Jump to content
SAU Community

Rectifying non-captive springs in Zeal coilovers

Super Roo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Super Roo Contributor

Super Roo

Posted
Posted
Rectifying non-captive springs in Zeal coilovers

Hello all,

So, I've taken my new R33 GT-R through its rego inspection (in the ACT you have to go through the government pits. It's worth just going and seeing what they find as if you return with everything rectified within a month you only pay an additional $16 or so). Mostly all stuff I anticipated that's easy enough to fix, like the exhaust being too loud. The one surprise has been that the springs in the coilovers aren't captive under full droop, such as when the car is jacked up. For background the car is on Zeal coilovers (sub brand of Endless), unsure if they're function x or something else as I haven't had a chance to properly get under the car myself. I've taken it to my suspension guy (Ian at Revell in Fyshwick), who's said if I don't want to lower the car further the fix is helper/tender springs (people don't seem to be able to agree which name goes with which thing - here we mean the super low rate springs that coil bind as soon as the car sits on the suspension and only extend to pin the springs in place under droop) which will cost almost a grand after parts and labour.

Before I drop that kind of money I want to be sure it's the way to go, so I've been doing my research. So firstly I'd like to check I've understood the problem properly. As I understand it the issue goes like this. With coilovers unless they have independent height adjustment ride height changes are made by winding the seat of the spring up and down, adjusting the preload and how much it's squished by. Non-captive springs happen when the seat isn't wound up enough, allowing the spring to fully extend under droop and rattle around. Is that correct? What I don't understand is why a kit that I assume was designed for this model of car would have such a problem within its range of adjustment. Is it just operating at a ride height higher than the manufacturer intended?

Secondly, I obviously need to work out the best way to fix this. Again as I understand it the possible solutions worth exploring are:

  1. Lower the car more. It's not crazy low but clearance at the front is marginal already in a lot of environments including the ramp to my apartment complex parking. The current front splitter is already scraped underneath but I don't want to break anything, and ultimately I'm planning to put a carbon fibre item on and would like to avoid destroying it.
  2. Helper/tender springs. A decent chunk of money but will properly fix the problem, retain the current ride height and not mess with the properties of the suspension under driving conditions. Can also potentially be reused on other coilovers I might fit in the future.
  3. Replace springs with longer springs.
  4. Replace coilovers with different coilovers that don't have this issue at the desired height or with a separate spring and damper combo.

Whilst I'm thinking I might eventually replace the coilovers with Ohlins ones down the track, I had planned for that to be in several years after doing a bunch of other work on the car, as it seems the current Zeal coilovers are reasonably well regarded. Is that the case? I'm leaning towards just getting the helper/tender springs, but want to make sure I'm not just throwing good money after a bad setup. I'm planning to keep this car until they put me in a box, so want to do it right.

 

TLDR - Zeal coilover springs aren't captive under droop, should I fix with tender springs or are these coilovers junk and I should replace with a new system instead of spending money fixing them?

GTofuS-T Grand Master

GTofuS-T

Posted
Posted

I could be wrong, and someone with more knowledge than I will surely come along and help, however, using the below pic of generic Zeal Coilovers as an example, the height adjustment is separate to the spring seat adjustment, so you should be able to adjust the Lower Spring Seat & Lock ring (2 rings below the spring) to fully captivate the spring at droop, (what effects this has on the ride comfort with pre-loading I don't know). 

The ring at the very bottom is the one used to adjust the ride height, so if this is what your coilovers look like, you should be fine without having to adjust the height.

$1000 to install helper springs is ridiculous, pretty sure you can  buy them for about $50, but I guess there is a lot of labour in removing, pulling apart, reinstalling and aligning. but you shouldn't need to do this.

Hopefully.

Jonathans-Zeal-Coilovers-005.jpg

  • Like 1
djr81 Grand Master

djr81

Posted
Posted (edited)

You need a helper spring.  They are not expensive.  Find out what the inside diameter of you springs are (Would guess 65mm), what height you need to bridge and go from there.

http://eibach.com/de/en/motorsport/products/eibach-helper-system

Edited by djr81
Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted

While I agree, they are kind of expensive if you take into account that you may need intermediate spring seats (between the main and helper spring) as well as the springs. and the labour assuming its not DIY

You could just lower the car so they are captive to get through the pits.....

I wouldn't swap out working zeals for new bilsteins, they are a reasonable shock and its not really an upgrade unless they needed a rebuild anyway.

Milhouse Enthusiast

Milhouse

Posted
Posted

My 32 had zeal coilovers on it when I first got it and mine were junk. They were the stiffest things I have ever felt and despite trying some much lighter springs to try and get some (if not ANY) travel they made little difference and were only fit for the bin. Bought a set of near new Australian made Shockworks coilovers which made an absolute world of difference!!

Super Roo Contributor

Super Roo

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Okay, so I finally had a chance to get under the car over the weekend properly. GTofuS-T gets a cookie, they do indeed look like they're independently height adjustable, and besides that the springs spin but don't rattle so even if they're at full height already the lowering would be in the order of a couple of mm to fix it. They'd been slipping up more and more lately for me and a few friends, but I think I'll be going somewhere else for suspension stuff from now on!

Not that it matters, but for background the quote was something like $88 bucks a spring, $33 bucks a spacer and the rest was labour for fitting them and a full alignment. But that's money I don't have to spend now! Just need to work out what size range c spanners to get and I can do it myself.

 

 

  • Like 1

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...