Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Thought I would get some help working out which model of coilover I have in my C34 and future setup.

I assume they are Cuscos as they are blue but every catalogue I have found has every model even the low specs with damper adjust.

Basically they have platform and spring perch adjust, the tops do not have any adjustment knobs and being platform the bodies dont either.

Fronts look like this.

2012-01-10190459.jpg

2012-01-10190434.jpg

The rears have a helper spring but I dont have a good photo.

I also got blue strut brace brackets in the boot, without the bar across the boot, they make good tie down points without the impracticality when seats are folded down...

Anyone got any idea on a model/series???

They are old and dirty so must've been fitted in J as it was only complied last year.

Next point though is slightly more important.

Anyone got any proper methods to setting up preload seeing as I cant adjust damping.

Problem is my front end feels too stiff.

I have good turn in but mid corner bumps make the car skip to understeer.

Rear seems fine, squats and goes on exit.

Back in my downhill mtb days, the first step was to get spring rate and preload right for 30% sag when you sat on the bike.

Then adjust rebound and compression until it feels good and doesnt bounce you into the scrub,

Is there a similiar method for cars.

I figure if i back the spring perch off 10mm, and then bring the platform down 10mm on the front it should soften preload whilst not lowering my car, but I am only guessing.

Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/387839-coilover-id-and-preload-setup/
Share on other sites

looks like there might be two adjuster nuts that the spring sit on, if they are u can release those a little which should help, otherwise could also be the spring rate in them. as for brand i am fair sure there are a few companies that paint there coilovers blue. can u see any other suspension mods? or is the rest stock? ie. sway bars

Thanks importzone.

I get that to adjust spring height I undo the lockring and move the bottom of the spring up & down relative to the shock body.

When I mentioned platform adjust above I meant these also have an threaded bottom mount so I can move the bottom suspension mount relative to the shock body also, so I can adjust ride height without adjusting spring preload/position..

There should be a method though to get the preload on the spring to a rule of thumb point to give the shock the best chance to control the lot.

Yea Wat might have been done is when installing they loaded the spring too much. So u might need to take some of the load of the spring. Nd then.adjust the height as it will drop on height when u release spring a little. I found this out when I had similar coilover design in my old 180. With no weight o. The coilover u should still have a bit of movement in the spring. Ie turns around a little. (How I was told to set them up) if not I got no idea.

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...