantly how different was it when they were swapped out with stiffer ones? I realize I am "bench racing" but reality for me is still a little ways off and I'd really like to understand more. This I find fascinating and it feels like a drug...I want more :) Eventually getting to a HPDE (did I get that right?) event will be nirvana for me.
Thanks again,
| Drew888 | 05-25-2005 08:28 PM |
Konis on stock springs? Was there a reason besides $ that kep you from replacing the springs?, and I agree with you completely.
I don't race but would like to, but being a "car guy", driving "spiritedly" on the street, and not having any racing experience, all I do know is that I love the suspension "feel" of the Boxter. While I abide my time (family matters, lack of funds, etc.) it is my only reference point, so I am trying to get there in the meantime.
I don't race but would like to, but being a "car guy", driving "spiritedly" on the street, and not having any racing experience, all I do know is that I love the suspension "feel" of the Boxter. While I abide my time (family matters, lack of funds, etc.) it is my only reference point, so I am trying to get there in the meantime.
| PA04STI | 05-25-2005 08:36 PM |
I would suggest when you do suspension things to a car get a thorough 4 wheel alignment.
When I put my Tein Flexes on my STi 1st thing I did the next day was take it to a good shop to get in done. They adjusted everything as good as possible, although the told me that my rear tires where not perfect, but I think the STi already has some camber to it.
There is always a perfect geometry with a suspension you never want to go to low with it.
Yes I would say Koni's and STi pinks would be a great combo or get a good set of coilovers if you plan on tracking alot.
Matt
When I put my Tein Flexes on my STi 1st thing I did the next day was take it to a good shop to get in done. They adjusted everything as good as possible, although the told me that my rear tires where not perfect, but I think the STi already has some camber to it.
There is always a perfect geometry with a suspension you never want to go to low with it.
Yes I would say Koni's and STi pinks would be a great combo or get a good set of coilovers if you plan on tracking alot.
Matt
| Joel Gat, 1.8L | 05-25-2005 08:38 PM |
Hello,
I know more about the way things work than I do about low-end products on the market. So I can't really compare one product to another.
That said, although many people complain, I find the stock STi suspension is pretty sweet. I currently run the JDM '05 STi springs on an otherwise stock '05 STi. Perfect balance of harshness and performance for a street car that sees only rare track time.
There's a little too much roll, so I'll put some bars on soon...
Joel
I know more about the way things work than I do about low-end products on the market. So I can't really compare one product to another.
That said, although many people complain, I find the stock STi suspension is pretty sweet. I currently run the JDM '05 STi springs on an otherwise stock '05 STi. Perfect balance of harshness and performance for a street car that sees only rare track time.
There's a little too much roll, so I'll put some bars on soon...
Joel
| PA04STI | 05-25-2005 08:43 PM |
[QUOTE=Joel Gat, 1.8L]Hello,
I know more about the way things work than I do about low-end products on the market. So I can't really compare one product to another.
That said, although many people complain, I find the stock STi suspension is pretty sweet. I currently run the JDM '05 STi springs on an otherwise stock '05 STi. Perfect balance of harshness and performance for a street car that sees only rare track time.
There's a little too much roll, so I'll put some bars on soon...
Joel[/QUOTE]
Yes the stock suspension is pretty good, but is HEAVY and I feel needs a little more agressive spring (like Pinks etc not too much of a drop either)
Yes I heard JDM springs are kinda like pinks stiffer and I think a little lower!!
What I did to my 04 STi was GT Spec lower arm bar (great mod I would suggest tightened up steering), Cobb Front & Rear Sways, Poltec endlinks, Cusco front and rear strut really thing front is kinda a waste rear noticed a little, & Tein Flexes. Probably saved 40 some lbs. putting Flexes on.
Matt
I know more about the way things work than I do about low-end products on the market. So I can't really compare one product to another.
That said, although many people complain, I find the stock STi suspension is pretty sweet. I currently run the JDM '05 STi springs on an otherwise stock '05 STi. Perfect balance of harshness and performance for a street car that sees only rare track time.
There's a little too much roll, so I'll put some bars on soon...
Joel[/QUOTE]
Yes the stock suspension is pretty good, but is HEAVY and I feel needs a little more agressive spring (like Pinks etc not too much of a drop either)
Yes I heard JDM springs are kinda like pinks stiffer and I think a little lower!!
What I did to my 04 STi was GT Spec lower arm bar (great mod I would suggest tightened up steering), Cobb Front & Rear Sways, Poltec endlinks, Cusco front and rear strut really thing front is kinda a waste rear noticed a little, & Tein Flexes. Probably saved 40 some lbs. putting Flexes on.
Matt
| Joel Gat, 1.8L | 05-25-2005 08:55 PM |
Hello,
Matt, I'm not a good enough driver to use my STi to its limits. I could spend $10k on the suspension, but I'll still be slower than Gary in a stock STi.
And the car might handle better, but its fun the way it comes from the factory. It's a blast to drive! In fact, if I was to make the car handle much much better, I think some of the fun might go away. I think the car is more fun with Toyo Proxies 4s (M+S tire) than it was with the stock tires...
A WRX, on the other hand, is too softly sprung. A step up in suspension increases the fun factor a significant amount. If the car isn't going to the track, something well balanced is good, and not too aggressive is good. The OEM setups meet those requirements...
Anyway, those are my opinions, and I'm certainly less experienced than most people when it comes to low-end aftermarket suspension mods :)
Joel
Matt, I'm not a good enough driver to use my STi to its limits. I could spend $10k on the suspension, but I'll still be slower than Gary in a stock STi.
And the car might handle better, but its fun the way it comes from the factory. It's a blast to drive! In fact, if I was to make the car handle much much better, I think some of the fun might go away. I think the car is more fun with Toyo Proxies 4s (M+S tire) than it was with the stock tires...
A WRX, on the other hand, is too softly sprung. A step up in suspension increases the fun factor a significant amount. If the car isn't going to the track, something well balanced is good, and not too aggressive is good. The OEM setups meet those requirements...
Anyway, those are my opinions, and I'm certainly less experienced than most people when it comes to low-end aftermarket suspension mods :)
Joel
| PA04STI | 05-25-2005 09:09 PM |
[QUOTE=Joel Gat, 1.8L]Hello,
Matt, I'm not a good enough driver to use my STi to its limits. I could spend $10k on the suspension, but I'll still be slower than Gary in a stock STi.
And the car might handle better, but its fun the way it comes from the factory. It's a blast to drive! In fact, if I was to make the car handle much much better, I think some of the fun might go away. I think the car is more fun with Toyo Proxies 4s (M+S tire) than it was with the stock tires...
A WRX, on the other hand, is too softly sprung. A step up in suspension increases the fun factor a significant amount. If the car isn't going to the track, something well balanced is good, and not too aggressive is good. The OEM setups meet those requirements...
Anyway, those are my opinions, and I'm certainly less experienced than most people when it comes to low-end aftermarket suspension mods :)
Joel[/QUOTE]
Me either that is for sure, but it really does help the ****ty driver I am drive a little better. I got everything for good deals used. Got to go out on the track at Beaverun in Western PA when Teckadynamics was there. Damn it handles so well put a smile on my face the whole time.
The Flexes are amazing on an already amazing car.
And you are correct I would never be able to outdrive my Stock Sti and now I will probably never outdrive it...lol But it does makes it that much more fun on back roads, tracks, & auto Xs.
Flexes had 2k on them and are the new ones...and I got $525 for stock struts.
Joel one mod that is a must is the GT Spec Lower Arm bar or anotehr brand really a noticeable difference really tightens up the steering. If you spend any money get that its worth it. You'll thank me.
Matt, I'm not a good enough driver to use my STi to its limits. I could spend $10k on the suspension, but I'll still be slower than Gary in a stock STi.
And the car might handle better, but its fun the way it comes from the factory. It's a blast to drive! In fact, if I was to make the car handle much much better, I think some of the fun might go away. I think the car is more fun with Toyo Proxies 4s (M+S tire) than it was with the stock tires...
A WRX, on the other hand, is too softly sprung. A step up in suspension increases the fun factor a significant amount. If the car isn't going to the track, something well balanced is good, and not too aggressive is good. The OEM setups meet those requirements...
Anyway, those are my opinions, and I'm certainly less experienced than most people when it comes to low-end aftermarket suspension mods :)
Joel[/QUOTE]
Me either that is for sure, but it really does help the ****ty driver I am drive a little better. I got everything for good deals used. Got to go out on the track at Beaverun in Western PA when Teckadynamics was there. Damn it handles so well put a smile on my face the whole time.
The Flexes are amazing on an already amazing car.
And you are correct I would never be able to outdrive my Stock Sti and now I will probably never outdrive it...lol But it does makes it that much more fun on back roads, tracks, & auto Xs.
Flexes had 2k on them and are the new ones...and I got $525 for stock struts.
Joel one mod that is a must is the GT Spec Lower Arm bar or anotehr brand really a noticeable difference really tightens up the steering. If you spend any money get that its worth it. You'll thank me.
| duncangrant | 05-26-2005 03:44 AM |
[QUOTE=Joel Gat, 1.8L].....
It just so happens that on the Subaru, depending on several factors, if you set the height of the car so that when you measure from the center of the wheel to the bottom of the fender, when that distance is somewhere around 12-13 inches, the control arms are parallel to the ground. If you set the car like that and drive, as soon as you start to corner, you go into that part of the camber curve where you lose negative camber (ie, the bottom of the hub gets pulled in as the car leans). This is bad for handling. This is a big part of why cars that are slammed handle for crap (ignoring roll centers and all that fancy stuff, nothing matters when you're basics are all screwed up).
....[/QUOTE]
Not to disagree with what you've said but I think there's something that needs to be pointed out:
When the control arm [b]looks[/b] level you will actually be well into the 'losing-camber area' because the centre of the ball-joint ball is around 1.5" above the centre-line of the arm for 2 reasons: 1) the end of the arm is canted upwards, 2) the ball-joint is inverted putting the ball above the arm.
It was interesting to see the WRC control-arm on the broken arm thread - that had a spherical joint in the arm. That means the outer end of the control arm must effectively be lower than with the standard arm. They could easily lower it more by inserting spacers between the joint and the hub knuckle.
It just so happens that on the Subaru, depending on several factors, if you set the height of the car so that when you measure from the center of the wheel to the bottom of the fender, when that distance is somewhere around 12-13 inches, the control arms are parallel to the ground. If you set the car like that and drive, as soon as you start to corner, you go into that part of the camber curve where you lose negative camber (ie, the bottom of the hub gets pulled in as the car leans). This is bad for handling. This is a big part of why cars that are slammed handle for crap (ignoring roll centers and all that fancy stuff, nothing matters when you're basics are all screwed up).
....[/QUOTE]
Not to disagree with what you've said but I think there's something that needs to be pointed out:
When the control arm [b]looks[/b] level you will actually be well into the 'losing-camber area' because the centre of the ball-joint ball is around 1.5" above the centre-line of the arm for 2 reasons: 1) the end of the arm is canted upwards, 2) the ball-joint is inverted putting the ball above the arm.
It was interesting to see the WRC control-arm on the broken arm thread - that had a spherical joint in the arm. That means the outer end of the control arm must effectively be lower than with the standard arm. They could easily lower it more by inserting spacers between the joint and the hub knuckle.
| Joel Gat, 1.8L | 05-26-2005 03:54 AM |
Hello,
[QUOTE=duncangrant]Not to disagree with what you've said but I think there's something that needs to be pointed out:
When the control arm [b]looks[/b] level you will actually be well into the 'losing-camber area' because the centre of the ball-joint ball is around 1.5" above the centre-line of the arm for 2 reasons:[/quote]
You're not disagreeing with me :) I said that, too:
[quote=Joel Gat, 1.8L]This is easier in the rear, because in the front, you actually have to compare the front pivot axis to the pivot point inside the ball joint... So unless you know what you're looking for, just follow the guidelines that many people have posted - depending on stiffness, at least 13.5 inches from center to fender, more if you have a soft setup.[/quote]
[quote=duncangrant]It was interesting to see the WRC control-arm on the broken arm thread - that had a spherical joint in the arm. That means the outer end of the control arm must effectively be lower than with the standard arm. They could easily lower it more by inserting spacers between the joint and the hub knuckle.[/QUOTE]
I actually don't know WRC rules... can they adjust the inboard mounting location? Do they use a tube-frame engine cross member with raised inner pickups? If they can, then that control arm is almost irrelevant. Same applies if they use different hubs, or other such things...
Joel
[QUOTE=duncangrant]Not to disagree with what you've said but I think there's something that needs to be pointed out:
When the control arm [b]looks[/b] level you will actually be well into the 'losing-camber area' because the centre of the ball-joint ball is around 1.5" above the centre-line of the arm for 2 reasons:[/quote]
You're not disagreeing with me :) I said that, too:
[quote=Joel Gat, 1.8L]This is easier in the rear, because in the front, you actually have to compare the front pivot axis to the pivot point inside the ball joint... So unless you know what you're looking for, just follow the guidelines that many people have posted - depending on stiffness, at least 13.5 inches from center to fender, more if you have a soft setup.[/quote]
[quote=duncangrant]It was interesting to see the WRC control-arm on the broken arm thread - that had a spherical joint in the arm. That means the outer end of the control arm must effectively be lower than with the standard arm. They could easily lower it more by inserting spacers between the joint and the hub knuckle.[/QUOTE]
I actually don't know WRC rules... can they adjust the inboard mounting location? Do they use a tube-frame engine cross member with raised inner pickups? If they can, then that control arm is almost irrelevant. Same applies if they use different hubs, or other such things...
Joel
| duncangrant | 05-26-2005 05:22 AM |
[QUOTE=Joel Gat, 1.8L]You're not disagreeing with me :) I said that, too:
[/QUOTE]
Oops, missed that. No harm in emphasising it though. :)
[QUOTE=Joel Gat, 1.8L]
I actually don't know WRC rules... can they adjust the inboard mounting location? Do they use a tube-frame engine cross member with raised inner pickups? If they can, then that control arm is almost irrelevant. Same applies if they use different hubs, or other such things...
[/QUOTE]
Good points. I don't know.
[/QUOTE]
Oops, missed that. No harm in emphasising it though. :)
[QUOTE=Joel Gat, 1.8L]
I actually don't know WRC rules... can they adjust the inboard mounting location? Do they use a tube-frame engine cross member with raised inner pickups? If they can, then that control arm is almost irrelevant. Same applies if they use different hubs, or other such things...
[/QUOTE]
Good points. I don't know.
| Drew888 | 05-26-2005 07:45 PM |
Matt,
I just found a decent deal on some Tein Flex's. This would only cost me about $200 more than the Koni/STI pink combo, and I get much more neg. Camber adj. for them.
Question is...would this be overkill for a guy that may only see one event/yr? On the softest setting they should be fairly comfortable as a daily driver (no complaints from kids/wife?)? Hard to pass up when they are within reach.
I just found a decent deal on some Tein Flex's. This would only cost me about $200 more than the Koni/STI pink combo, and I get much more neg. Camber adj. for them.
Question is...would this be overkill for a guy that may only see one event/yr? On the softest setting they should be fairly comfortable as a daily driver (no complaints from kids/wife?)? Hard to pass up when they are within reach.
| Scooby Freak | 05-26-2005 09:52 PM |
[QUOTE=Drew888]Question is...would this be overkill for a guy that may only see one event/yr? On the softest setting they should be fairly comfortable as a daily driver (no complaints from kids/wife?)? Hard to pass up when they are within reach.[/QUOTE]
Check the springrates. The 'older' ones had softer springs & the 'newer' ones have 8k/10k springrates. The 8k/10k will likely be too much. If I wasn't racing every weekend, I wouldn't keep using my 8k/10k suspension.
Check the springrates. The 'older' ones had softer springs & the 'newer' ones have 8k/10k springrates. The 8k/10k will likely be too much. If I wasn't racing every weekend, I wouldn't keep using my 8k/10k suspension.
| drees | 05-27-2005 02:37 AM |
Drew888, what are your goals here?
With the ride height at 13 7/8" front and 12 3/4" rear, you are at definitely as low as you'd want to go and at that ride height and spring rate are giving up some performance due to poor suspension geometry. You are proabably about 1/2" to 3/4" lower than optimal for your average street performance spring rate.
You mentioned swaybars in your first post, yes, they will help reduce roll and keep you off the bump stops in the corners. No matter what suspension you end up you will want a set of swaybars.
You mentioned that you occasionally bottom the suspension over large bumps at speed, stiffer struts will help reduce this as well.
Your current setup with some swaybars, decent struts (Konis or AGXs) and an alignment will get you 95% of the performance of a coil-over setup for your average driver, without the complexity of all the adjustable parts.
After that point you may want to re-evaluate your spring choice to see if your driving style and preferences would be better suited to a spring which rides higher.
Of course, if you just want to get the best, spend the cash and forget about it, spring for some Whiteline G4 coilovers, I've only seen positive reviews and they ride nicely, too!
With the ride height at 13 7/8" front and 12 3/4" rear, you are at definitely as low as you'd want to go and at that ride height and spring rate are giving up some performance due to poor suspension geometry. You are proabably about 1/2" to 3/4" lower than optimal for your average street performance spring rate.
You mentioned swaybars in your first post, yes, they will help reduce roll and keep you off the bump stops in the corners. No matter what suspension you end up you will want a set of swaybars.
You mentioned that you occasionally bottom the suspension over large bumps at speed, stiffer struts will help reduce this as well.
Your current setup with some swaybars, decent struts (Konis or AGXs) and an alignment will get you 95% of the performance of a coil-over setup for your average driver, without the complexity of all the adjustable parts.
After that point you may want to re-evaluate your spring choice to see if your driving style and preferences would be better suited to a spring which rides higher.
Of course, if you just want to get the best, spend the cash and forget about it, spring for some Whiteline G4 coilovers, I've only seen positive reviews and they ride nicely, too!
| CirrusWRX | 05-27-2005 11:28 AM |
I know of a bunch of people in the tri-state area who use the koni+prodrive spring combo, or koni+sti pink spring combo who do track days (HPDEs) and like them very much :)
<-- soon to be part of the koni+prodrive crowd, but need new tires first!
<-- soon to be part of the koni+prodrive crowd, but need new tires first!
| Drew888 | 05-27-2005 08:05 PM |
I am really grateful for all the helpful insight!
If this helps;
2002 WRX wgn/Whiteline Flatout springs/Stock struts/Comfort ALK/225-45-17's on TIS'/Hawk HPS pads/SS lines/Motul fluid/H-6 upgrade/Whitline f & r sways.
Front shocks are showing wear and are now a bit bouncy, they were great on the current stock struts before they wore out (45k miles on car). I started looking at alternatives and discovered my springs are too low and certainly too soft for how low they are. Reading more, I have found interest in Koni/"spring" (which?) combo. With more research, the newly released STI (wagon specific) springs (for 04/05) seems best but I cannot wait until Aug. to get them.
Alternatives are the popular Prodrives, a comfy ride that can be stiffened a bit with Konis help, for the 1 or 2 road course events I think I will start doing (soon looking to attend my very first HPDE).
99% is "spirited" street driving and a strong desire for a less bouncy ride. I forget the Whiteline Flatout Specs but when the stock struts were new the ride quality was fantastic. Going a little stiffer with Konis to control them seemed like the way to go.
I may get the bug and start racing more often (actually I am hoping this is the case). Just yesterday someone suggested coilovers. This way, I spend less$ in the long run. I am ok with this if I can find sonething for less than 15-$1600 that is very comfortable in the softest setting. Knowing this I am still researching my options. Unlike most of you I cannot afford to change my mind too much (not that much discretionary income).
Gotta run,
Any more advice welcome!
Thanks,
If this helps;
2002 WRX wgn/Whiteline Flatout springs/Stock struts/Comfort ALK/225-45-17's on TIS'/Hawk HPS pads/SS lines/Motul fluid/H-6 upgrade/Whitline f & r sways.
Front shocks are showing wear and are now a bit bouncy, they were great on the current stock struts before they wore out (45k miles on car). I started looking at alternatives and discovered my springs are too low and certainly too soft for how low they are. Reading more, I have found interest in Koni/"spring" (which?) combo. With more research, the newly released STI (wagon specific) springs (for 04/05) seems best but I cannot wait until Aug. to get them.
Alternatives are the popular Prodrives, a comfy ride that can be stiffened a bit with Konis help, for the 1 or 2 road course events I think I will start doing (soon looking to attend my very first HPDE).
99% is "spirited" street driving and a strong desire for a less bouncy ride. I forget the Whiteline Flatout Specs but when the stock struts were new the ride quality was fantastic. Going a little stiffer with Konis to control them seemed like the way to go.
I may get the bug and start racing more often (actually I am hoping this is the case). Just yesterday someone suggested coilovers. This way, I spend less$ in the long run. I am ok with this if I can find sonething for less than 15-$1600 that is very comfortable in the softest setting. Knowing this I am still researching my options. Unlike most of you I cannot afford to change my mind too much (not that much discretionary income).
Gotta run,
Any more advice welcome!
Thanks,
| drees | 05-27-2005 09:03 PM |
Everyone seems to rave about how the Whiteline G4s are nice and comfortable (ride like stock!) on soft settings while still doing a great job of controlling roll, pitch and dive.
Unfortunately they are close to $2000.
Getting a slightly stiffer spring which doesn't quite sit as low as the Flatouts like the Wagon STi or Prodrive springs or the Whiteline Control springs should be a good choice.
BTW, do you have any pics of your wagon with the Flatout springs? Would like to see how low it looks with them. :)
Unfortunately they are close to $2000.
Getting a slightly stiffer spring which doesn't quite sit as low as the Flatouts like the Wagon STi or Prodrive springs or the Whiteline Control springs should be a good choice.
BTW, do you have any pics of your wagon with the Flatout springs? Would like to see how low it looks with them. :)
| Drew888 | 05-27-2005 09:16 PM |
drees, I am always asked what springs I have because many people like the look. If I could keep them I would.
Ultimately, I'm after performance a little more than looks. Sure wish I could have both :D
What site is everyone having their pics hosted at? I cannot remember the last time I posted a pic.
G4's do seem perfect...if only there was a set on e-bay.
Ultimately, I'm after performance a little more than looks. Sure wish I could have both :D
What site is everyone having their pics hosted at? I cannot remember the last time I posted a pic.
G4's do seem perfect...if only there was a set on e-bay.
| drees | 05-27-2005 09:30 PM |
[QUOTE=Drew888]drees, I am always asked what springs I have because many people like the look. If I could keep them I would.
Ultimately, I'm after performance a little more than looks. Sure wish I could have both :D
What site is everyone having their pics hosted at? I cannot remember the last time I posted a pic.
G4's do seem perfect...if only there was a set on e-bay.[/QUOTE][url]www.we-todd-did-racing.com[/url] for pic hosting.
Ultimately, I'm after performance a little more than looks. Sure wish I could have both :D
What site is everyone having their pics hosted at? I cannot remember the last time I posted a pic.
G4's do seem perfect...if only there was a set on e-bay.[/QUOTE][url]www.we-todd-did-racing.com[/url] for pic hosting.
| Drew888 | 05-27-2005 11:11 PM |
drees...thanks, I'll let ya know when pics are up.
| PA04STI | 05-28-2005 12:03 AM |
[QUOTE=Drew888]Matt,
I just found a decent deal on some Tein Flex's. This would only cost me about $200 more than the Koni/STI pink combo, and I get much more neg. Camber adj. for them.
Question is...would this be overkill for a guy that may only see one event/yr? On the softest setting they should be fairly comfortable as a daily driver (no complaints from kids/wife?)? Hard to pass up when they are within reach.[/QUOTE]
I have mine set on 8 it is a rough ride esp. with ****ty PA roads. I should put them on softest setting for street but love the performance.
I mean probably are overkill but for $200 more and alot more performance WHY NOT...lol
But ride will be more aggressive, but that's the price you pay for performance.
I just found a decent deal on some Tein Flex's. This would only cost me about $200 more than the Koni/STI pink combo, and I get much more neg. Camber adj. for them.
Question is...would this be overkill for a guy that may only see one event/yr? On the softest setting they should be fairly comfortable as a daily driver (no complaints from kids/wife?)? Hard to pass up when they are within reach.[/QUOTE]
I have mine set on 8 it is a rough ride esp. with ****ty PA roads. I should put them on softest setting for street but love the performance.
I mean probably are overkill but for $200 more and alot more performance WHY NOT...lol
But ride will be more aggressive, but that's the price you pay for performance.
| leecea | 05-28-2005 12:52 PM |
[QUOTE]Question is...would this be overkill for a guy that may only see one event/yr? [/QUOTE]
It's not my money or my car, so you can do what makes you happiest, but I think you'd be better off spending the money on more events than driving around 363 days a year on coilovers waiting for those 1-2 days on the track.
It's not my money or my car, so you can do what makes you happiest, but I think you'd be better off spending the money on more events than driving around 363 days a year on coilovers waiting for those 1-2 days on the track.
| Drew888 | 05-29-2005 01:58 PM |
leecea,
I'm starting to think the same thing.
I'll start this journey with Koni inserts on Prodrive springs (175/175-linear). Compared to the Flatout I have (175-200/forget rears- progressive), this will improve geometry and while giving similar spring rates, they are linear so they should feel better than the Flatouts.
As time/experience warrants, I'll upgrade the rear inserts and move on to the STI pinks (wgn specific-rates of 223/195#), this and dial up the Konis...that should do it for a little while unless I reeeealy catch the bug :)
Thanks for all the assistance guys! Newbs first lesson...get the real scoop on the Motorsports forum
I'm starting to think the same thing.
I'll start this journey with Koni inserts on Prodrive springs (175/175-linear). Compared to the Flatout I have (175-200/forget rears- progressive), this will improve geometry and while giving similar spring rates, they are linear so they should feel better than the Flatouts.
As time/experience warrants, I'll upgrade the rear inserts and move on to the STI pinks (wgn specific-rates of 223/195#), this and dial up the Konis...that should do it for a little while unless I reeeealy catch the bug :)
Thanks for all the assistance guys! Newbs first lesson...get the real scoop on the Motorsports forum
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét