ddub Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 I was wondering why aftermarket (and stock) springs have rear springs that are about 40-50 stiffer than the front when coilovers seem to be more evenly matched. type front/rear ratio(rear/front) stock...196/308 1.57 sti.....223/337 1.51 tein H..220/310 1.41 tein S..230 340 1.48 swift...241/370 1.53 coilovers hks.......4/5 1.25 endless...6/8 1.33 endless...8/10 1.25 tein flex.8/9 1.13 tein basc.6/7 1.17 zeal xs...8/6 0.75 zeal v6...10/8 0.8 ksport....7/7 1.0 gpmoto....6/6 1.0 As you can see, the ratios are all more favoring a higher relative rate in the front with coilovers. The suspension pick up points remain the same with both struts and coilovers, so why the huge discrepency? Is the wheel rate that low for the front that for any performance driving you need that much stiffer of a spring? Are the springs handicapped by a front strut with too weak damping? If so, why are the bilsteins designed with the same handicap? Yes, I know you can order the spring rates different on most coilovers, but these are what I found as 'stock' rates for each coilover. Actually, having the optional spring rates further complicates things as you maybe should order the coilovers with a more 'optimal' spring setting than what is provided 'stock'. I would be happy to hear "I have such and such and it's great!", but even better would be a reason why there is this difference. TIA, DW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenonk Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 it's how the car is set up along with the shock's valving. It's also a preference.. btw, Endless doesn't make coilovers under their own name, it's under the name of Zeal.. Are you sure you're not looking at Cusco? and even so, I think Cuscos are front biased. Keefe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03Indigo Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 my cusco's were 8/8.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBlueGT Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Makes sense to me to have similiar to stock ratio. Full tune of 68HTA, KSTech 73 MAF, Racer X FMIC and ID1000s................by the DataLog Mafia!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddub Posted November 30, 2005 Author Share Posted November 30, 2005 not sure on the endless, I was just pulling information from other posts. So in terms of preference, all coilovers are tuned to be more understeering than all spring/strut combos? All springs have a higher rear rate relative to front rate. "Increase rear rate only: Rear ride rate increases. Rear roll resistance increases, increasing oversteer or reducing understeer." -- "Performance Handling" by Don Alexander That doesn't seem right that the coilovers would be the understeering choice. What's not right? I understand wanting to limit the dynamic camber curve for a strut suspension, that what the coilovers are really fighting against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBlueGT Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 The rears are higher due to the way the rear suspension is designed. There is leverage in the geometry that causes a higher spring rate to seem about 30% softer. Maybe the coil-overs advertise the effective spring rate vs. the actual spring rate. Full tune of 68HTA, KSTech 73 MAF, Racer X FMIC and ID1000s................by the DataLog Mafia!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.