Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Decided to raise my rears today as camber was sitting at around -2.4

I wound the two rings DOWN, to raise the height from A to B. Somehow after putting everything back together...the height hasn't seemed to have gone up at all if anything it actually looked lower....

I am pretty sure winding the rings down is to raise and winding them up is to lower...am I correct?

There is still some adjustment left for my rear camber so will be going in for another wheel allignment next week.

post-6973-1154778355.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/128976-adjusting-height-on-coilovers/
Share on other sites

winding down = lower

winding up = raising

Are u 100% sure????? Without a doubt???? Coz the way I look at it, winding it down decompresses the springs...ie raising the height...

So the way I have it at the moment is its at its LOWEST height???

Winding it up compresses the springs...ie lowering it...

"The use of 2 x C spanners to wind the rings up or down"

This is the info that I got from doing a google taken from

http://www.ksportusa.com/faq.html

How do I adjust height on my coilovers?

Most of our coilover systems include an adjustable lower mount that can spin up or down on the shock casing. Spin the lower mount up to lower and down to raise. Than it must be secured by locks on either side of the lower mount.

Second opinion anyone??? Before I take my wheels off again :miner:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...