Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Looking at lowering my spring rates both front/rear by 2kg/mm (manufacturer specifies acceptable range +/- 2kg/mm for my model)

Currently have "firm" rates:

Front 10kg/mm with free length of 175mm (Stroke 98mm)

Rear 8kg/mm with free length of 200mm (Stroke 111mm)

Now if I were to change to 8kg front and 6kg rear can I just use the longer rear spring in the front and lower the spring perch to compensate for height difference (final ride height won't matter as have 2 way height adjust). Just wondering if this will cause issues, wouldn't think so as springsare linear in rate.

Seeing if I can just buy x1 pair of springs?

thanks

Edited by PT

200mm free height spring is fine in the front. If you have preload and base height adjustment, that is more than enough to make the height right. And then a new pair of 200mm free height 6kg/mm in the rear.

So yes, you can just buy 1 pair of springs

  • 1 month later...

OK new springs have arrived and I have swapped them over and adjusted preload on them, not fitted to car as it's at the workshop getting other stuff done.

Main concern is the coilovers hitting the bump stops due to lighter spring rates. I have done rough calculations to try to offset this, I know it's not "exaclty" like this in real world as other factors occur but...

FRONT: factory weight=690kg, divide by two=345kg per side (L and R)

10kg/mm spring will compress ~34mm

8kg/mm spring will compress ~43mm

Difference ~9mm, so I have increased preload by 9mm over original set up (I have then taken into account I am using a longer spring too)

REAR: factory weight=550kg, therefore ~275kg per side

8kg/mm spring will compress ~34mm

6kg/mm spring will compress ~45mm

Difference ~11mm, so have increased preload by 11mm compared to before (BUT I hace a helper spring too 1.9kg/mm with 80mm free length=too hard to factor in)

Long winded post yes, plenty of crap figures/numbers yes, but have I gone about this in the right way???

Should or do I need to trim the bump stops, they are 2-3" long

Edited by PT

How much you trim the bump stops depends on the height you have the car set to. Whether or not it reaches the bumpstops depends on height, shock rates, where you're driving etc.

Increasing preload as you have done will raise the car, this may bother you.

How much the strut compresses also depends on the shock. A high pressure monotube shock will compress less than a low pressure twin tube shock because of the gas pressure inside acting as a spring.

Your rear struts have helper springs so that effectively gives bugger all preload when they are uncrushed. With the weight of the car down, the helper spring completely crushes so they dont have an effect on how the main spring behaves.

Edited by salad

yeah they have 2 way height adjustment so I can alter final ride height independently from the spring perch, hence preload affecting height can be negated.

they are a twin tube (Tein)

surprisingly despite the helper spring there the main spring has now got 5mm of preload on it by rasing the spring perch 11mm total

I'll wait til fitted before cutting the bumpstops in that case.

You haven't considered the dynamic weight transfer when cornering/braking/accelerating in your calculation :yes:

The strut will now compress further when cornering with the same load even if you increase the pre load to compensate for the difference in static loading.

If you are really concerned you can increase the pre load on the spring to the point where the weight of the car is only compressing it by a small amount (say 10-15mm either end) and adjust the height via the base adjustment in order to maximize travel.

Try this;

This is how much much to trim off a Group Buy front bump stop, shown next to a standard Skyline front bump stop. The orange line is for standard height, the red line is for ~350 mm centre of wheel to guard and the yellow line is for ~330 mm centre of wheel to guard.

Bump_Stop_Comparison_With_Heights_Small.jpg

:miner: cheers :laugh:

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

    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
×
×
  • Create New...