# Lowering: discussion on handling, not looks



## Son (Aug 10, 2000)

*Lowering: What are your thoughts?*

This thread started as a lowering for looks thread but turned into a good discussion on handling vs. looks. I've cleaned out most of the bashing and slander and I would like to keep this as technical and informative from a performance standpoint as possible.
-Tatge


[Modified by tatge, 11:52 AM 4-6-2003]


----------



## Volkscience (Jun 1, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*

It's all about function for me... My GTI is about 2" lowered in the nose and 1.5" in the rear. It's stiff as all get out and handles very nicely, but there's practically no ride comfort. I like looking at other's cars that are sitting on the ground, but for me and my car, I'm low enough. Oh, and with Mk3s, they look pretty tall from the factory. There are cars out that look lower than mine stock. It's good, I don't need the hassle of "standing out" too much. Between Car Theives and Cops... I'd rather be discrete.


----------



## 2lowA4 (Jan 6, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Grandma Higgins)*

quote:[HR][/HR]or when you are so low in the rear that the wheel isn't even centered in the wheel well, it looks like trash. plain and simple. I've only seen this on mkIII's only. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
[HR][/HR]​Thats because the suspension geometry moves the wheel up and in towards the centereline instead of straight up and down


----------



## Egz (May 30, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*

I perfer my cars to be able to handle corners. I feel only go as low as a normal suspension would dictate. I believe a McPhearson strut setup (most cars nowdays)can only go a couple of inches before the roll-center gets messed up.


----------



## VW-BMW (Dec 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Egz)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I perfer my cars to be able to handle corners. I feel only go as low as a normal suspension would dictate. I believe a McPhearson strut setup (most cars nowdays)can only go a couple of inches before the roll-center gets messed up.[HR][/HR]​Text is directed at no one in this thread:


----------



## Zwoobah (Nov 16, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VW-BMW)*

For street driving, it's never too low. But, to balance out the ride height, the wheels must be an appropriate size. For instance, I think my GTI looks fantastic canned on my 16" Abts, but would look like poo dropped on 18"s. When I autocross, I raise it back up, the beauty of coilovers


----------



## H2O WOLF (Mar 30, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

Could you explain it? Something about the change in geometry I suppose. I know lowering too much actually makes handling worse, but don't know why.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (H2O WOLF)*

quote:[HR][/HR]







There's still a gazillion people on this site that will NEVER get it.







Could you explain it? Something about the change in geometry I suppose. I know lowering too much actually makes handling worse, but don't know why.[HR][/HR]​This DOES NOT aplly to every car or even every VW. On the A2's especially, when you lower the car to the point that the control arms are beyond parallel to the ground, the roll-center has been raised. One way A LOT of people offset the added roll is by adding bigger anti-sway bars. This will make an old suspension design even less independent and the ride gets worse. Some cars don't end up "handling like crap" when lowered a lot, mine do though.


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tenacious jett)*

I bought a German car to drive the damn thing, not have it scrape down the road, break my oilpan, and have it handle like poop. If I wanted that, I would've bought a Civic....
I'll take minimal drop for performance over "looks" any day of the week...


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (2k2 GTI 1.8T)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Would H&R race (lowers 2") be too low on an MK4?[HR][/HR]​If you want the best handling possible, YES.


----------



## woofster (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*

What would you guys say is the ideal drop for a balance of maintaining handling and aesthetics (closing that horrible fender gap)?


----------



## svart (Sep 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (H2O WOLF)*

I guess i'm the only one here that knows a late model mustang suspension when i see one. i'm referring to that picture of the lowered poop car of course, since i own one besides my GTI







. to the person who asked if it was geometry, yes it is. most notably bump steer. In simple terms, when the a arm is that high in it's arc of travel it causes the arc of the tie rod to shorten in it's travel causing the wheel to turn in/out as it travels up/down over the road surface. also since the a arm is so high in it's arc of travel you do nothing but loose any camber you have when the wheel moves up. that's why most stang fools who lower their car end up dialing in so much static camber.







this fool in the picture can relocate the inner a arm mounting holes up an inch and in 5/8 or so to regain some of his lost a arm motion, and he can get a bump steer kit that adds length to the distance between the outer tie rod and the spindle in order to place the tie rod back into it's proper place in the arc of travel.
sheesh feel like i'm writing a novel here.








well you asked for the explaination! and that's the short version! 
cheers


----------



## G3T3I7 (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]







There's still a gazillion people on this site that will NEVER get it.







[HR][/HR]​Anyone have an idea how much this car is dropped ?? I'm about to do the Apex 1.7" kit...Is that going to make the car sit like the above picture ?? That looks like way too much stress on the car


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (G3T3I7)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I'm about to do the Apex 1.7" kit...Is that going to make the car sit like the above picture ?? That looks like way too much stress on the car







[HR][/HR]​If you have a MK4 with a 1.7" drop, yes, your car will sit like that.


----------



## je. (Aug 6, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VW-BMW)*

What vehicle is pictured btw? It's not a Mk4 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## G3T3I7 (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tyrolkid)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I'm about to do the Apex 1.7" kit...Is that going to make the car sit like the above picture ?? That looks like way too much stress on the car








If you have a MK4 with a 1.7" drop, yes, your car will sit like that.[HR][/HR]​







NO !!
I thought that 1.7" wouldn't be that bad....the picture above looks like a slammed MK4...Crap, I thought going 2" or over is bad for the MK4 chassis








And I thought 1.5" was an ok drop, so what's 2mm more ???? What the hell, do I have to reconsider everything and spend a lot more on a spring/shock combo now, like Eibach that only lowers 1.2" ? I mean, does .5" make that much of a difference in negatively affecting my car ?? Please help, I had my heart & wallet set on the Apex kit


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (G3T3I7)*

This is not rocket science the arms pivot in a circle, do a first order differential of a circle ( in this case it would be the Cos function using the arm as the hypotenuse) and find the rate of change delta increase significantly. Oh that is rocket science sorry. 
The rate of chamber change is a sinusoidal curve , it has the least change when the arms are parallel to the ground and the rate of change increase drastically as the arms move away from parallel. Really any drop from parallel is bad, how bad? Depends, but the point to remember is since it is a sinusoidal function, a 2 inch drop may have 10x the camber change per any delta in relation to a parallel arm. FYI camber changes are BAD. 
I�fll cover bump steer next. 
Coil overs are very bad on a MK4, as there rear height is fixed.


----------



## G3T3I7 (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]This is not rocket science the arms pivot in a circle, do a first order differential of a circle ( in this case it would be the Cos function using the arm as the hypotenuse) and find the rate of change delta increase significantly. Oh that is rocket science sorry. 
The rate of chamber change is a sinusoidal curve , it has the least change when the arms are parallel to the ground and the rate of change increase drastically as the arms move away from parallel. Really any drop from parallel is bad, how bad? Depends, but the point to remember is since it is a sinusoidal function, a 2 inch drop may have 10x the camber change per any delta in relation to a parallel arm. FYI camber changes are BAD. 
I�fll cover bump steer next. 
Coil overs are very bad on a MK4, as there rear height is fixed. 
[HR][/HR]​







Well, that just shows how ignorant I am at math. I don't really know what you mean except that when the car is lowered the control arms aren't parrallel to the ground, and the negative camber increases...How does this affect the car down the road ? If I only go down 1.7", what will happen to the car when I hit higher mileage in a few years ? Does it place so much stress on the chassis that it's not fixable, and the only way to fix it is get a another car ? Educate me...i really want to put in an aftermarket suspension for a better/tighter ride, and a little looks. Thanks.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (G3T3I7)*

even if camber is fixed with a kit, every time the suspension moves, the chamber will change and not keep the tire flat on the road, the lower you go the bigger the change per any movement, that is what I was saying above; Which is bad for handling. Unlike the Celica this is negative camber so it does not help in a turn, it hurts. To stop chamber changes, you got to slap in a large sway bar in front, which is bad for ultimate grip (understeer), or toss in some stiff linear springs, but that is bad for the ride.


----------



## G3T3I7 (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Mmm, you say toss in a front sway, so if I toss in a front sway w/a rear sway, could I avoid the camber change ?
This sucks, now I'm worried to even change my suspension, since the word is 1.7" is too low, and will hurt my handling rather than help








We need some more opinions here.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (G3T3I7)*

quote:[HR][/HR]We need some more opinions here.[HR][/HR]​That's just it, these aren't opinions. This is the difference of what works and what doesn't. Some guys out there will tell you you can slam the living piss out of your car and it will handle great. These guys would be wrong and would get left if it were taken to a track where it counts. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

yep agree!
Also I'm not telling you to put in more front bar, I'm saying that is one way to control camber change, but at the expense of massive understeer, NOT a good thing.


[Modified by oldmanTDI, 5:18 PM 12-25-2002]


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

quote:[HR][/HR] Really any drop from parallel is bad, how bad? Depends, but the point to remember is since it is a sinusoidal function, a 2 inch drop may have 10x the camber change per any delta in relation to a parallel arm. FYI camber changes are BAD. 
I�fll cover bump steer next. 
Coil overs are very bad on a MK4, as there rear height is fixed. 
[HR][/HR]​Here is some more info on camber curve and VW front suspensions....also the fact that Mk4s are past parallel at stock ride height:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=333413
-Mike P


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tyrolkid)*

quote:[HR][/HR] Really any drop from parallel is bad, how bad? Depends, but the point to remember is since it is a sinusoidal function, a 2 inch drop may have 10x the camber change per any delta in relation to a parallel arm. FYI camber changes are BAD. 
I?fll cover bump steer next. 
Coil overs are very bad on a MK4, as there rear height is fixed. 

Here is some more info on camber curve and VW front suspensions....also the fact that Mk4s are past parallel at stock ride height:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=333413
-Mike P
[HR][/HR]​IIRC, that thread came to the conclusion that since the MKIV's struts are mounted at more of an angle (off of perfectly vertical) than the MKII's, you can get away w/ a bit more drop w/o sacrificing ride or handling as much. The control arms don't need to be parallel on a MKIV, as evidenced by the factory setup.


----------



## G3T3I7 (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
IIRC, that thread came to the conclusion that since the MKIV's struts are mounted at more of an angle (off of perfectly vertical) than the MKII's, you can get away w/ a bit more drop w/o sacrificing ride or handling as much. The control arms don't need to be parallel on a MKIV, as evidenced by the factory setup.[HR][/HR]​








So what does that mean ? Aren't we talking about how bad it is to drop an MKIV ?
Is the statement above ONLY to clarify that it's ok to drop past parallel for the comfort aspect of dropping the car?
I want to drop my car 1.7" with the Apex kit...1. Will the drop shorten the life of my car, or hurt it in other ways ? 2. Will my handling get worse ? Those are the main points...Merry Xmas guys


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

The MK4 uses high castor designed for the Corrado, FYI, which can tolerate less drop.
My stock arms from center of ball joint to center of A-arm bolts is about 1/4 higher at the joint, meaning the arms are slightly up from parallel. I would agree maybe even more for a VR6 sport suspension.
The conclusion of a MK4 taking more drop is false. Basic suspension design says the further away from parallel the worst the camber change gets (also castor but I won't go there today). VW my say hey we can do .25 to .75 lower to look cool, we are not going to do it the right way be redesigning the pickups points, ( or the A4 way by going to A arms) it ain't worth the money. How that simple design compromise gets extrapolated into since VW stock ain't parallel, we should be able to drop the sucker even more? Beats me, as logic would dictate that if the suspension is past parallel stock, then it can take LESS drop, then if VW gave us a proper suspension to start with.
The length and height of the top pickup point is basically meaningless to camber change, castor angle of course but not camber change which is dictated by:
Length of lower A-Arm
How close to parallel the arm is at rest. Camber changes range from zero at parallel to 1:1 when the Arm is at a 45 degree angle.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

quote:[HR][/HR] How that simple design compromise gets extrapolated into since VW stock ain't parallel, we should be able to drop the sucker even more? Beats me, as logic would dictate that if the suspension is past parallel stock, then it can take LESS drop, then if VW gave us a proper suspension to start with. [HR][/HR]​We took a look at the extreme example of an F1 car, where the suspension's pick-up points are actually below the wheel hub. Naturally, this places the control arms at an angle much less than parallel. I believe someone thought this was because the shocks themselves were almost parallel to the ground, allowing much more radical control arm angles. If we extrapolate some of this to a MKIV vs. MKII comparison, you will see the MKIV's upper strut mount is further inward of the bottom (greater angle) compared to a MKII. This (supposedly) allows the MKIV's control arms to be at less than parallel while retaining all of the ride attributes of the MKII's parallel set up. This info is mostly gathered from various threads (mostly one) and culled together in my head and therefore could be completely wrong.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

Camber delta is affected by the two points above. If the MK4 strut pickup point is further inboard, it only means the affective arm length is even less resulting in even bigger chamber changes per upward delta. Meaning that it can take LESS drop. If you are saying the strut top pickup point is not perpendicular to arm, same applies, even more camber change per upward delta. 
Mcpherson struts, can�ft be dropped for performance. They need a stiff linear spring, so they don�ft ride comfortable. Their advantages: they are light, strong, cheap to make, dependable. 
A F1 car or any race car has unequal A arms, a very different setup. the two intersecting radii allow almost zero camber change over the small amount of movement on a race track. Pickup point for the damper /spring has no effect on castor or camber of suspension. 



[Modified by oldmanTDI, 5:24 AM 12-26-2002]


----------



## BishopVR6 (Nov 18, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (svart)*

for the follwing it concerns only VW's
The right amount of lowering??? ...too many variables, car, wheel sizes etc.,a good lowering job constitutes the right amount of contol arm movement, to dampen that pot hole or speed bump...Ive owned and driven 4 dubs, 3(1 A2)GTi's and 1 SLC all were lowered. the progression in suspension styles also had a hand in the progression of my lowering decisions. I'd like to say that having a non-vr6 equipped car will allow more room for drop in the front...my a2 16v was lowered 80mm in front & rear....handled and looked fresh on teardrops and conti's http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Camber delta is affected by the two points above. If the MK4 strut pickup point is further inboard, it only means the affective arm length is even less resulting in even bigger chamber changes per upward delta. Meaning that it can take LESS drop. If you are saying the strut top pickup point is not perpendicular to arm, same applies, even more camber change per upward delta. [HR][/HR]​Now I'm thinking I must have it reversed. Maybe the MKIV's are more vertical, allowing more drop w/ less ill effects.








quote:[HR][/HR]Mcpherson struts, can?ft be dropped for performance. They need a stiff linear spring, so they don?ft ride comfortable. Their advantages: they are light, strong, cheap to make, dependable. 
[HR][/HR]​So that's why Eli @ Shine suggested 500 lb ft./350 lb rr. springs (linear) for the 16v. Stock ride height and neutral handling.
quote:[HR][/HR]A F1 car or any race car has unequal A arms, a very different setup. the two intersecting radii allow almost zero camber change over the small amount of movement on a race track. Pickup point for the damper /spring has no effect on castor or camber of suspension. 
[HR][/HR]​Simple but effective explanation. Just what I needed. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
And an 80mm drop on an A2 and good handling is VERY suspect. That's a nice way of saying BS.


----------



## MartijnGizmo (Apr 21, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (danny_16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Is this too low??? Weitec GT 60/60
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid46/p2ef5c4bc86d43bbb160bd9af222e00b5/fcce5882.jpg 
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid46/p7125bc3924a59304051cc81d00702b5b/fcce587c.jpg 
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid46/p771d622740e6833e5a93ffa659bd650b/fcce587b.jpg 
[HR][/HR]​From an aesthetical point of view I'd definatly say: NO!!!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## danny_16v (Jan 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (ricerocket)*

well Im doing alright then, but sometimes I will take a turn pretty fast and I scraped the bottom of my lip when taking the turn, but i guess that kinda stuff happens. And I have never taken a turn that fast in my car, so it only happened once


----------



## roccostud (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*

edited because I had no idea what I was doing back then :laugh:


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (danny_16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]well Im doing alright then, but sometimes I will take a turn pretty fast and I scraped the bottom of my lip when taking the turn, but i guess that kinda stuff happens. And I have never taken a turn that fast in my car, so it only happened once[HR][/HR]​If your lip is scraping the ground while cornering hard, you're definitely too low...


----------



## burdelli (May 3, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VW97Jetta)*

Suspension decisions come down to 2 things in my opinion: handling and looks. You just have to decide which of the two is more important to you. As discussed throughout this thread lowering beyond a certain amount will hinder your handling, not improve it. What that amount may be on Mk4s, I'm not sure, but I always thought it was around 1.5". 
Also you have to consider the style of driving you're going to be doing. Daily driver or autocrossing, racing, etc.? Personally I'm running on coilovers lowered almost all the way. But for me it's more about looks. I did an entire season of autocrossing last year, and I won't be doing it again, so I don't necessarily need the absolute best handling. 
Another thing to keep clear is that lowering any Mk4 in my opinion will always firm up the ride and reduce body roll, making the car apear to handle better (whether it actually does or not). For most people that is just fine. Most are looking to lower their car for looks, firm up the ride, make it feel more sporty, but retain some kind of comfort. It's as simple as that for the majority out there. All these technicalities are more suited for those who actually intend to take their cars to the race track very often. Again, you just have to decide...








Cheers!


----------



## danny_16v (Jan 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VW97Jetta)*

quote:[HR][/HR]well Im doing alright then, but sometimes I will take a turn pretty fast and I scraped the bottom of my lip when taking the turn, but i guess that kinda stuff happens. And I have never taken a turn that fast in my car, so it only happened once
If your lip is scraping the ground while cornering hard, you're definitely too low...[HR][/HR]​these guys gotta be scraping when taking turns, now dont tell me vw Racing teams are using incorrect suspension set ups and ride heights


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (danny_16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]well Im doing alright then, but sometimes I will take a turn pretty fast and I scraped the bottom of my lip when taking the turn, but i guess that kinda stuff happens. And I have never taken a turn that fast in my car, so it only happened once
If your lip is scraping the ground while cornering hard, you're definitely too low...
these guys gotta be scraping when taking turns, now dont tell me vw Racing teams are using incorrect suspension set ups and ride heights
[HR][/HR]​You're serious? You can't compare your A2 to those. They have insanely stiff springs, extreme camber and quite possibly different pick-up points on the suspension in order to acheive maximum suspension travel while still sitting on the ground. Apples and oranges, but just because your lip scraped once doesn't mean your too low. Park the car on level ground and see how close to parallel your front control arms are. The closer they are to parallel to the ground the better. This is on A2's, YMMV. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]The closer they are to parallel to the ground the better. This is on A2's, YMMV. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif [HR][/HR]​It's true for ANY vehicle with MacPherson struts.


----------



## GTiandrewK (Jan 12, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*










Great discussion here. Above picture, aside from the fact that its funny, that picture really does show the control arm angle being negative towards natural charateristics of McPherson suspension. 
I've noticed the angle of control arm starts to make negative angle on MK IVs when you lower your ride more than 2".
That is why I strongly recommend people not to lower their ride below 2"


----------



## GTiandrewK (Jan 12, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (couldntthinkofone)*

quote:[HR][/HR]im waiting for the 2.4" apex cupkit for my car and after reading this im going to still do it







i guess looks over anything...







[HR][/HR]​
Never say you weren't warned. Oilpan, CV boot and joint, and your control arm. Amonst a few that can go wrong or damanged by lowering your ride more than necessary. Think about it. Is it really worth it to go against everything to lower your car?


----------



## Jettafied (Feb 3, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTiandrewK)*

what do you say to people with coilovers that slam their car then? or to people that eliminate all wheel gap with coilovers? 
also, A LOT and i mean A LOT of people on the forums lowered their car 2" and some a little more, and you dont see any people cracking their oil pans left and right. whenever anyone lowers their car that person should take precautions on dips, potholes, bumps, and what not. 
but if you thought about increasing the performance on your car, you wouldnt have that h&r cup kit; you would have a shine suspension. 

[Modified by Jettafied, 1:34 AM 2-24-2003]


[Modified by Jettafied, 1:35 AM 2-24-2003]


----------



## GTiandrewK (Jan 12, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Jettafied)*

Jettafied,
Read above posts by many smart people on vwvortex. Listen to them.
For the other people who lowers their ride because Tom, Jack and Harry from VWvortex did, basically are unfortunatly not aware of consequences of lowering their ride more than the McPherson suspension of MK IV can handle.
It doens't take much to throw off your car's handling ability. Especially when it is considered "COOL" to slam your ride, it is quite hard to make them understand why they should be careful of doing so.
BTW, please do not take things out of context when you want to quote or refer to what I wrote. Becasue my replies on this thread has nothing to do with what I believe or you believe is the best suspension.
For many there are alot better suspension set up than Shine suspenion that you do not even own but you heard of them being excellent.


----------



## 2002GTI (Sep 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (danny_16v)*

I think he had a good point. Can someone address it please?
quote:[HR][/HR]well Im doing alright then, but sometimes I will take a turn pretty fast and I scraped the bottom of my lip when taking the turn, but i guess that kinda stuff happens. And I have never taken a turn that fast in my car, so it only happened once
If your lip is scraping the ground while cornering hard, you're definitely too low...
these guys gotta be scraping when taking turns, now dont tell me vw Racing teams are using incorrect suspension set ups and ride heights







































[HR][/HR]​


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (2002GTI)*

Touring Car suspension is quite unlike production car suspension. They are not using incorrect suspension geometry - quite the contrary ... they have developed suspension bits, moved mounting points, and basically rebuilt the entire vehicle under the skin. The geometry has been optimized for racing at the ride heights you see in these pictures.
By lowering a street car to these ride heights you've totally screwed up your roll couple, which simply is the distance between the roll center and the center of gravity ... the longer this distance is, the more your car wants to roll. By dropping 2"+ you've essentially sent the roll center under ground (really) while only dropping your center of gravity by 2" or less.
Apples and Oranges.


----------



## 2002GTI (Sep 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

Thanks I understand now


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

quote:[HR][/HR]By lowering a street car to these ride heights you've totally screwed up your roll couple, which simply is the distance between the roll center and the center of gravity ... the longer this distance is, the more your car wants to roll. By dropping 2"+ you've essentially sent the roll center under ground (really) while only dropping your center of gravity by 2" or less.[HR][/HR]​IIRC, the Mustang pictured comes from the factory w/ it's roll center already below ground or at ground level. Guess what happens when you lower it at all?


----------



## 9VW23yrs (Jun 22, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Touring Car suspension is quite unlike production car suspension. They are not using incorrect suspension geometry - quite the contrary ... they have developed suspension bits, moved mounting points, and basically rebuilt the entire vehicle under the skin. The geometry has been optimized for racing at the ride heights you see in these pictures.
By lowering a street car to these ride heights you've totally screwed up your roll couple, which simply is the distance between the roll center and the center of gravity ... the longer this distance is, the more your car wants to roll. By dropping 2"+ you've essentially sent the roll center under ground (really) while only dropping your center of gravity by 2" or less.
Apples and Oranges.[HR][/HR]​Not true, for the cars in the pics, except for the kit car...they use stock suspension pickup points.
From VW Racing homologation papers
















I have more...


----------



## primogti (Oct 9, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (9VW23yrs)*

It is possible to compensate for the roll tendancy with REALLY stiff suspension and very minimal suspension travel.... nothing you'd want to take on the street.


----------



## Justler (Oct 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (primogti)*

This is on an 88 MK2 GTI

I am getting the FK Konigsport coil-overs with height and dampening adjustment... minimum drop of 2.1" or so.. I'm also getting VR6 strut bearings which I hear say raise the front about 10mm. My question is... is this way too steep of a drop for optimum handling, even with dampening turned full up? What can I do to counter act the drop? I haven't installed the coil-overs yet, and have heard that the a-arms sit a little lower than parallel with the ground. Maybe half an inch, "I think".
What exactly will this do for me handling wise, exactly? Also, how can I help compensate for this type of drop?


[Modified by Justler, 5:02 PM 2-26-2003]


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Justler)*

quote:[HR][/HR] ... minimum drop of 2.1" or so ... is this way too steep of a drop for optimum handling[HR][/HR]​Yup
quote:[HR][/HR]What exactly will this do for me handling wise, exactly? Also, how can I help compensate for this type of drop?[HR][/HR]​Your roll couple will be way too long and your car will want to roll a lot more than it did at stock height -- in other words, your car will handle like crap. Bars won't be enough to control this - you'll need MUCH stiffer springs ... a LOT stiffer than you would want on the street, and a lot stiffer than your dampers could handle. Dampers do not control roll - they control the spring's stored energy. This would be a "looks only" ride height -- if you want to handle, limit your drop to 0.5 - 1.0 inches.


----------



## Jouko Haapanen (Apr 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (9VW23yrs)*

The factory DTC cars use stock pickup locations for inner control arm bushings and the strut top mount. They relocate the lower ball joint and the tie rod to correct geometry. By doing this they not only manage to correct the roll centre of the vehicle, but the camber curve of the suspension becomes functional. The camber curves of the lowered A4 chassis cars are horrific, the camber turns increasingly positive with suspension travel in the bump direction. Even with very stiff springs to counter the below-ground-level roll centres, there is enough suspension travel to throw the camber to hell in a handbasket.
The homologation papers and the VWR parts catologues show how they've done it, but it is not really a reasonable solution for a street car. The DTC car also runs 3-5 degrees of static negative camber, the lack of adjustable camber being another sore point for the A4 owners.


----------



## primogti (Oct 9, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Justler)*

Justler, I installed FK Konigsports on my 85 GTi. I autocrossed the car once at about mid to 3/4 of the lowes setting and once at the highest setting since I installed them. The car felt a lot better at the highest setting - much more balanced and smoother. Unfortunately, it's still a bit too low at the highest setting because the front control arms are still not quite parallel, as you mentioned. 
Some good news, however, I found these while surfing last night: 








They are adapters to raise the car at 15, 30 or 50mm increments and go between the main and secondary springs. KW has them on their European page http://www.kw-gmbh.de under "spare parts" and sell for about $40-50 a set. I don't know if FK sells such a thing, but if not, I'm sure they'll fit as the coilovers are very similar. These would help set the car at a height which offers improved handling. I'm thinking of going with the 15mm adapters. 

[Modified by primogti, 12:53 PM 2-26-2003]


[Modified by primogti, 12:54 PM 2-26-2003]


----------



## Justler (Oct 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (primogti)*

primogti... how do you like your Konigsports? I was going to go with the highsports, but they were out of stock. What's the change over the stock suspension or whatever you had before? Will look into those spacers. I do r/c cars, and they use the same sort of idea.


----------



## primogti (Oct 9, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Justler)*

I love my Konigsports! I like having options - raise the car for autocrossing, lower it if I'm in the mood and not racing. I can adjust the damping to be soft on crappy streets and firm it up for track days. Can't go wrong. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif IMO it's worth the extra cash over the highsports. 
A few things to note: 
-the FK's don't come with a dust cover for the shaft. I hope to install some on mine eventually and you might want to do the same before installed the coils. 
-Koni recommends you use a torque wrench rather than an impact wrench to tighten the top nut, this is likely so you don't mess up the valving. I had mine impacted on and had no problems, but that was the first and last time. Find the special tool or mod a 22mm deep socket instead. 
-FK doesn't offer install instructions, but you can find some for the koni coilovers on their site (www.koni-na.com). 
Have fun! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## BryanH (Apr 21, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (primogti)*

So how does the 337 go about lowering a inch from stock height and still have everyone raving about the handling?


----------



## RetroGTI (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BryanH)*

Most coilover and spring drops look awesome no matter how low- hydro and airbag kits that drop it crazy low look like poo


----------



## Fishbone (Oct 15, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BryanH)*

Handling and lowering are different (performance vs. looks) Too low on VWs and the handling gets worse but the look is great. I guess it depends what you prefer. 
quote:[HR][/HR]So how does the 337 go about lowering a inch from stock height and still have everyone raving about the handling?[HR][/HR]​


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Fishbone)*

ok i think the understanding of the A arms thing just clicked in my head, tell me if this is correct:
If you were to draw 2 imaginary lines through the front A arms of your suspension, the imaginary point where these lines intersect is your roll center. As the body of the car rolls, its motion creates a semi circle with this imaginary point at the center. Lowering your car so that the A arms are below parallel pushes this point downward, which increases the radius of this semi circle, making your car's body roll more.
Now if you have a car that has the A arms above parallel wouldnt that be good because the roll center is more near the center of the car, or does the higher center of gravity negate this?
Also, im assuming none of this applies to the rear suspension, and that its just best to have it somewhere close to the front in height?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

This relatively superficial (you won't get bogged down with too many equations) explanation may help:
http://e30m3performance.com/myths/Weight_Transfer/weight_transfer2.htm


----------



## GTiandrewK (Jan 12, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

Great info f1forkvr6!
Only if we can have everyone understand this concept somehow...
Here is the link, another dubber who lowered his car more than 2.5" with coilover ended up busting his CV joint and his car has less than 5000miles on it.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=726503


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTiandrewK)*

this also happened to a kid i know on a brand new mk4, i forget if it was before or after his cup kit, but i think it was more of a problem with the CVs


----------



## lowazzgolf (Dec 19, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Words of wisdom. Peshaw. Go elsewhere as I _know_ your lowazzgolf won't hold a candle to my 1.0g _sustained_ 16v that sits at stock ride height. Period. You may look good sitting still, but I look even better leaving you "bump-stop boyz" around corners.







[HR][/HR]​i *couldn't* care less. because if i *could* care less then there would have to be some amount of care present, which there isn't.
bump-stop boyz, i don't think so, i have a full suspension and i don't bottom out, you've got me confused with the other crowd.
i *couldn't* care less about speed and cornering


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BryanH)*

quote:[HR][/HR]So how does the 337 go about lowering a inch from stock height and still have everyone raving about the handling?[HR][/HR]​Because:
1) Most 337 owners haven't driven other MK4s with better setups
2) It would handle even better if it were higher
3) It has 225/40-18 Pilot Sports. Most people confuse high grip with good handling
-Mike P


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (lowazzgolf)*

quote:[HR][/HR] handling is irrelivant for my driving on a daily basis as i am not a SCCA member nor am i aquiring to be. if i was then i would do as is needed for that particular case[HR][/HR]​This is why you should leave. Some of us ARE SCCA members, or are "acquiring" to be. Some people in this thread have talked about trying to balance looks w/handling. Unfortunately, in a Machpherson strut car, you have to give up one in order to get better at the other. More handling, less looks, and vice versa. Some people find a compromise based on their driving habits. You=no handling, "mad" looks. Us= no looks, best handling possible. You have your priorities, we have ours. Pretty simple.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (slammed dub)*

quote:[HR][/HR]That 16v that pulled 1g on stock height, YEAH RIGHT!!!! Those mustve been some good slicks you had and a really big track that you only did one part of and spun out. WOW!!![HR][/HR]​It's called being on Shine Racing coilovers w/ Bilstein Group 1 shocks and 500lb front and 350lb rears that are corner balanced. Did you see the word SUSTAINED? That means it will hold 1.0g until the tires blow. Any car as low as yours or your buddies won't stick any better than your momma in a big vat of margarine. EDIT: should know better than to try and explain physics (yes, it has some bearing on suspensions







) to a couple of twenty year old all show, no go dudeZ. Sorry I didn't mis-spell anything but I did add the z at the end of dudes so hopefully you two _might_ understand this post a tad.










[Modified by vuu16v, 10:08 AM 3-3-2003]


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

If you are going to try to make an argument, at least try to be civil and offer some facts instead of flipping out. Believe it or not, correct grammar also helps people want to listen to your argument. For example, the correct abbreviation for "you are" is "you're" not "your"
No one answered me as to if my above statemens regarding A arms are correct or not, if anyone knows the answer, please let me know.
Another question. First of all, i normally use my car as a daily driver, and drive hard, but not THAT hard unless I am auto crossing (which i do just for fun, not points) or on some fun back roads. I would imagine if the car is lowered (but not "slammed") to a point where the A arms are below parallel, that the handling could still be vastly improved over stock just based on the lower C.G. and stiffer springs/dampers, without being overly stiff for a street setup (holy crap, I apologize for that huge run-on sentence). Correct me if I am wrong.
It might not be the "ultimate" track or autoX setup, but I'd imagine that most of the people rolling around on cup kits, coil overs etc still have cars that handle really well assuming a "reasonable" drop. I think most people, at least that i talk to/hang out with are looking for something that makes the car much more fun to drive, and better to look at. Something like a 1.5"-2" drop seems looks pretty good and seems to still offer really good handling.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

quote:[HR][/HR]No one answered me as to if my above statemens regarding A arms are correct or not, if anyone knows the answer, please let me know.[HR][/HR]​This didn't do it for you? http://e30m3performance.com/myths/Weight_Transfer/weight_transfer2.htm
Let me know, there are other sources that explain this in slightly different ways ....
quote:[HR][/HR]I would imagine if the car is lowered (but not "slammed") to a point where the A arms are below parallel, that the handling could still be vastly improved over stock just based on the lower C.G. and stiffer springs/dampers, without being overly stiff for a street setup (holy crap, I apologize for that huge run-on sentence). Correct me if I am wrong.[HR][/HR]​If you take look at the diagrams in the above post again, you'll see that pretty much any lowering will affect your roll couple. In a vw, the roll center lowers more than the CG for a given distance -- for example, *just making these number up* ... if you lower your ride height by 1", CG may drop 0.75", but your roll center will drop 1.25". This is why lowering a VW, or any vehicle with a McPherson strut setup should be done conservatively, and with a commensurate increase in spring rate. Parallel control arms are a good guide to when lowering has hit its "limit" as far as handling is concerned. Additionally, as you go lower than parallel, your wheels will lose negative camber, and could go positive as they are compressed. Think about what an outside wheel, at _positive_ camber will do for your handling.
quote:[HR][/HR]It might not be the "ultimate" track or autoX setup, but I'd imagine that most of the people rolling around on cup kits ... still have cars that handle really well assuming a "reasonable" drop.[HR][/HR]​I have yet to see a "Cup Kit" with a drop anywhere near reasonable ... keep in mind, my definition of reasonable is aroun 0.5" - 1.5" depending on which chassis you are running.
quote:[HR][/HR]Something like a 1.5"-2" drop seems looks pretty good and seems to still offer really good handling.[HR][/HR]​This is where we disagree. 1.5" to 2"+ will hurt handling on our cars.
*spelling corrections


[Modified by f1forkvr6, 2:31 PM 3-3-2003]


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

The BMW link helped me to understand a lot. I just want someone who knows what they are talking about to read my post and verify that I understand, and have explained it in "lay person" terms. I mentioned a few things that are not addressed in the link that you gave. Thanks.
Although I'm not disagreeing with you about the fact that its better to lower less than 1.5," and I have no information to back up my argument, I would imagine that a lowered car with a cup kit would still offer a vast improvement in handling over a STOCK suspension car (not a stock ride height car with aftermarket suspension). I've ridden/driven some friends cars that were farily low, and although I wasn't really pushing it (not my car) it felt like they took turns much better. Also some companies (Weitec, FK) offer 40mm kits, which is slightly more than 1.5", but not what i would call "slammed."
The argument about negative (by negative I mean bad) changes to the camber is something to think about though, as I hadn't thought about that before, thanks http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Please don't take this the wrong way like I am trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to learn as much as I can, and I like to try to play the other side to squeeze as much info out of people as possible. I plan to lower my car around 1.5" or so (ok, so i admit do care about looks). Being that i AutoX only a few days a year and I drive it on the street the other 36X days, I think this is a good combination between looks and handling. Right now I'm looking into H&R race or sport on shocks/struts I haven't chosen yet, or possibly something else. Still doing some research, and thats why I'm in this thread


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

I'd be hard pressed to simplify the roll couple dynamic any more than the BMW article already has (this is in essence what your thoughts on control arms in your earlier post is attempting to explain). All I can do is offer the following advice - be careful when you choose a lowering "kit" - it is not a valid assumption that a lowered car will handle better than a stock suspension. There are too many variables, and most kits that lower for looks simply do not offer the roll resistance required to counteract the completely screwed up suspension geometry. In other words, there are a lot of "kits" out there that will handle worse than the factory VW suspension.
If someone else can word this differently, please - have at it.


[Modified by f1forkvr6, 4:00 PM 3-3-2003]


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VW97Jetta)*

Some people like to just look at their cars and touch themselves,some like to actually drive them. There is room for both on this forum. I only help the drivers!
Dick Shine


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

All I want is for someone to say "yes everything that you said in your post is correct, you understand now" or "no, that is incorrect, you are wrong when you said ____ it actually is like this _____"
And again, i'm not trying to argue for or against cup kits in general, just trying to get counter arguments and information out of a bunch of people, and I appreciate what I have gotten so far.
So does it seem to be the consensus that about a .5" drop is ideal, and going below 1.5" is where it starts to get stupid?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

quote:[HR][/HR] Some people like to just look at their cars and touch themselves, some like to actually drive them. There is room for both on this forum. I only help the drivers!
Dick Shine[HR][/HR]​Ha-ha-ha-ha! .....sorry, gentlemen, but I am ROTFLMAO here...... Dick, you made my day!







Sorry for the off-topic post........


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

Me too







... and now I give up .....


----------



## Swervedriver (Mar 8, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (mybabyjetta97vr6)*

Aside from the last page or so this thread has contained more good information than I've seen on here in a long time. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








That being said I'm really happy with my suspension setup on my daily driver (H&R sport 1.25", Bilstein sport). I'm sure some of you guys would cringe about the use of spacers as well but you gotta define your own setup for what you as an individual are looking for.


----------



## GTiandrewK (Jan 12, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Swervedriver)*

So had to rotate my friends tires today. Front tires were very worn. It was not until we took both front tires off that we noticed driver side tire inside tread was completely bald and outside still had decent tread left.
My buddy goes "Oh dude, my suspension is cupping!" Well, I do not know what cupping means but I am guessing that it has to do with negative camber on the wheel. But ironically only the driverside tire was unevenly worn. What gives? He has Weitech cupkit.


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTiandrewK)*

wait, so the drivers side tire was worn badly, but worn evenly all the way across, and the passenger side tire was worn evenly, but not as badly?
An indication of incorrect cambber would be that each tire is worn badly on one side more than the other


----------



## GTiandrewK (Jan 12, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

quote:[HR][/HR]wait, so the drivers side tire was worn badly, but worn evenly all the way across, and the passenger side tire was worn evenly, but not as badly?
An indication of incorrect cambber would be that each tire is worn badly on one side more than the other[HR][/HR]​That is what I told him as well. But he was asking me what he has to do to correct that. He also said he never have alignment done since he got the suspension. Well, I am not saying that could be the problem but nothing really explains me why his front driverside tire has uneven tirewear while the front passanger side tires doesn't have unever tirewear.
So what do you think? He needs alignment? or so called camber kit(camber adjustment?) He has MKIV GTi 1.8t
Now, I am curious to see how my tires are. I am currently sporting HRcupkit. I will have to check it tomorrow morning.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

VR6 Mk3 wrote: _ So does it seem to be the consensus that about a .5" drop is ideal, and going below 1.5" is where it starts to get stupid? _
Since most the guru’s ran away out of frustration, let me answer you.
The consensus is really based on platform, for a heavier and lower and probably non-parallel OEM angle A4, the ideal drop is NONE, and where it gets stupid is anything more than a 337 drop. This of course is dependent on car, engine, driver, road conditions, and probably most importantly rim weight. I’m sure a A4, Golf, GL with 2.0 and some K-1 rims 15x7 could make use of a far lighter and lower spring, as the car is light, the rims are very light. Can a VR6 Jetta with 18x7 Inox wheels at say 54 lbs work with the same spring and height, no way the car would be bounding and scarping etc. So the consensus there is no consensus and if there was a consensus it would be less is best for handling.
The heavier the car, the larger and heavier the rim, the poorer the road the stiffer and taller the spring. The damper would need to get lighter on jounce heavier on rebound too! Wow, go figure why they make adjustable suspensions. It all depends on a whole lot of stuff.
Gut feeling, shine has a shootout and the cup kits get their A$$ handed to them, that is what my consensus says. Gut feeling somebody shows up with a bone stock 1.8T with VR6 front springs, shine rear bar and koni dampers and does almost as good as the Shine, Gut feeing some guys show up with $$$$ CO 50mm down and get spanked hard. Notice the Shine wants a shootout, and is willing to back one, all these other “performance” suspension systems have no interest at all. Why is that? 
I don’t know if Shine intends to do a street evaluation, gut feeling Shine will win that too, and my suggested VR6 front spring, Koni damper, SRSB would be a close second, then some COs, and the cup kits would be DEAD last. 
So lets get serious, if you mention the way the car looks, vs the way the car handles, the post should not even be placed in the suspension tuning forum. As looks forms no parameter for tuning, maybe the Vortex gods should split the forum, one for tuning, one for looks, as there are no good suspensions that look good too. Check shine, that butt dragging setup is bout as ugly as you can get, but man what a ride, plus you can’t see yourself when you drive. Kind of like the A4 Audi commercial, you know the one where the BMW guy is checking out his hair while the Audi guy wants to drive. 
The real A4 consensus on performance is minimal drop in front, some in the rear stiff linear springs for the front, massive rear bar. Anything else is a looks mod, don’t even pretend your car actually performs well. 



[Modified by oldmanTDI, 1:22 AM 3-5-2003]


----------



## 2.0LGtiPwr (Mar 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tyrolkid)*

If one needs to be conservative/ careful when lowering a car with a Macpherson strut suspension then what type of suspension would give more leeway in the height a car could be lowerd without severly affecting the A-arm level and CG to roll center ratio? I see all the time on SPEED these GT cars that look as if they are about to scrape the pavement (rarely if ever a Golf/Jetta though) and I'm pretty sure quite a few of them have a Macpherson suspension. I see from reading much of this page and the one before it that most of the talk going on here is in reference to Golfs/ Jettas which, to me, were not made to ride like what anybody on here is trying to get them to ride like, including myself. So in hindsight I begin to wonder if all the information brought about in this thread is soley for Golfs/ Jettas or for any car equiped with a Macpherson strut design?
Thank you,
Julian


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (2.0LGtiPwr)*

quote:[HR][/HR]If one needs to be conservative/ careful when lowering a car with a Macpherson strut suspension then what type of suspension would give more leeway in the height a car could be lowerd without severly affecting the A-arm level and CG to roll center ratio? I see all the time on SPEED these GT cars that look as if they are about to scrape the pavement (rarely if ever a Golf/Jetta though) and I'm pretty sure quite a few of them have a Macpherson suspension. I see from reading much of this page and the one before it that most of the talk going on here is in reference to Golfs/ Jettas which, to me, were not made to ride like what anybody on here is trying to get them to ride like, including myself. So in hindsight I begin to wonder if all the information brought about in this thread is soley for Golfs/ Jettas or for any car equiped with a Macpherson strut design?
Thank you,
Julian[HR][/HR]​You must have missed the part in the middle where someone brought this up already. Sounds like they change the suspension bits so that the car can be that low and still have the A arms parallel.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (2.0LGtiPwr)*

The strut design is a light, strong suspension it is at its best during racing on light bodies and flat surfaces. The A arms on these racing struts have lower pickup points, also they are very stiff on the spring and very light on the rim and tire, and that is a flat surface.
Struts are at their worst with a heavy body, heavy wheel, non-flat surface, and the need to provide ride comfort. Like what a car needs. That is why the MK5 will have true A-arms in front. 
Struts can be made to perform, stiff front linear springs, parallel arms. Toss in unique FWD problems then you need stiff rear bar, lower in the rear. The only problem is this is not what the fast and furious crowd perceives as a perfect handling setup. So on goes the progressive slam springs and the insistence the performance has increase. 
If you want good and low, then really the best way to get there is with a true dual A-arm suspension, look at a Vette. Not that there is anything wrong with a strut, they can work, just that they have to be designed to work, VW did not redesign the suspension for a 337 it is the same design as Grandma's Jetta 2.0. So of course it performs as such. That does not mean a BMW M3 strut, Mini strut or a Supra strut suspension won't be kicking butt at the local autoX, well most but not all performance cars feature at least a modified strut. There are some with a true strut like the VW.
http://www.bmwworld.com/models/mini/suspension.htm
http://www.miniusa.com/link/ourcars/3dengineersview
Yeh sure the Mini got struts, but the sucker is light and taunt, it does not have a VR6 and 3200 lbs to support. Plus the pickups are all optimized for performance, they lower in relation to the pavement (roll center) wishbone (A-arm) is long (good for smaller camber changes), has widely spaced true dual spherical bushing supported arm (proper movement unlike the VW single radial bushing arm), nobody buys a mini for a good ride (unlike female owned Jetta wagons with 2.0 and auto). The rear suspension is a work of art too. Don’t tell anyone but the Focus has a nice setup also (for a sturt).



[Modified by oldmanTDI, 2:46 AM 3-5-2003]


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

I would just like to again say that my 16v w/ the Shine coilovers (500lb ft./ 350lb rr. springs + their rear sway) is in no way streetable on even a semi-daily basis. A 400/350 setup is much more streetable, but in a state w/ potholes like Ohio, something less extreme than that would probably be more ideal. This is on an A2 chassis. YMMV. Call srsvw.com and they'll actually ask you how you intend to use their kit and set you up accordingly if one of their "street kits" don't do it for you. They won't just sell you stuff because they have it taking up space on the shelf. And no, they don't give me anything for this cornball kiss-ass stuff (hint, hint







), I'm just thrilled my car handles better than the driver now.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Thanks for picking up the ball OldMan ... perhaps your turn of the phrase will make more sense to the folks here than mine did. Always good to say the same thing in different ways!








And yes ... isn't the focus a pretty cool 'merican vehicle?


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

looks like they have all high tailed it outa here? varmits, * low down * lilly livered varmits,


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

swaybar, Lowes $3.29 I got a 5/8 steel bar, I welded it across the top of the beam. I got a spare just incase, but I felt 5/8 sufficient for my needs. I've been welding bars across the top since the MK1 days, so I know it works. GLH-S from Shelby has the same setup, Ol Shelby stole the idea from me, but his kid is mighty pretty so I'll let him slide, his chili is only OK, works best with some fresh rattlers in there.
The BOV is controlled by a boost switch, Napa has the switch in stock, I don’t have a BOV, I use the factory EGR valve in factory location, works fine, I’ve even piped it back into the intake via the CCV port. BOV is used to control compressor surge.
The Wastegate is the same deal; I use the EGR valve plumbed into the exhaust manifold, control by boost switch and a factory N75. Works better than the BOV but makes my engine all sooty. 
Springs, I use rubber spacers, any PepBoys or Autozone, I trimmed them to fit.
If I did not get such a good deal on the TC, I was going to find some cheap autozone rear shocks $6.99 a piece and mod to fit, same with the fronts. But the TC were cheap and have a lifetime deal.
The stock dampers were not completely dead but almost.







2 years and 20 K miles.... Oldman miles at that!


[Modified by oldmanTDI, 11:17 PM 3-5-2003]


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

oh, you mean stress bar, not sway bar.
How does your car handle the nitrous?


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

I mean sway bar, function is identical in everyway to factory bar, this is torsion beam rear. By making the beam stiffer via running a bar down the center like the factory, bolting a bar in the center like Shine, welding a bar across the top like DIY oldman, or by bolting a bar to the frame with pickup points on the arm like autotech the all work. I would point out that my bar is the lightest and most efficient and by far the cheapest.


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

i guess i cant picture what you are talking about in my head. Do you have any pictures by any chance?


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

No and it is hard to take a picture on the car. But the beam that connects the rear trailing arms is a sway bar; it takes the displacement of one wheel and puts it on the other. The factory bar runs down the center of the torsion beam to make it stiffer. The shine bar bolts into this beam to make it stiffer. My bar is welded on the top of the beam to make it stiffer. The two factory pivot point on the beam function like body pickup points on a regular bar. Trust me it all works out. Think about it alls a sway bar does it if you pickup one wheel, it picks up the opposite wheel. It is a load transfer device that just so happens to dampen body roll. Swaybars allow the car to corner flatter at the expense of loading the outside tire.
Propane is a fuel and is not needed for power as the TDI has enough fuel, plus the propane burns all at one time instantly which is a huge shock load to the engine.
N20 just makes the intake charge denser and cooler, the denser and cooler the charge the better the combustion and the cooler the diesel runs, so propane is hard on a motor for power gain, N20 is easy on the motor outside the 400 ft-lbs!










[Modified by oldmanTDI, 3:39 AM 3-6-2003]


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

quote:[HR][/HR]i guess i cant picture what you are talking about in my head. Do you have any pictures by any chance?[HR][/HR]​
Here ...... it is not a picture, but it is a model that will give you an idea. I hope this is the section of the bar he welded there. Oldman, let me know if you used different section or whether the place you welded it is not there, so we make a better model.....


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

That’s perfect and the ends of the beam have very heavy gussets to the trailing arms so there is limited flexing along the beam ends. Most flexing is along the middle 2/3 of the beam. If you really wanted to make a STRONG light bar, you could just box the beam! Now that would be very strong using minimal weight of steel.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]you really wanted to make a STRONG light bar, you could just box the beam! Now that would be very strong using minimal weight of steel. [HR][/HR]​Been done by some racers and is perportedly quite effective.


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

ahh...i get it now. ive never seen a picture of the shine bar either, so i figured it was similar in shape to the bars most people sell, but goes inside the beam. Now i understand why they can advertise that it doesn't add unsprung weight. I've heard talk of people making/running tubular rear beams. I would think this would save a lot of weight and be really effective. Know anything about that?
Also, not that you would want to lower it much more than the front, but you could get away with lowering the rear much more than the front, because of the suspension design, correct?


----------



## BryanH (Apr 21, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

Based on a bunch of the comments here I just ordered Neuspeed Sofsports and Bilstiens...well see how it works!
I also am trying to pickup a Neuspeed 28mm Sway bar from a guy here....well see if he still has it.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

butt down is good for handeling and brake dive for sure: that is in a front heavy front wheel drive car, so butt down is good, but not when you try to put 400 lbs-ft to the ground.


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

can i see your dyno graph? i bet the torque curve looks like my desk here


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BryanH)*

Bryan, I would order the koni linear dampers and the sofsports, variable springs and variable dampers lead to strange things.... Linear Koni and sofsports would be much better and make a good compromise. 
Dyno of a TDI is flat on the HP but the torque has a massive peak and then drops down to a mere 300 ft-lbs







through the range.


----------



## BryanH (Apr 21, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

I got a set of the bilsteins from a friend 1 year used for 200 for all 4...


----------



## GTiandrewK (Jan 12, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BryanH)*

Here is video for you suspension gurus to watch
http://homepage.mac.com/silvery/iMovieTheater23.html#
Then, discuss your findings accordance to the objective of this thread.
It looks to me that slammed GTi is handling well around that turn no?


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTiandrewK)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Here is video for you suspension gurus to watch
http://homepage.mac.com/silvery/iMovieTheater23.html#
Then, discuss your findings accordance to the objective of this thread.
It looks to me that slammed GTi is handling well around that turn no?[HR][/HR]​One turn? You expect _anyone_ to make _any_ conclusions from that? If someone does, they are a fool.


[Modified by vuu16v, 9:38 AM 3-9-2003]


----------



## VWGTIRCR (Nov 7, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BadassVW)*

This is my plan for my A1, do Autotech coil overs, and bilstien shocks. lower the car about 1.5'' for performance, and then how ever low I want for shows( but probably wont exceed 2'')


----------



## GTiandrewK (Jan 12, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR] conclusions from that? If someone does, they are a fool.

[Modified by vuu16v, 9:38 AM 3-9-2003][HR][/HR]​Oh! you know it all don't you


----------



## 9VW23yrs (Jun 22, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTiandrewK)*

Roll centers are only one part of the equation...
Even though this is for R/C cars the principles are the same and physics apply...
http://home.tiscali.be/be067749/58/intro.htm


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTiandrewK)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Oh! you know it all don't you







[HR][/HR]​I know a 5-10 second clip of one turn isn't going to help or hinder this thread. The car looks pretty and the weather was nice. Other than that... umm... yeah, ok.


----------



## GTiandrewK (Jan 12, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I know a 5-10 second clip of one turn isn't going to help or hinder this thread. The car looks pretty and the weather was nice. Other than that... umm... yeah, ok.[HR][/HR]​That GTI took that turn pretty well. Don't you think? and it was ungodly slammed.
Now my point here isn't to argue with whats already being said. I am only showing the footage of track racing GTI, and pretty well slammed one at that.
Tell me something. Are you trying avoid saying, "Yeah that car took that turn pretty well, oh yeah it is slammed as we hate to see it on MK IV"? Well, yeah I think so.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTiandrewK)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Tell me something. Are you trying avoid saying, "Yeah that car took that turn pretty well, oh yeah it is slammed as we hate to see it on MK IV"? Well, yeah I think so.[HR][/HR]​Watched it six times in a row. Here's my conclusion: he came in real fast, came to almost a crawl at the apex and pulled out of the corner fairly quick. If that's what you consider fast, I only wish you were in my auto-x class over here. And yes it was slammed, crawling, but still slammed.


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

It took the turn decently. It would have taken the turn MUCH better if it were raised. That's all we're saying....


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tyrolkid)*

and think in the real world how this low rider will be bump steering all over the place. Low can't take bumps and turns together. Find an autoX with some railroad tracks and potholes, then lets see slammed cars take a turn. I'd put a pole on the outer edge for some "fun".


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

can't see the movie. blank page........ tried to copy, downloaded it, etc... nothing! Broken link perhaps?


----------



## Jacon (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

ok.........here's the deal. I'll try and explain this as best as possible.
Diagram #1








Image #2








Image #3








Image #4

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view









Ok, try to follow me on this. The first image explains the negative and positive camber. The next images show cars having body roll, even the M5, and I believe most of the cars have the MacPherson struts. If you look at the Honda, (yea...yea, I know







) you'll see that the inside wheels are beginning to lift off the ground which illustrates that the momentum of the car is being transferred to the outside wheels. Look at the car's current center of gravity.....it's off tilt b/c of the weight transfer.
Now think about this in terms of your A-arm. If you have your a-arm NOT PARALLEL to the ground while driving straight, it is off, but if you were to lift up one side of your car to match the same angle as what that Honda is WHILE cornering, prop up you car, and look at the opposite side of the car, specifically the a-arms, you'll notice that the a-arm is now parallel to the ground. DEPENDING ON HOW LOW YOU TAKE YOUR CAR WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE A-ARM IS ACTUALLY STRAIGHT WHILE CONERING. There is such a thing as TOO LOW! By allowing for the a-arm to be straight or as close as possible to parallel while cornering will allow your tires to grip more of the road, therefore giving you better cornering. A slight negative camber will also help to alleviate the TIRE ROLL as in this Cadillac pic:








Notice how the tire rolls underneath the rim
here's an A4








Notice the rear tires. See how the inside tire displays a POSTIVE camber (this cannot be avoided due to the weight transfer) and the outside tire has a negative camber? By lowering the car, you can compensate for the negative camber on the outside wheels by letting the body of the car "dive" closer to the ground eliminating most of the negative camber. This in turn allows for more wheel to hit the ground which provides better grip.

There are MANY other factors that come into play when trying to get the best suspension, but I thought I'd shed some light on this one first.
Hope this helps........ http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

[Modified by 2.0wned, 4:27 PM 3-10-2003]


[Modified by 2.0wned, 4:30 PM 3-10-2003]


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

you need quicktime. Nothing to look at really some guy comes in fast brakes, grinds 2nd, shifting IMO far too late, Mininmal tire squeal, bet my home made mods and some good tires, I'd be spanking this guy easy..... Typical GTIAndrew post, nothing to learn from it. Don't waste your time. At least I'd be three wheeling around this turn.


----------



## ylwGTI (Jan 18, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BryanH)*

regarding the argument that our cars should have the A-arms parallel to the ground, woulndn't a lower profile tire change the A-arm's position, could that be used to correct and make them parallel??


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (ylwGTI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]..... woulndn't a lower profile tire change the A-arm's position, could that be used to correct and make them parallel??







[HR][/HR]​no and no ...... the relation is among components fised on the body and tires are out of the equation. If you have curvy legs, no shoe hight will correct the leg's shape.......


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (ylwGTI)*

and I may add that really the arms perform better if they are slightly above parallel too (center higher). As the arm goes to parallel, it pushes the bottom of the tire out which decreases camber a very good thing! How's that for confusion.








Toyota Celica uses a setup like this on the rear, but they use a compensation link to perform the geometry change.
Yes the oldman�fs arms are slightly above parallel. As soon as I find my digital camera cable I�fll do a full post. With all the pictures. 



[Modified by oldmanTDI, 11:29 PM 3-11-2003]


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, you must have pretty high front then? What kind of spacers did you use and what about the rear? I think you mentioned it once, but I can;t remember where it was....... reminder please







Thanks!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

I run the rubber spring spacers for aft, this take off one coil and makes the spring about 20% stiffer, also it brings the arm from slightly below parallel to slightly above. The front makes a bigger difference then the back. Say total height change is 6 to 8 mm, on a two year old suspension that has settled by 2 to 4mm.
20% is a large change for stock spring rates. That will be about 144 lbs-in for the stock green/pink/pink TDI Jetta spring and say about 200 lbs-in for the blue-blue-white-white VR6 Jetta spring. Hence Shine on the cheap: $40.00 for used springs, $10.00 for spring spacers.








Let me be specific about ride hight: 2w/2b VR6 Jetta springs on a TDI Jetta will give you parallel arms about 3.5 inches of gap between the tire and the fender. Spring spacers added to this will give 4 to 6 mm rise and the arms will be higher in the center. Right now I run just the springs with no spacers on TCs.
Well it looks like the lowerd crowd is gone for a while, always happends when the oldman comes out to play.










[Modified by oldmanTDI, 3:42 PM 3-13-2003]


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

I too am mucking about with the rubber suspension blocks. What I find is that they move about on the spring, and I have lost some. My fix will be to drill a hole in the block so I can thread an electrical bundle strap through and affix the block to the upper coil. I too plan to use the rubber blocks with my purchased 3W+2B springs.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (NewbieBaby)*

I have lost none? I've gone over one futon bed with frame at 75 MPH and today I hit a pallet skip at 75 MPH. I've also bottomed the car this week and hit a HUGE pothole at 50 MPH.
Currently I run the VR6 spring 2b/2w with no bushings and the stock Jetta rear with bushings Lets say right now the car is level, the arms are level, there is about 3.5 inches of gap between tire and lip. I think if losing bushings is a problem, you might look into HD Bilstein as the increase gas pressure is going to give you the extra 25 lbs-inch that you would get from the spacers due to the gas charge.
Spacers are used only for feel, when I'm finished I hope to have no spring spacers in the front as I will cut the spring and add strut spacers for height. A 5 coil spring is closing on 200 lbs-in and with a 8mm strut spacer it should be at stock height. That would be near shine performance for $10.00 on strut spacers and a hacksaw Ain't DIY a great thing!
The rear can't really be cut but: I did cut my own spring spacers for the rear increasing the V cut in the rubber by 50% so that they would fit and have more bite. They have not moved in the 6 to 8 months I�fve had them on!
The TCs take about 60 lbs-in/sec to compress vs stock 2 year old long dead struts at about 15 lbs-in/sec. I can hold the stock damper down with my baby finger say 5 lbs of pressure, the TC are about 20 lbs, the HD about 30 lbs. This rating is giving a huge benefit to the stock damper as really it can't take any normal compression without complete collapse. So when you really need the dampening, the stock one just does not work. During minimal movements the stock one also does ZERO dampening. A complete POS. Bar none.

I want to be finished with my setup soon. It would look like all blue/white springs are the same. Yeah check on the spacer, but looking at how tall my car sits, I don't think even with the 200 lbs the VR6 runs spacers with this spring. The sucker is TALL. 


[Modified by oldmanTDI, 4:43 AM 3-14-2003]


----------



## VR6 Mk3 (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Sorry to drag an old thread back from the dead, but I've been reading some Carroll Smith books lately, and in _Drive to Win_ he says:
quote:[HR][/HR]...the most important factor in any car's cornering ability is the height of the vehicle's center of gravity. The lower the center of gravity, the less lateral load transfer there will be for a given amount of cornering force and the faster the car will go around corners. This lowering of the c-of-g takes precedence over suspension geometry and everything else.[HR][/HR]​Granted, this is written in the oval racing section, but he does say "any car."


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Sorry to drag an old thread back from the dead, but I've been reading some Carroll Smith books lately, and in _Drive to Win_ he says:
...the most important factor in any car's cornering ability is the height of the vehicle's center of gravity. The lower the center of gravity, the less lateral load transfer there will be for a given amount of cornering force and the faster the car will go around corners. This lowering of the c-of-g takes precedence over suspension geometry and everything else.
Granted, this is written in the oval racing section, but he does say "any car."[HR][/HR]​Maybe on a smooth track.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Sorry to drag an old thread back from the dead, but I've been reading some Carroll Smith books lately, and in _Drive to Win_ he says:
...the most important factor in any car's cornering ability is the height of the vehicle's center of gravity. The lower the center of gravity, the less lateral load transfer there will be for a given amount of cornering force and the faster the car will go around corners. This lowering of the c-of-g takes precedence over suspension geometry and everything else.
Granted, this is written in the oval racing section, but he does say "any car."[HR][/HR]​Great book, but are you planning on running 1000 _plus_ pound (yes, thousand - with 3 zeros) springs? No? Then suspension geometry matters quite a bit more than you think it does.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6 Mk3)*

It make sense that the lower the CG, the better ..... BUT if done the right way! By simply installing shorter springs on our otherwise stock susp. components, we lower the CG, yes, but we screw big time other things .... which by now everyone on this topic should know about.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (DieselDemon)*

quote:[HR][/HR]just learn how to drive a lowered car. simple.[HR][/HR]​The simple rule is, slow down. That's right, all of you bumpstop lovers can get a good eyeful of mine and others "high ridin'" cars and scratch your heads as the taillights get smaller and smaller and ... "but dude, my car is like, way low. What's up w/ the 4x4 GTI leaving me?"


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

There are several points I would like to make.The first is that CS says right in his writing that he has no experience with the strut type suspension and that he retired from the business long before this became so popular.The last thing is why is he being quoted at all? I have seen posts here by many people with a much deeper understanding and experience. The point is if you are bound and determined to lower your car,then go ahead. It wont and cant handle well!
This is a simple fact.You may find some nitwit expert to tell you it aint so,and you can believe him if you wish. It wont change the laws of physics ,but who cares?

Dick Shine


----------



## danny_16v (Jan 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

quote:[HR][/HR]There are several points I would like to make.The first is that CS says right in his writing that he has no experience with the strut type suspension and that he retired from the business long before this became so popular.The last thing is why is he being quoted at all? I have seen posts here by many people with a much deeper understanding and experience. The point is if you are bound and determined to lower your car,then go ahead. It wont and cant handle well!
This is a simple fact.You may find some nitwit expert to tell you it aint so,and you can believe him if you wish. It wont change the laws of physics ,but who cares?

Dick Shine








[HR][/HR]​Well said. This should be the end of this topic. Anybody who is anybody that wants a good suspension, dont lower your car, listen to dick shine.


----------



## VWsuperhero (Jun 17, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (EMOTICON)*

So what is the maximum that a *MK2* can be lowered before the handling becomes negatively affected?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VWsuperhero)*

To the point where the control arms are parallel with the pavement - and NO further.


----------



## tatge (Sep 20, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

after reading through all 6 pages, it has left me wondering if I should put my Neuspeed SofSports back on and sell my H&R Sports


----------



## SpoolT4 (Dec 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tatge)*

quote:[HR][/HR]after reading through all 6 pages, it has left me wondering if I should put my Neuspeed SofSports back on and sell my H&R Sports







[HR][/HR]​If you're into *looks* and being up-2-date with the fellow *dubs*, by all means lower your ride. I think that lowering your ride is meant for looks and style rather than performance. I mean, who wants 3 inches of wheel well *gap* between tire and body resembling an SUV profile at a McDonald's Drive-Thru window with a hot babe serving you an *up-sized* meal?
Humor.








Fads are just *that* - Fads! But don't be misled to believe that lowering a ride means you're ready to take on the Fast'n Furious with cash at the end of a twisting road. When you see track events you have to consider that those teams *dial-in* their suspensions to suit that one track event. Choice of tire, choice of ride height, choice of balance, sway bars, left/right and back front all are dialed-in for that event.
When you're running down the streets you have millions of variables involved in a performance suspension. You also have your own driveway to pull into, and some of us *lose* more front end pulling into our own home garages than a pro on a track day if we're set-up wrong.
Like I wrote and was well stated through out this entire thread, *lowering* is a very cool affect, both visually and in pant feel. If I were to mod'out my MKIV and not worry about an oil pan letting lose on the turnpike, or a garbage can that rolled in my path on Sackett Street in Brooklyn, or even that 2 litre plastic bottle I'm about to hit at 50mph on the 278 with 3 inches of ground clearance ...if I had the cash to replace everything I left on the roadways each time something popped out in front of me ...I'd be lower, be cool and get that telephone number of that hot babe at the Drive-Thru at MickyD's.
Lowering is a cool look, yep.
Spool


----------



## tatge (Sep 20, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SpoolT4)*

as you can see from the link in my signature, my car is clearly all show







make sure you see tha parts list










[Modified by tatge, 12:47 PM 4-6-2003]


----------



## SpoolT4 (Dec 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tatge)*

quote:[HR][/HR]as you can see from the link in my signature, my car is clearly all show







make sure you see tha parts list







[HR][/HR]​From the looks of that parts list you did a little more than throw in a set of coilovers dropping your ride height 2.7 inches. From the looks of that parts list the only thing that's OEM is the ignition key, but I may be mistaken - you probably modified the battery in the remote to a super Lithium Energizer.
Nice seats by the way, glad you went cloth for the grip.
Spool


[Modified by SpoolT4, 5:59 PM 4-6-2003]


----------



## BadassVW (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SpoolT4)*

quote:[HR][/HR]







[HR][/HR]​if she had some armpit fur she'd be euro-hot!!! Nice HID's though










[Modified by BadassVW, 7:20 AM 4-9-2003]


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BadassVW)*

Only thing I want to add is this:
95% of you are driving ONLY on the street, 4% are autox and 1% are tracking. The limits of your car will be touched at autox, and moreso on the track where higher speeds are encountered, and more loads for longer periods of times.
For people who have strictly street cars getting a "high end" street setup is more then enough for you, even thw standard Shine setup is enough because you are on the street and wont encounter anything that is even close to what the suspension was designed for.
Show cars are an entirely different subject and dont need ot be mentioned at all in this thread reall,y since they dont get drive to the point where complex suspension setups are needed.
Good thread, could be a bit condensed still, but not bad for a 5page discussion http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Just remember if you are serious about your suspension, you are not using off the shelf stuff anyways


----------



## slvrathlon (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

About time someone spoke about something thoughful...
Props the man above me. ^^
Most of these guys on here probably don't even see the track and if they do it is not in a VW.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (slvrathlon)*

Hehe thanks







I dont even plan on tracking my vw, as I feel tracking/racing actual racecars is more beneficial.
First event of the season is in 3 weeks, I cant wait! I just wish I had the E36 racecar for the event, but the car I am driving is better anyways.
Thanks for the props. Peace


----------



## GTI666 (Nov 24, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]This is not rocket science the arms pivot in a circle, do a first order differential of a circle ( in this case it would be the Cos function using the arm as the hypotenuse) and find the rate of change delta increase significantly. Oh that is rocket science sorry.[HR][/HR]​Rocket science, eh?


----------



## VWsuperhero (Jun 17, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VWsuperhero)*

quote:[HR][/HR]So what is the maximum that a *MK2* can be lowered before the handling becomes negatively affected?[HR][/HR]​In INCHES...


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VWsuperhero)*

quote:[HR][/HR]So what is the maximum that a *MK2* can be lowered before the handling becomes negatively affected?
In INCHES...







[HR][/HR]​Maybe one. Yep. That's all.


----------



## DieselFreak (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTI666)*

quote:[HR][/HR]This is not rocket science the arms pivot in a circle, do a first order differential of a circle ( in this case it would be the Cos function using the arm as the hypotenuse) and find the rate of change delta increase significantly. Oh that is rocket science sorry.
Rocket science, eh?















[HR][/HR]​l
HAHAHA!!! Not so much...







But I'll go ahead and take his advice on suspension!
--Obadiah


----------



## VR6Variant (Dec 19, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

This is a little different angle, but want to get the expertise of the gurus on this thread.
I have a 2001 VR6 wagon with the standard suspension setup. I just picked up a brand new complete sport suspension for a 2003 Wagon (new take off: springs, struts, larger sway, everything), most likely a 1.8t but I didn't ask, the price was right. Due to the roads around here, my current suspension is starting to feel a bit sloppy.
Obviously, I want to swap what's on my car for the sport setup. I am assuming the front sport springs are firmer than mine, but not as firm as a VR6 sport suspension. Am I going to run into any handling issues or can I expect handling close to that of the stock sport susp set-up? Put it on and see what happens?
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## BEAU-SOF (Jan 30, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6Variant)*

well after loooooong and extensive research, not to mention this thread which had me looking under my car last night was VERY helpful in what i am now going to do.. i have already purchased the weitec 50/50 tx kit and thought that i would have to end up purchasing an entirely new shocks and springs kit... but after looking at the other spring options combined with looking under the car which by the way, a stock 03 vr6 which is what i have, if you look under you see the suspension just barely unlevel and a simple 1 inch drop should make put it where it should be... that said i am purchasing the 30/30 springs from weitec and keeping the adjustable dampening shocks along with neuspeed front and rear sways. this should give me the handling i am looking for... thanks for all the help and info fellas!!!! i'll post a review on this forum in a few weeks http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BEAU-SOF)*

quote:[HR][/HR]well after loooooong and extensive research, not to mention this thread which had me looking under my car last night was VERY helpful in what i am now going to do...................along with neuspeed front and rear sways. [HR][/HR]​oxymoron .......
P.S: Unless you describe here what do you think you will acheive with both anti-roll bars, fron and rear? Because if you will never pass 50% of the handling limits of your car/tire/suspension and you want a solid flat feeling while driving moderatly slow - then, yeah, you got it right!


----------



## BEAU-SOF (Jan 30, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

first off the rear sway is going on first, then i'll pass judgenment on whether the front will go on.. second why is it that there is always one loudmouth in the bunch who has to act stoopid and insult people on the forum.. if you have some constructive critisism then by all means share but to call out names when you have no clue who you're talking to or messing with is not only childish but on the streets can get you hurt.....


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BEAU-SOF)*

call names? where?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BEAU-SOF)*

Adding the rear bar first is absolutely the thing to do, and relax -- pyce has got it right (btw, I didn't see any name calling ... you don't think "oxymoron" is an insult --- do you?







). If you add both bars, your car will feel flatter in the corners, but will reach an under-steer condition much more quickly than if you did NOT upgrade the front bar. Save some $$$ and stop at the rear bar. If you need additional front roll stiffness, you'd be better served by increasing the front spring rate and leaving the front bar stock (or even _smaller_ than stock, depending on spring rate).


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*your quote again .....*

here is your quote again:
quote:[HR][/HR]well after loooooong and extensive research, not to mention this thread which had me looking under my car last night was VERY helpful in what i am now going to do...................along with neuspeed front and rear sways.[HR][/HR]​I found this to be oxymoron (not you!), because it was simply contradictive ...... if you have really done the long and extensive research, you would have found that no one here reccomend fron and rear bars together on our FWD cars.......... Absolutely did not mean to offend you or naything like what you thought.


----------



## BEAU-SOF (Jan 30, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (pyce)*

its cool... jus a misunderstandning.... but nothing really i can do but hold on to the front bar and install the rear.. ah well.. live and learn.......thanks for the info... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## G3T3I7 (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (pyce)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
if you have really done the long and extensive research, you would have found that no one here reccomend fron and rear bars together on our FWD cars.[HR][/HR]​True, but for someone like me who has a 2001 GTI VR6, I need a new swaybar for driveshaft clearance when going lower than 1". I have heard from more than a couple people that endlinks just don't work. I want the car to be flat in the twisties, but if for some reason the car slips, I'd rather the rear slip out first than the front, so I can hopefully torque-steer myself out of a bad situation. My question is, since I pretty much need a front sway bar, would getting a 28mm rear sway and a 22mm front sway give me some of the effect of just having a rear sway w/o the front ??
I want to have no body roll, but I also want to be able to save myself from slipping nose-first with having the "rear-swaybar oversteer" effect, and getting the car going straight again.
Please correct me here folks, since this is just info based on what I have read here. PLEASE feel free to correct any statements that I have not made sense on. Thanks a lot.


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: your quote again ..... (G3T3I7)*

Replacing front swaybars and links is just putting a bandaid on the problem you created yourself by lowering the car.Think about the cause and effect and you will see it makes sense! Dont create the problem in the first place! A bigger front bar is ALWAYS wrong . A lowered car will roll(and understeer) more.Adding a front bar just creates more understeer! A 28mm swaybar isnt really stiff enough for the back under ideal situations.With a lowered car it is even less effective!Why chase around trying to cure what you created! Get some sensible springs and maybe you can get some decent handling.Handling isnt whitchcraft.It balancing act of engineering and compromise.Trying one part from one vendor and something from another is bound to fail.Unless you do a lot of homework or are really lucky,you wont have a chance.
PS if you do put on a larger front bar,you wont torque out of anything,you will spin the tires.Just some food for thought. This thread is OK.

Good Luck Dick Shine


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: your quote again ..... (SRSVW)*

quote:[HR][/HR]This thread is OK.[HR][/HR]​True. If you any of you guys want harder core suspension discussion, meaning more engineering related and more techical mumbo-jumbo, go to Engineering related tech forums in scca and pro race forums. You will get a lot of good info and learn a lot as well. Or take the easeir route and buy a book and study it. A simple one to understand is SKip Barbers "going faster," and then theres always Carroll Smith's large array of bibles.


----------



## hayden (Aug 19, 2000)

*Re: your quote again ..... (SRSVW)*

Dick,
I have a question. Out of all the other off the shelf setups sold for the MKIV besides yours, are there any you recommend. Why? I know most all of them lower a car, but which ones work well together?


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: your quote again ..... (hayden)*

Whats your application? You need to specify that and what other modification would be on the car as well to get a good idea. It depends on your application to see what "off the shelf" setup works well. Because if you want an autox/track car, no "off the shelf" setup is that good, it would have to be built.


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: your quote again ..... (hayden)*

Well I have seen better results with just putting Bilsteins in on stock springs than many of the real popular setups! Sure it doesnt cost much,but at least it doesnt lower the car and ruin everything,plus it rides great! It doesnt hold a candle to my Kit,but its better than the VW Eibach kit by a lot! There are too many for me to describe,but I havent seen one that beats the setup I just described.Most people dont do this because it is just too simple,so it cant work.Stopwatches and accelerometers dont lie though.If I was on a tight budget ,thats what I would use.
Keep the thread going!
Dick Shine


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: your quote again ..... (hayden)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Dick,
I have a question. Out of all the other off the shelf setups sold for the MKIV besides yours, are there any you recommend. Why? I know most all of them lower a car, but which ones work well together?[HR][/HR]​There is only ONE other spring available for the mk4 that does not really lower the car. It's the Neuspeed SofSport. I've inferred from Dick's comments that height takes precedence over everything else(rate, progressive vs. linear, etc.), so that's your only other choice.

P.S.- Yeah, I know I'm not Dick.


----------



## hayden (Aug 19, 2000)

*Re: your quote again ..... (tyrolkid)*

Yeah. That makes sense, really. The HDs are the same valving as the sport right? This is what most the TDI people run.. stock springs with HDs. Maybe I will buy some used 337 springs and run them with HDs.
Tyrolkid: The sofsport use progressive springs.. at least in the rear. Don't see the point in that.. basically, the same effect as lowering, since the suspension will just have to compress that soft part of the spring before it really does anything.
My application is street driving and possibly some autoXing in the future. I have a pretty modded out TDi and I am having major problems applying the power in any condition less than perfeftly smooth and flat. I guess 300 ft lbs to the front wheel with the POS stock setup is a BAD thing.







I need dampers!


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: your quote again ..... (hayden)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Tyrolkid: The sofsport use progressive springs.. at least in the rear. Don't see the point in that.. basically, the same effect as lowering, since the suspension will just have to compress that soft part of the spring before it really does anything.
My application is street driving and possibly some autoXing in the future. I have a pretty modded out TDi and I am having major problems applying the power in any condition less than perfeftly smooth and flat. I guess 300 ft lbs to the front wheel with the POS stock setup is a BAD thing.







I need dampers![HR][/HR]​Running a progressive is not the same as lowering if you run a bit stiffer on the swaybars to compnsate. In exchange you get excellent ride comfort and excellent at the limit handling.
Managing 300lbft is tough.....I'm at about 275 right now and it's killer....


----------



## G3T3I7 (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (tyrolkid)*

Great thread everyone http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Ok, I admit that I want to lower my car a little for looks, however I do want to take away some understeer and body roll...I know, I know this is pretty much contradicting myself..But if I can just get endlinks for my driveshaft clearence, and put a rear bar on, would that take away some understeer ?
I would get these endinks, but I've heard from more than a couple people that they just don't work


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (G3T3I7)*

Depends on your definition of "a little" bit of lowering. How much lower do you want to go to get the look you want?


----------



## G3T3I7 (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (f1forkvr6)*

Ok, when I mean a little, I mean 1.5"-2"...I know that's more than I should, and it's not going to give me the best handling no matter what, but that's the ride height that I want, and from my experience the car handles very good on the street in the setups that I have been in
I just want to figure this whole swaybar issue out. Endlinks don't seem to work for a lot of people, so I may have to get a swaybar...Wouldn't I be able to dial out some understeer with getting a 22mm front bar, and then getting a 28mm stiff rear bar ?? Anyone have any other recommendations ?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (G3T3I7)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Ok, when I mean a little, I mean 1.5"-2"...[HR][/HR]​Use the stiffest front springs your shocks can handle, and install the thinest front sway bar that will solve your clearance issues (if your front springs are stiff enough, you may not even need the front bar - just remove it), and then run the STIFFEST rear bar you can get your hands on (btw, the Shine bar is the stiffest one out there .... a lot stiffer than the NS bar set to it's stiffest setting). Also, run as much front static negative camber as you can dial in.
These things _may_ help mitigate the excessive roll and understeer a 2" drop will give you.


----------



## G60NUT (Oct 23, 2001)

*Re: your quote again ..... (G3T3I7)*

Why cant us mkII guys just run some sort of ball joint spacer to lower the control arm and make it more friendly to an 2" drop








one that would make the contorl arm level with a 2" drop. What would that hurt?
















Thanks for franz for the pics of his car. or parts of it anyways.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: your quote again ..... (G60NUT)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Why cant us mkII guys just run some sort of ball joint spacer to lower the control arm and make it more friendly to an 2" drop








one that would make the contorl arm level with a 2" drop. What would that hurt? [HR][/HR]​Nothing, if it's made to near perfect standards. When they break, if they break, it's probably going to be under some stress due to a hard corner. I wouldn't want to be near your shorts after this happens.







Franz is obviously not your average 'texer. Do NOT try this at home!


----------



## zither (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: your quote again ..... (SRSVW)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Well I have seen better results with just putting Bilsteins in on stock springs than many of the real popular setups! Sure it doesnt cost much,but at least it doesnt lower the car and ruin everything,plus it rides great! It doesnt hold a candle to my Kit,but its better than the VW Eibach kit by a lot! There are too many for me to describe,but I havent seen one that beats the setup I just described.Most people dont do this because it is just too simple,so it cant work.Stopwatches and accelerometers dont lie though.If I was on a tight budget ,thats what I would use.
Keep the thread going!
Dick Shine







[HR][/HR]​ Dick
Is there any advantage of going from the standard springs to the factory option sport supension springs with the Bilsteins? I have a Jetta Wagon and It is difficult to find second hand wagon sport springs. Is it possible to use the sport springs from the sedan? Do you have a kit specific to the wagon?


----------



## VR6Variant (Dec 19, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (zither)*

I'd like to know the answer to this one too. I just picked up a take off wagon sport suspension and am planning on switching out form the standard springs to the sport ones, which appearance wise seem to ride a little bit lower. Being factory parts, I trust that I should not have any issues with suspension geometry. 
Reading all of the discussion, Im getting the feeling that I would be best off retaining the standard sway bar on the front, which I think is smaller that the sport one, and then stiffening up the rear beam or adding a rear sway. 
The twist is that I have a VR6, whereas the spring set is for a 1.8t. Best I can figure, the VR6 is 140 lbs heavier installed than the 1.8 With the slight increase in weight, is there any advantage of going to the larger front sway? Would a very slight (1/2 or less) rake make any difference in this decision?
What I'm looking for is less body roll and a flatter cornering stance, without a kidney busting ride. I also want to get rid of the front end push. I don't do any autocross, but do like to hit the twisties. The last stock sport susp. Jetta I drove felt just about right, probably right on with the addition of Bilsteins and a rear bar. That's where I'm trying to get.
Anyone got a word of advice?


----------



## tatge (Sep 20, 2001)

*Re: your quote again ..... (VR6Variant)*

How a sway bar works: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=148337
Traction and handling balance with a rear sway bar: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=576182


----------



## VR6Variant (Dec 19, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (tatge)*

Thanks for the link. Hadn't came across the first thread.


----------



## TarmacSpecial (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: your quote again ..... (VR6Variant)*

My car (Scircco 2/A1) came with bilstein sports and neuspeed race springs. No front sway, stock rear. I hate it, mega bumpsteer. The only way I've manged to deal with it is to present the car to a corner with more inertial drift on entry, and acclerating out much earlier (thank you Mr. Quaife!). My old car had the same set up but had the 22mm front bar and the 28mm rear, it was quite a rough ride, but was very very succesful at autocross and time trials with that setup. Pretty ridiculous in canyons too. Not adjustable though. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
I was planning on going to coilovers, and I agree with sentiments regarding the control arms being no more than parallel. Although, I don't know how the Improved Touring guys are getting buy with all the drop they are running. They are using stock arms and ball joints too.
Any coil-over reccomendations for a a A1 car? Main reason I want a coilover is to corner balance the car. I would really like to get something that has SEPERATE adjustments for compression and rebound damping. For now, I'm considering H&R coil overs, but they have no damping adjustments at all, but at least I can corner balance the car. But if I want to play with spring rates, I'm stuck with the stock valving. 
Help me out race heads.
Cheers,


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (TarmacSpecial)*

Shine sells coilover sleeves that should work okay with whatever damper you choose. Not fancy, but effective.


----------



## TarmacSpecial (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: your quote again ..... (f1forkvr6)*

Damper reccomnedations and any links for Shine? Adjustable damping would be a BIG plus.
Keep the suggestions coming. I don't want to waste $1000-$2000, and not be able to have my car (or get it) dialed in.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (TarmacSpecial)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Damper reccomnedations and any links for Shine? Adjustable damping would be a BIG plus.
Keep the suggestions coming. I don't want to waste $1000-$2000, and not be able to have my car (or get it) dialed in.[HR][/HR]​I only have experience with Bilstien shocks (non-adjustable), but I hear good things about Penskes







$$$$$








Shine Racing Service: http://www.srsvw.com
If you don't find the particular spring rates/lengths you are looking for on the site, call them and chat with either Eli or Dick. Both engineers by trade, and racers at heart.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: your quote again ..... (f1forkvr6)*

{QUOTE] but I hear good things about Penskes







$$$$$







[/QUOTE]
He said he was looking to spend $1000-2000 not $10000-20000. Penske are race only and CANNOT be streetable, asfar as thie mid-high end setups go. Not even worth mentioning








If you want to get your money's worth, sub $2K systems, you probably would be best with the truechoise stage III setup. Other then that, peicing together a setup with GC/Truechoice/SRS would be the only other way.
However these would require quite a bit of setup, thatg a normal "kit" would not require. It cannot just be "installed" it has to be "Setup."
For the money, truechoice stage III is a simple way to get a midrange setup if you are serious about suspension. If this is just going to be a daily driver, dont even bother getting anything double adjustable. You wont even feel the seperate tuning of the compression/rebound on the double adj.
Only reason to get coilovers for function are to corner balance, and lower the car to proper height if pickup points were moved, or if the car was too high to begin with.
But if your budget is $2K, get the truchoice stage II/III, or a setup with sleeves from GC/SRS. They will be FAR superior if setup correctly then basically all off the shelf kits.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


----------



## amarinus (Jun 30, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tyrolkid)*

'98 Passat, Koni adjustables (valving at 3/4 turn) Neuspeed sofsport springs, stock swaybars and suspension bushings, 16x7" rims with Dunlop Sort A-2 tirs (total mass roughly 40 lbs/wheel)
I've noticed many positive things about this setup vs. the stock. The best thing I've noticed with this setup versus the stock setup is how the car performs sharp high speed maneuvers, like an emergency lane change. Subjectively, the car feels more controlled when doing such a maneuver, and seems to accomplish it at a faster rate than with the stock suspension (more of a go-cart feeling than a Queen Elizabeth III cruise-ship feeling.) Also, body roll doesn't seem to set in until high corner loads, where subjectively it seems reduced compared to stock. Again subjectively, the car seemed to roll and pitch like crazy befor the modifications. The action of the balance bars was also very noticable with the stock setup: the car sucked down appreciably on hard cornering, felt nice, then went back to its floaty, wobbly self upon straightening out. On the down side, at very high cornering loads, there's a kind of up-and-down oscillation that starts, seemingly set up on the outside front tire, which I found myself correcting with a slight see-sawing of the wheel. 
Also of note is the handling under heavy deceleration. There is NO feeling of uncontrolledness when accomplishing hard maneuvers with the ABS engaged. This same effect is noticed when simply driving down a hill.
A most recent mod is a camber kit, primarily for the reason of tire life. Again subjectively, the car seems to "feel" better when entering corners than pre-camber kit, though this is not as pronounced as the percieved benifit between lowered and stock. I am hoping this mod will take care of the weird at-the-limit oscilltion, which felt like a problem with geometry rather than damping (don't ask me why I feel this is the case - I don't know.) Aside from the bounce (which is hopefully now gone,) the mod seems to have improved the overall feel of the car at cornering loads reasonably lower than the threshold of adhesion. 
To sum up, while my mods may or may not be appropriate for peeling 10ts of a second from your lap times, they subjectively seem to have improved the real-world handling capabilities of the car, which was my goal. The only freakiness seemed to occur at sustained loads much higher than are rational on public roads, and was only odd, not frightning. The camber kit may have helped this, but that is unknown at this time.
Althogh there was ugliness when a fiend of mine, used to driving a van, failed to swerve to miss a dead racoon in the road. I'm VERY happy it wasn't a rock: the front valence was deformed, but not ripped off. Anyone have a cow-catcher?


----------



## MestizoRacer310 (Apr 17, 2002)

*Re: your quote again ..... (G60NUT)*

Sorry if this doesn't help the thread at all, but seeing those reminded me of the drop spindle sport truck owners use for the fronts.....


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (ptgdudley)*

quote:[HR][/HR]BFG TA R1's waiting for dedicated track wheels to arrive.[HR][/HR]​Wow







!! Didn't think these were made anymore ... or are they








Been hoarding a set for a while?


----------



## TarmacSpecial (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (ptgdudley)*

Talk about old compounds, I'm on nearly bald Yoko A-008'S...on the street!







LMAO! I'm buying Falken Azenis Sports next, since I can get them dirt cheap, and am only testing the car for this season.
Anyways, I think the nicest thing about the Quaife is that it's so smooth. The power transfer is virtually seamless. It really allows you to accelerate earlier out of corners, and actually turns in on the throttle. I like to drift cars (not as much when racing), so this effect really helps you "wag the tail" so to speak. Night and day difference over stock. Worth every penny. Seconds on the auto-x course for sure.
It still amazes me how people will spend thousands on turbos or superchargers, yet neglect something as critical as the differential.


[Modified by TarmacSpecial, 6:44 PM 4-14-2003]


----------



## ptgdudley (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

Yes I've been hoarding them. I purchased them while waiting for my 337. Tire rack was closing them out last year ($130 ea if I remember correctly). I think my size is the same as the fronts on a turbo Porsche, 225/40/18, and I suspect Porsches go through rears much faster than fronts. I'm waiting for a set of forged centerlines for the track (14.5 lbs per). Now I need additional negative front camber. Any recommendations?? I'll be ordering some offset upper strut bushings which should give me an addtional degree negative. 


[Modified by ptgdudley, 3:24 PM 4-15-2003]


----------



## TarmacSpecial (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (ptgdudley)*

Are you running camber plates? If not, that wil solve your requirment for more camber. Most use a spherical bushing as well, negating the nees for a strut bearing, and removing unwanted play/slop.
Do you drive on the street? Clip apexes on bumpy canyons? I do, so lightweight rims are out of the question. I've already ruined a few $200+ lightweight rims. Not doing that anymore. I actually have Compomotives on order, a little bit heavier, but ALOT stronger. I figure if I bend one of those, I better look for other things bent on the car as well!


----------



## ptgdudley (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (TarmacSpecial)*

TarmacSpecial, no I do not have camber plates. I know that will give me all the adjustment I need but I'm not ready to cut up the car yet. The forged centerlines will be for track only. I run the factory BBS's with Michelin Pilot Sports for the street & rainy track days. 
Still no takers on the Audi TT control arms?? TTSchwing has installed the earlier, pre campaign, versions on his TT. Apparantly the early models have a smaller bushing.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (TarmacSpecial)*

Which lightweight wheels are not up to the task? Name names, my man!


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Which lightweight wheels are not up to the task? Name names, my man![HR][/HR]​Keizer and Panasport both have "race-only" wheels, to name but a couple, but they explicitly state that when buying and/or shopping.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

We used panasports back in the day, but now BBS makes custom wheels for fsae, so we use them exclusively now


----------



## hayden (Aug 19, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

Gotta love the slammed "One lap of America" 24V VR6 that is being entered this year. There is a story about it on the main page to vortex and apparently they think they have a good chance. They are using 800 lb front springs though and audi TT front arms (any difference beside aluminium?) Good luck to them, but I can't see WHY WHY WHY people cannot get it through their head that maximum handling is going to come from stock ride height. grrrrr!


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (hayden)*

Only thing I can think of is that they might have it low for show? Only other thing I can think of is the TT a-arms come with different pickup points, or something to that affect that allows the a-arms to beparalle at a lower ride height. But I am very doubtful of this.
Does anyone know if any place actually tuned the car? B/c if it has stock pickup points, at that height and 800lbs front springs, they will probably get a decent amount of bump steer. 
I see they are using the new RSS from H&R. These are decent, but for the price, I feel a better choice could have been made. And the 400# rears, I dont think that was wise with such a high front rate either. But they'll soon find out what thier flaws are when the car doesn't perform to thier likings







I just hope they atleast corner balance it, and get a solid 8pt cage in so the chassis doesn;t have mad flex and change the geometry all together. Otherwise the suspension wont do much good as what it was designed for is not whats actually being experienced http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 


[Modified by GTIVR6RACER4EVER, 2:13 PM 4-17-2003]


----------



## ptgdudley (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

I've just ordered the TT arms & offset upper strut bushings. I'm hoping that I can get negative 2 degrees of front camber between the bushing & mounting tolerences the the arms. 
ptgdudley


----------



## Parts4vws (Jan 13, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

Gotta love the slammed "One lap of America" 24V VR6 that is being entered this year. There is a story about it on the main page to vortex and apparently they think they have a good chance. They are using 800 lb front springs though and audi TT front arms (any difference beside aluminium?) Good luck to them, but I can't see WHY WHY WHY people cannot get it through their head that maximum handling is going to come from stock ride height. grrrrr! 

>
Actually that pic of it slammed was just after the SEMA show & it was WAY too low & yes it was not the best turning car then. I really was not fond of the handing with it that low....it looked sweet but was not what I wanted.
If you look close at the pic with the SSR's on it the front is MUCH higher than the rear(to try to throw some of the weight to the back) Yes we did corner weight it. 
More on the TT arms here...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?&id=802473
Potterman
>

quote:[HR][/HR]Only thing I can think of is that they might have it low for show? Only other thing I can think of is the TT a-arms come with different pickup points, or something to that affect that allows the a-arms to beparalle at a lower ride height. But I am very doubtful of this.
Does anyone know if any place actually tuned the car? B/c if it has stock pickup points, at that height and 800lbs front springs, they will probably get a decent amount of bump steer. 
I see they are using the new RSS from H&R. These are decent, but for the price, I feel a better choice could have been made. And the 400# rears, I dont think that was wise with such a high front rate either. But they'll soon find out what thier flaws are when the car doesn't perform to thier likings







I just hope they atleast corner balance it, and get a solid 8pt cage in so the chassis doesn;t have mad flex and change the geometry all together. Otherwise the suspension wont do much good as what it was designed for is not whats actually being experienced http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

[Modified by GTIVR6RACER4EVER, 2:13 PM 4-17-2003][HR][/HR]​I have been testing the car out with different setups for the past 6 months. Raffi from Eurosport has also helped with the development of it & been to the track with me to get some tuning done. At the height it's at now & the #800 front's it actually has no bump steer that I have encountered...the RSS kit came with #585's & it actually rides better with the #800's on it...not to mention it handles a LOT better. The Cage would be a great idea but we have to live in the car for a week too....3 of us...so a cage would not be pratical. We put as many stress bars & stiff bushings in to get us as good as it gets w/o a cage. I'm curious as to what would have been a better choice of coilovers? As far as I know my car is the only car that even has the VW RSS kit on it in the U.S. So how can anybody rate them as not being good enough. They are just a step down from what the Beetle cup cars used.
For having to be a street car & a track car it's more than decent....not the fastest out there but not the slowest bar far either. I have really not seen any other MKIV's built for handling so who really knows. Maybe Rich(Gezuvor) could pop on this thread & give his feedback as he drove the car @ the last Pahrump(RaceryFactory.com) event. I was even close to Ken Riess<SP> at that event. He's got a A3 VR6 3.1l 6sp quaife & Kuhmo Race tires....I have STREET tires & was only 3 seconds behind him at most on the track....Race tires are always good for 3-4 seconds.
If you were closer I'd say come drive it.......see for yourself. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Potterman


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Parts4vws)*

No doubt it probably handles well but we have to make people realize that it is still a street car and will not come close to handling as well as a fully prepper vw for the track. There will always be compromises made if you have a street car that you try to race which make it, in some cases, substantially less competitive. 
Eitherway car looks great, best of luck (especially living inn it for a week







)


----------



## graphicsworks (Jul 11, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

quote:[HR][/HR]No doubt it probably handles well but we have to make people realize that it is still a street car and will not come close to handling as well as a fully prepper vw for the track. There will always be compromises made if you have a street car that you try to race which make it, in some cases, substantially less competitive. 
Eitherway car looks great, best of luck (especially living inn it for a week







)







[HR][/HR]​I don't think we need to make people realize that. I think everyone here realizes that "it is still a street car and will not come close to handling as well as a fully prepper vw for the track", and it seems to me that no one said any different. And as far as a street car being "in some cases" substantially less competitive than a fully prepped track car, I hope you are not speaking from personal experience. I'd hate to think you're contributing to this discussion and were beaten by a street car in your "fully prepped" track car. 
Don't just post to contradict people, it does not make you any more or less of an expert, and adds nothing to the conversation.
What you do and don't BELIEVE will work are fine and like A$$#0LES, opinions are something everyone has, and all of them stink. Until you have driven a particular setup, don't judge it based on theory.








Jeremy Wolf
2003 Annoyed with know-it-alls edition


----------



## scottnbarb (Jan 19, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why cant us mkII guys just run some sort of ball joint spacer to lower the control arm and make it more friendly to an 2" drop 
one that would make the contorl arm level with a 2" drop. What would that hurt? 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing, if it's made to near perfect standards. When they break, if they break, it's probably going to be under some stress due to a hard corner. I wouldn't want to be near your shorts after this happens. Franz is obviously not your average 'texer. Do NOT try this at home!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not???? This seems to be the perfect solution for us city drivers that like a lowered car but don't want to end up with crappy handling! With what we pay for suspension products:coilovers, front sway bar, rear sway bar, front upper strut bar, rear upper strut bar, ETC!! does it not make sense to spend a $100 or 2 for a product that would take care of this. There are tons of engineering firms everywhere you look. One of them should be able to engineer a ball joint that is 1 1/2" longer to take car of the control arms. The stresses involved in the part would be more because of the length of the ball joint but really, I am surprised that no aftermarket performance shops offer something like this. If they did every single person that lowered their car with our type of struts would be a fool to not buy it. Really needed to rant on this one because it does not make any sense.
Since I just installed FK Hightec 60/40 I have noticed the difference in the car in handling around corners and since there is an engineering firm around the corner from me that does automotive work I am going to look into this. Why not, that part doesn't cost anything.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (graphicsworks)*

Well I have driven a bunch of streets car, racecars, formula, karts, etc. And the thing is poeple DONT realize this, thats what I was trying to say, nothing against anything else anyone was saying. 
I posted an opinion which was based from experience with street/track cars. I know a lot of prepped racecars that got beaten by street cars, its called a better drive







I saw a prepped Z06 with a intermediate driver get spanked by a pro in a C5 ith slicks and a K&N intake. Its all about driver. But obviously the racecar will always have its advantages. 
If you want your vw to do what you want on the track then you cannot keep it a street car. Just get the best of both worlds and make a comfortable street car, and get a track car to beat on that can take the abuse. 
Fact of the matter is compromises have to be made, and its your decision to make. Later


----------



## Racer_X (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

Wow, seven pages of comments and I can't believe some of what I read on here.
I guess the biggest differences of opinion seem to be around what exactly is "better handling." That's an argument of semantics.
For my race car, one thing is most important, lap time. Faster is always better. In that respect, lower is always better, too. If you want to maximize your speed through a corner (or a series of corners), there's only 3 items that enter the equation. One is the grip of your tires (more grip gives you a higher potential _cornering_ speed). One is the weight of the car (lighter cars have higher potential _cornering_ speed). The last item is the height of the center of gravity (lower CG gives you a higher potential _cornering_ speed). Nothing else even enters into the equation.
Camber curves, roll center height, bump steer and all those other issues aren't about speed, they are about stability and ease of driving. If you want to go faster, lower is always faster. It's true that beyond a certain point lower can be a handful to drive, but that's an issue of driver ability and chassis tuning, not a matter of pure speed. You can often work around the other issues with some creative alignment and some adjustments in the suspension and steering. Generally, you can tame the beast to the point where it can be driven by a good driver. 
It's impossible to make a car go much faster when you've hit the theoretical maximum based on the tires, the weight of the car and the height of the CG. At that point, changes to one of the three primary factors is necessary to give you a higher theoretical maximum to shoot for. 
{edit - added "cornering" in italics in three places to clarify my statements slightly}


[Modified by Racer_X, 5:05 PM 4-22-2003]


----------



## TarmacSpecial (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Racer_X)*

Weight does not affect speed, it affects acceleration. Acceleration is power to weight, gearing, and traction. Speed is determined by hosepower, gearing, and aerodynamics. That's why a 3200 pound Porsche with 400 hp can go just as fast as a 150hp 400 pound motorcycle in top speed. My 120hp 500 pound bike will only do 155mph, because it's a "naked" bike, with no fairing to help it cut through the air. If I ran a fairing, I would probably be able to hit 165-170mph.
I takes AT LEAST another 100 hp for that bike to break 200 mph. Making the bike lighter however will not increase it's top speed. Why? Drag, the bike is fighting a wall of air, the less air you have to fight, or the more power you have to fight it, the faster you will go. 
Otherwise, alot of what you have to say makes sense. Production based race cars, that use original mounting points can run quite low. True, bump steer can be dealt with, especially if you have forearms like Popeye's. In all fairness, race tracks tend to be a bit smoother than streets, so some consideration to sucking bumps is required if you need to find a compromise setup. 
I run canyons, so I really need a car setup more like a tarmac rally car than a road race car. So the key for me is to find a setup that has minimal body roll (swaybars) AND the ability to suck bumps (spring rates, ride height). Running a typical IT setup will not allow this. I really wish I could find a guy on Vortex that rallies A1 cars on tarmac.


----------



## Racer_X (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (TarmacSpecial)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Weight does not affect speed,[HR][/HR]​I didn't mean to imply it affected raw speed. Weight has a big effect on cornering speed and cornering limits. 
quote:[HR][/HR]it affects acceleration.[HR][/HR]​It affects accelleration in all directions, including lateral accelleration in cornering (and "backward" accelleration we know as braking).
Heavier cars can't run as fast through the corners. That's because they transfer more weight from the inside wheels to the outside wheels and that reduces the total grip of the wheels on the road. Lighter cars transfer less weight because there's less weight to transfer.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Racer_X)*

quote:[HR][/HR] Faster is always better. In that respect, lower is always better, too. The last item is the height of the center of gravity (lower CG gives you a higher potential _cornering_ speed). Nothing else even enters into the equation.[HR][/HR]​Yeah, you're right. To hell w/ setting the suspension up properly. I'm going out right now and dropping my corner-balanced coilovers about 4 inches. Control arms like this */ \* are the way to go. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

RacerX you obviously arent a competitive racer or there is no way you could possibly believe that bogus theory of yours! I welcome you to come to an actual race where cars go around corners (yes they even have bumps) .This is simply absurd! You cant really believe that can you? The first time you actually come up against a well setup car at the ride height you will be toast!Your theories have been disproven repeatedly.How could you have missed the boat? Do you live in a cave? Seriously have you ever read or studied vehicle dynamics? I (and many others) have tried the low approach.IT DOESNT WORK!!!!!!! I welcome your response. I guess this is a little harsh,but I have been building race and street cars 
for longer than some of you have been alive and I am tired of battling the same
issues over and over again. Low doesnt work on a strut FWD and no amount of fiddling will fix that!!! This is a scientifically proven fact!! not a theory.

Dick Shine


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

Thanks for taking the time to reiterate what has been stated many, many, many times. It makes me crazy to have to retype this stuff too. I'm a bit surprised by "X"s theory ... based on previous posts (in various other forums), I thought he'd understand the importance of suspension geometry.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

Giddyup to that http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I did not want to type all that., but it was exactly what I was going to say. Sounds like he has never actually implemented his "theory" otherwise he'd probably not only be at the back of the pack, but probably run off the road many times as the car would handle like pure shiznit http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Only front wheel drive cars that can be "very low" are Super tourers and BTCC/STCC type cars that cost $200000-400000 depending on engine and level of racing.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

My comments:
This is a long discussion, so I only read the 1st page and last page.
If oldmanTDI is who I think he is, and considering his comments at the beginning of this long post, ... well dont listen to him because he doesnt know what he is talking about. There is nothing incredibly wrong with having the control arm dip past parallel with ground. Ideally, we would like our VW suspensions to be a little on the other side of parallel, but it is not all-important. Roll center is one thing, but camber curve will continue to become increasingly negative under suspension compression until the control arm is perpendicular to the strut axis.
Ball joint spacers are not a common thing because they are a bad idea outside of racing applications. Here's why: to design a suspension to safely handle the loads at the balljoint area, you cant just design a new ball joint. You also have to design a new knuckle/upright. Just sticking a "spacer" on without modifying the knuckle is asking for a failure because the female ball joint receptacle in the knuckle will see significantly increased bending stresses. Think of it this way: which wrench can apply more torque, a 1 footer, or a 2 footer? That is what you are doing to the knuckle's receptacle when you extend the length of the ball joint. Double the length of that extension, you double the bending load applied to the knuckle. That's a recipe for failure. You would have to install new knuckles for it to work safely, and most people dont think its worth the hassle. I sure dont.
There are more than 3 things that affect cornering speeds. CG hieght yes, weight yes, tires yes. But suspension design and settings have everything to do with it also. And aerodynamic downforce.
Weight does not affect top speed. It does affect acceleration. Going through a corner IS acceleration, so a car can go through a corner faster if it is lighter, to a certain point (considering that tire friciton is not necessarily linear with load).
Some of my comments are reiterations of other people's comments. I hadnt gotten to them yet, and besides bears repeating.


[Modified by RogueTDI, 4:57 AM 4-23-2003]


----------



## TarmacSpecial (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Giddyup to that http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I did not want to type all that., but it was exactly what I was going to say. Sounds like he has never actually implemented his "theory" otherwise he'd probably not only be at the back of the pack, but probably run off the road many times as the car would handle like pure shiznit http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif [HR][/HR]​You'd be surprised, sometimes people have alot more driving talent than tuning ability. At the club level, skill goes along way, particularly in this country, where the talent level per capita is extremely low.
Think about it this way, all that time doing well in school, and getting all those degrees, could very be spent driving. The best drivers still drive, and the best engineers, still engineer. You really can't do one without comprimising the other. 
I swear being half Finn, and having a crazy ex-rally driver grandfather, put me way ahead of the game compared to your typical Joe Blow. I'm sure racing dirt bikes from the age of 6, helps alot too.
quote:[HR][/HR]Only front wheel drive cars that can be "very low" are Super tourers and BTCC/STCC type cars that cost $200000-400000 depending on engine and level of racing.







[HR][/HR]​Rally cars run on lower than stock on tarmac as well, although hardly "very low". Not just those magical half million dollar WRC rides either. Group N production class cars run their arms just slightly above parallel. Must be a reason why they do this, I'm sure they are not idiots.
This is not to say I am not content with running my car at arms just ever so slightly below parallel, and a little "sag" in the rear so to speak. On a Scirocco II that still equates to a reasonable drop, because the arms look like this / \ (an exaggeration I know) at stock ride height.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (TarmacSpecial)*

Well it matters what club racing you are looking at. I know dozens of guys who are getting so good, they want to challenge themselves(and while being on a budget) they d classes such as Showroom stock, and its very competitive and challenging. 
Also some engineers are the ones who are racing. If you look at a lot of the ALMS and WC teams they dont necassarily have engineers designing the car for the most part, they have guys who have just been around a while, and have gained good fabrication and design skills for what is needed. Obviously on LMP600/900 there are a team of engineers, as its a much more developed car then say Gt3RS's, which are factory built from porsche paid engineers. So its reall a case by case thing.
If you look at the very low club level guys who are just racing on a budget, yes I 100% agree there are hundreds of young guys (18-24) who are racing who have absolutely no idea of what is going on with thier car, or what anything does, but they are turning fast laps.
However once they get noticed, they will be on a team where the driver coach/DAS guy will inform them of whats going on, so the driver can be a key role in tuning the car, compared to solely relying on Data collected from the dozens of sensors from the DAS. 
But just because someone posts an idea, and if they do drive, still does not justify the theory. Just shows your explanation exactly, he may juyst be a good driver learning the way.
Whatever I got tests to study for. I like this post though, its a great way for people to trade ideas and opinions without arguing. So far I think this post has been pretty productive... might need some cleaning up (Cough Tatge cough) 
But eitherway CYA on da track







Only 9 days until first event of the season (For me anyways once finals are done







) I am so excited!


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Racer_X)*

quote:[HR][/HR]If you want to maximize your speed through a corner (or a series of corners), there's only 3 items that enter the equation. One is the grip of your tires (more grip gives you a higher potential _cornering_ speed). One is the weight of the car (lighter cars have higher potential _cornering_ speed). The last item is the height of the center of gravity (lower CG gives you a higher potential _cornering_ speed). Nothing else even enters into the equation.
[HR][/HR]​
You know if the only car I ever saw race was a Formula one or Kart car, I'd agree with this 100%!! Formula one cars are very light, have extremely good grip (in part because of the enormous downforce created by the wings&body), and have very low centres of gravity. But Formula one cars cost millions of dollars and are tuned by computers and engineering teams that cost even more millions. And you can't even fit your groceries in them.
Just because the best handling (i.e. fastest in the corners) cars in the world tend to be the lowest, it doesn't mean that all cars perfom better when they are lower.


----------



## tatge (Sep 20, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

quote:[HR][/HR]... might need some cleaning up (Cough Tatge cough)[HR][/HR]​Are you trying to hint something to me?


----------



## BryanH (Apr 21, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Racer_X)*

quote:[HR][/HR]For my race car, one thing is most important, lap time. Faster is always better. In that respect, lower is always better, too. 
Camber curves, roll center height, bump steer and all those other issues aren't about speed, they are about stability and ease of driving. If you want to go faster, lower is always faster. [HR][/HR]​uhmmmm...wow....no...


----------



## Racer_X (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

SRSVW wrote:quote:[HR][/HR]RacerX you obviously arent a competitive racer or there is no way you could possibly believe that bogus theory of yours! I welcome you to come to an actual race where cars go around corners (yes they even have bumps) .This is simply absurd! You cant really believe that can you?[HR][/HR]​Wow, that's amazing. No facts to refute what I've posted, just ad hominem attacks. I expected better from you. 
SRSVW continued:quote:[HR][/HR] The first time you actually come up against a well setup car at the ride height you will be toast![HR][/HR]​I've had pretty good luck against other cars. Some of them are pretty good, too. 
SRSVW continued:quote:[HR][/HR]Your theories have been disproven repeatedly.How could you have missed the boat? Do you live in a cave? Seriously have you ever read or studied vehicle dynamics? I (and many others) have tried the low approach.IT DOESNT WORK!!!!!!! I welcome your response. I guess this is a little harsh,but I have been building race and street cars 
for longer than some of you have been alive and I am tired of battling the same
issues over and over again. Low doesnt work on a strut FWD and no amount of fiddling will fix that!!! This is a scientifically proven fact!! not a theory.

Dick Shine










































[HR][/HR]​Well, I've been around race tracks for over 20 years. I've worked as an official, I've worked as crew, and I've driven race cars of various types and descriptions. I've been working on and driving FWD race cars for over 15 years. Maybe I'm not quite as experienced as you (did I just call you old?), but I know a little bit about what I'm doing. 
In my experience, unless you are in showroom stock or some other *severely restricted* class, it's possible to go faster by lowering the car by a fairly significant amount. I know a bit about vehicle dynamics, and there are adjustments and tweaks that can buy you several degrees more on the camber curves and allow additional inches (OK, maybe quarters of inches) of lowering without severe adverse handling issues. 
I'm trying to figure you out. Are you trying to get the newbies to jack their cars up to where the control arms are level so they will be easier to beat? I wish some of my competitors would listen to your advice, but I probably won't be that lucky.
Since this is a VW forum, I'll share a bit about A1 VW's (Rabbits, Sciroccos, Jettas). Someone already pointed out that the "bad side" of the camber curve doesn't start with the control arm level. It starts when the control arm is perpendicular to the strut axis (the line through the center of the upper strut bearing and the lower ball joint). It the stock arrangement, the strut axis is tilted in a few degrees, so the "bad side" of the camber curve doesn't start until the inner end of the lower control arm is a few degrees below the ball joint end. 
Now, if you install camber plates at the top of the strut and make a large negative camber adjustment there, you not only gain negative camber. You also extend the camber curve by a similar number of degrees. Let's say you dial in 6 degrees of negative camber up at the top of the strut. You'll now be able to lower the car an additional 6 degrees of lower control arm angle and still not be on the "bad side" of the camber curve. Of course, you don't want to drive around with 6 degrees of negative camber. It would be better to run 2 to 3 degrees of negative camber on most tracks. The trick is to dial that negative camber out at the lower strut mounting (the factory adjustment on the upper bolt, plus maybe slotting the lower mounting hole). If you dial in 3 to 4 degrees of positive camber down there, you end up with a net of 2 to 3 degrees of negative camber, but a 6 degree improvement on the camber curve. Another benefit to this combination of camber adjustments is that it also fixes the scrub radius issue with lower offset wheels. You still might have some bearing issues and spring rate issues, but the scrub radius can be almost completely corrected this way.
Similar tweaks are possible to address bump steer issues. And I haven't given away all of my secrets for addressing the camber curve and the lower control arm angle. 
In short, it's possible to run a very good handling car with the lower control arms quite a bit lower than level with the ground. The trick is making other adjustments to compensate for the adverse geometry from the lowering. You can believe that it can't be fixed if you want to. I'd rather fix it and go faster.
BryanH wrote:quote:[HR][/HR]uhmmmm...wow....no...[HR][/HR]​uhmmmm...wow....I don't know how to respond....*YES*



[Modified by Racer_X, 7:36 PM 4-23-2003]


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Racer_X)*

What adjustments are you making to counteract the increased roll couple ... (other than very high spring rates)?


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BishopVR6)*

Yea Racer_X I dont know if its how you worded or something, but what you stated just doesn't add up...well according to physics and every professionally written suspension dynamics book








You said you have been racing for 20 years, what kind of races have you won? I mean Dick and SRS are Very well known for doing well, what teams have you been with? I'm seriously interested this has Zero intent to be offensive. I am just curious to see what racing you have done http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Later
P.S. Also you are forgetting about the big part of handling, Aerodynamics. If you drop a car TO THE GROUND it will handle poorly. The airflow under the vehicle is critical, and in cases brought up in the extremes such as F1... If thier cars were literally on the ground, with approx Zero airflow under the chassis, well lets just say they would not be racing very fast










[Modified by GTIVR6RACER4EVER, 2:52 PM 4-23-2003]


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

I have to agree that Racer X has made some... inaccurate comments.

GTIVR6: Im no aero dynamics expert, but everything I have ever seen has focused on minimizing the airflow under a race car. Now, if there was literally ZERO airflow, I imagine it could bring up some interesting dynamics, but would you care to explain? Thanks.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*

Well that was the case i was speaking of, if you lowered the car to a point where there was basically zero airflow. Obviously when you see these done up DTM/ALMS cars, whether it be GTS or LMP900, they have Huge front diffusers (the flat lips on the bottom of the bumper) as well as very complex undertrays leading to the rear diffuser. 
Just look at the car like a big Air plane wing. using the simple rules behind the physics of lift, you can see what would happen if the air flow under neath was extreme;ly restricted, in this case, zero (extreme scenerio probably can n ever be encountered, but able to be approached).
Eitherway I am no aero expert as well, as I am not very interested in going into AeroMech, I'm just stauying with plain ole mech








But an example of how much aerodynamics helps, is the 360GT and 360 NGT. because of regulations/rules one of them (gt) has no extra aero package/undertray, etc. Couple this with a couple more HP (basically minus the intake restrictor) and you have a 3-4 second faster car. The aerodynamics plays a HUGE role. And in the case of the 360 challenge, it even created problems as almost every 360 challenge that was raced (in europe anyways) was in an accident. Most of them being in the braking zone, as the car with NO external add on aero stuff made large amounts of downforce. So when guys were letting off the brakes and going to turn in, the car would get very light in the rear and they would spin easily. Thats one of the reason the GT/NGT have that HUGe spoiler








And yes I know we are dealing with Vw's, but more often then not the applications are similar in one way or another and the ideas/theories can be applied... hopefully in a successful manner.
All I know is I hate having a hatch Aero wise... the foil behind sucks!, literally!


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

Hmm. You and me are in the same school of thought, GTI. And it seems we have just about the same level of understanding on this aero issue.
When I first heard that air dams were used to eliminate airflow under the car, I was confused, thinking "bernoulli effect!" Less/slower airflow below, faster above, gives lift.
Of course though, we are dealing with ground effect here, so the airplane wing analogy doesnt really hold completely. For a rear wing, sure, but for a car's body moving down the track, it's different.
I am still confused. I do know that stable airflow under the car is an important component of high speed vehicle aero stability. Other than that, I am not sure of what goes on with ground effect.


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*

Racer X you have zeroed in on the camber curve and completely ignored the increased roll couple that cant be resolved with bars(the front creates understeer and causes wheel spin,and the rear cant get it all done because the mass is in the front)Increasing spring rate just causes the car to skip and stutter over bumps,and the shock valving becomes impossible. The roll center must be above ground to work!!!!! The lower the roll moment the better.The rear roll center is at ground plane level at all times and the roll axis is inclined upwards towards the front! 
This is backwards from a RWD vehicle and makes comparison to a car like that
moot .I welcome you to compete against the cars I prepare any time.To lower a FWD VW requires specially fabricated pieces to reestablish proper roll center,bumpsteer and ackerman.This is a delicate and complicated process
and I wont do it on street driven vehicles.My previous comments do seem a bit harsh,but I sense you are trying to validate something you believe strongly,but it just aint so!!! The points brought up about aero concerns are interesting,but until the basic geometry is right,it will just make for unpredictable,dangerous handling.
A point to ponder is this.If you lower your car 3 inches you will lower your CG somewhat less because you didnt lower the wheels,axles,brakes.The roll center will lower in the order of4-5.5 inches because the control arms are shorter.
This makes it a lose-lose situation.The wheel scrub,bumpsteer,and camber curve
can be ignored because it handles so badly.The more you lower it the worse it gets.
Luckily the oilpan scrapes and you are forced to stop before you kill yourself or someone else.I can actually see why some believe it is good to lower if they read some of the books on suspension theory.They unfortunately never cover strut suspensions and if they do they absolutely never cover FWD.Look at the physics and study what forces are really at work! These arent mustangs,or BMWs
We have to do it ourselves.I saw someone very determined to run his racecar really low.By the time he got the springs sort of stiff enough,he had to have custom shocks made,then found the chassis was coming apart from the constant pounding! He reinforced the mountings,and then had to redo the roll cage.
The whole time (3 years) he was getting beat by cars at normal height.
He finally gave up and let me do a suspension for him. He was immediately 3-3.5 seconds a lap faster wherever he went and finally won a race.If you really want to run low,go ahead.I certainly cant stop you(nor would I try)The info is out there,and you can ignore it if you wish.I hope this clears the air some.
The explanations are necessasarily short and simplified,but I think you get the point.
Dick Shine


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

quote:[HR][/HR] These arent mustangs,or BMWs
Dick Shine







[HR][/HR]​FYI, BMWs have same front suspension system as VW. Just not FWD. So a lot of this applies to a BMW too. I dont know about Mustangs.
PS: Hey SRSVW, care to comment on my topic in the suspension group? Titled "The BIG Question:..."



[Modified by RogueTDI, 11:41 PM 4-23-2003]


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]This is a long discussion, so I only read the 1st page and last page.
If oldmanTDI is who I think he is, and considering his comments at the beginning of this long post, ... well dont listen to him because he doesnt know what he is talking about.[HR][/HR]​Re-read ALL of the posts - if for nothing else, stuff to think about (or entertainment value







). In general, Oldman does know a bit about setting up a VW.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

RedTDI ...... Oldman knows his things. Too bad nobody had seen him around for more than a month now







I sent couple of e-mail and no answer ..... really hope he is OK! Anyone knows him personally or knows a telephone number to call or somehting? He had never disappeared liek this before......


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

quote:[HR][/HR]RedTDI ...... Oldman knows his things. Too bad nobody had seen him around for more than a month now







I sent couple of e-mail and no answer ..... really hope he is OK! Anyone knows him personally or knows a telephone number to call or somehting? He had never disappeared liek this before......[HR][/HR]​I sent Oldman another e-mail, letting him know his 'tex buddies are concerned. If I hear from him, I'll let you all know.[


[Modified by f1forkvr6, 9:35 PM 4-23-2003]


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

quote:[HR][/HR]RedTDI ...... Oldman knows his things. Too bad nobody had seen him around for more than a month now







I sent couple of e-mail and no answer ..... really hope he is OK! Anyone knows him personally or knows a telephone number to call or somehting? He had never disappeared liek this before......[HR][/HR]​I have nothing against him personally. I have a pretty good idea who he is, and have read some of his other material. I am sure he knows quite a bit. But he often demonstrates a mediocre understanding of what he is talking about. Rather, it is more like an accumulation of knowledge. At least, that is how it comes off to me.
Some of what he said in the opening posts was just not correct, such as "The rate of chamber change is a sinusoidal curve , it has the least change when the arms are parallel to the ground and the rate of change increase drastically as the arms move away from parallel. Really any drop from parallel is bad, how bad? Depends, ..."
I just have trouble believing what someone has to say when they try to pass something like_that_ off as an accurate statement. 



[Modified by RogueTDI, 6:02 AM 4-24-2003]


----------



## Racer_X (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

You make some interesting points. Like I said, I'm running the race car pretty low. You are correct that I haven't been out a lot with it yet. We ran it a few times in the summer and fall of 2001. We were supposed to go to the Moroso 24 hours with it in 2001, but, right after we finished building it, one of the co-drivers and one of the crew got called up on reserves and sent to Afghanistan. Another crew guy also got called up and sent to Iraq late last year. Everyone should be back in September and October of this year, so we'll be back out with the thing again. 
I've only run a few PCA and BMWCCA school events with it since they've been gone. It's not slow. Based on the grid sheet's I've seen from the tracks I've run it at, I would be a third or fourth row qualifier with the times I've run in the schools. And I haven't been wringing every last hundredth of a second out of it during the schools, either, not to mention I've been carrying a passenger seat and a student (plus harnesses, window net, etc.) at those events. Obviously, I won't be carrying that weight in an actual race. Of course, we do have a 22 gallon fuel cell in the back (with a lot of extra reinforcement, especially behind the cell), and a lot more even weight distribution than they typical street VW. That lets us run a lot more spring and bar at the rear than we could otherwise. Well, if it doesn't work low, we can always raise it back up. That's one nice thing about coilovers.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Racer_X)*

Can you post some pictures of the car so we can get an idea of how low you are tlaking? Also what kind of car is it again? Thanks http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VR6Variant (Dec 19, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

Can anyone explain exactly why the roll axis inclination front to rear is the opposite for front wheel vs. rear wheel drive, as has been stated repeatedly.
In my mind, I would think that direction of travel and weight distribution would supercede which wheels were driving the car. Why would a front engine/rear driver be different than a front engine/front driver. Or an all wheel drive such as the WRX. 
This is intersting stuff. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## TarmacSpecial (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6Variant)*

AWD cars, are generally setup like FWD cars. Unless it is a mid or rear engine AWD car.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6Variant)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Can anyone explain exactly why the roll axis inclination front to rear is the opposite for front wheel vs. rear wheel drive, as has been stated repeatedly.
In my mind, I would think that direction of travel and weight distribution would supercede which wheels were driving the car. Why would a front engine/rear driver be different than a front engine/front driver. Or an all wheel drive such as the WRX. 
This is intersting stuff. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif [HR][/HR]​Last I checked, the roll axis is supposed to be parallel, or as close to parallel, to the mass centroidal axis. So, a rear drive car has more wieght higher up in the rear than a front drive car. However, I dont think they are necessarily opposite. The rear drive should have a more downward inclination than a front drive, but I dont know that the mass centroidal axis would be pointing into the ground.
On another issue, what is the downside of having the roll axis not parallel to the mass centroidal axis? How would the effect manifest itself in terms of handling response?


----------



## VR6Variant (Dec 19, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
Last I checked, the roll axis is supposed to be parallel, or as close to parallel, to the mass centroidal axis. So, a rear drive car has more wieght higher up in the rear than a front drive car. However, I dont think they are necessarily opposite. The rear drive should have a more downward inclination than a front drive, but I dont know that the mass centroidal axis would be pointing into the ground.
On another issue, what is the downside of having the roll axis not parallel to the mass centroidal axis? How would the effect manifest itself in terms of handling response?[HR][/HR]​Ok, I'm trying to wrap my head around this here.
So, the roll axis should ideally be parallel to the CG axis front to rear. For a rear driver, say a 3 series with the rear diff mounted low, longitudinal, tranny mounted low, engine mounted low, etc. etc., the center of mass in the rear should be lower than that of a typical front driver, because there is more mass distributed rearward, but it's all pretty low in the chassis. So, this should produce a mass centroidal axis closer to parallel with the ground, but still inclined somewhat upward as you head rear to front. Whereas a typical VW would have the slight opposite going on, as the CG in the front should be slightly higher than a rear driver (more mass stacked up under the hood), while the CG of the rear would be higher yet due to the lack of additional mass down low. Am I visualizing this correctly, albeit exagerated a bit?
Obvously, a well balanced, mid engine, all wheel drive car would have the best shot at having a level (to the ground) mass axis and roll center axis, which I would think is ideal. In the real world, if the mass axis in inclined, is the idea to decline the roll axis to achieve some sort of equalibrium?


----------



## Racer_X (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Can you post some pictures of the car so we can get an idea of how low you are tlaking? Also what kind of car is it again? Thanks http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif [HR][/HR]​I'm not at home right now, so posting pictures will be impossible.
I did take a protractor level to one of the control arms late yesterday because I figured this question might come up. The control arms are angled about 4 degrees with the ball joint ends higher than the end attached to the car. There' isn't much vertical clearance between the tire and the top of the fender arch. By most folks estimation, it's pretty much slammed. If it were much lower, I'd have clearance problems with the right hand drive shaft.
Oh, and it's a Rabbit GTI.
The adjustment that I made for the camber and the camber curve also changes the roll center somewhat. If you doodle a diagram, you'll see that the roll center goes up when you tilt the tops of the struts inward like I have them.
I didn't take a picture of the front end and take a protractor to it (yet), but it looks like the roll center with the vehicle at rest is pretty close to ground level. It might be slightly below ground, it might be slightly above ground, but it's not far from ground level either way.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6Variant)*

quote:[HR][/HR]

Ok, I'm trying to wrap my head around this here.
So, the roll axis should ideally be parallel to the CG axis front to rear. For a rear driver, say a 3 series with the rear diff mounted low, longitudinal, tranny mounted low, engine mounted low, etc. etc., the center of mass in the rear should be lower than that of a typical front driver, because there is more mass distributed rearward, but it's all pretty low in the chassis. So, this should produce a mass centroidal axis closer to parallel with the ground, but still inclined somewhat upward as you head rear to front. Whereas a typical VW would have the slight opposite going on, as the CG in the front should be slightly higher than a rear driver (more mass stacked up under the hood), while the CG of the rear would be higher yet due to the lack of additional mass down low. Am I visualizing this correctly, albeit exagerated a bit?
Obvously, a well balanced, mid engine, all wheel drive car would have the best shot at having a level (to the ground) mass axis and roll center axis, which I would think is ideal. In the real world, if the mass axis in inclined, is the idea to decline the roll axis to achieve some sort of equalibrium?







[HR][/HR]​You've got me confused now. I think you are making things too complicated there. But now that I think of it, I am not really sure how the mass centroidal axis is even defined. I mean, theoretically, you could put any number of axes through the car, in a vertical plane that is parallel to the car's axis, and have the car's weight be balanced around that axis.
I am working from memory here. I dont have any suspension design books to reference.


----------



## VR6Variant (Dec 19, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
You've got me confused now. I think you are making things too complicated there. But now that I think of it, I am not really sure how the mass centroidal axis is even defined. I mean, theoretically, you could put any number of axes through the car, in a vertical plane that is parallel to the car's axis, and have the car's weight be balanced around that axis.
I am working from memory here. I dont have any suspension design books to reference.[HR][/HR]​I'm assuming that the mass centrodal axis in this case would be an imaginary line through the car, front to rear, around which the car would balance if you skewered it. So i guess this would be balacing the car side to side without any reaction from the tires, etc, making rotation the only degree of freedom. Looking at my car, I'm visualizing this line going from the top edge of the license plate through to the lower edge of the front grille, pretty much along the centerline of the car.

With that, and what's been said regarding the roll axis in this thread, I'm visualizing a roll axis going from about ground level at the rear tires to about 4-5" of the ground at the front tires. 
What I'm getting is that both axis are pretty similar, other than one is inclined and the other declined, reaching a sort of equalibrium. 
Just wondering how the roll centers and a cars natural axis of rotation counteract, and how the suspension geometry & set-up affects this. I should probably find a couple of good books... and a big cup of cofee.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6Variant)*

Yeah, seems like when things get this confusing, its best to start all over with the basics.
Trying to reconcile what some suspension book's theory states with what one understands can lead to a lot of confusion.
VR6Variant, let me see here.
I still dont see where your assumption for the axis's orientation comes from. In other words, one could just as easily pass a line through the car at 45 degrees to the horizon, and translate that line to a position such that the car balances around it. As such, I do not understand why you assume the MCA is inclined below the horizon, looking toward the cars front (like sitting in a seat a looking forward).
I am not sure how the rear roll center is define, so I couldnt begin to know its height relative to ground. 
I dont see how them being mirror images causes an equilibrium. This is sort of the crux of one of my earlier questions I think. We are wondering the same things, apparently.


[Modified by RogueTDI, 8:33 AM 4-25-2003]


----------



## The Prof (Jul 18, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*

with trailing arms the rear roll centre is always on the ground


----------



## fafner1 (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VR6Variant)*

quote


> Can anyone explain exactly why the roll axis inclination front to rear is the opposite for front wheel vs. rear wheel drive, as has been stated repeatedly.
> The height of the front and rear roll centers can be used to tune the handling similar to varying the front and rear sway bars. This is typically done when a car is designed, once the car is built its easier to change sway bars. The problem with tuning your car by changing the roll center is that it typically introduces all sorts of other changes, including to the camber curve. You get more weight transfer when the roll center is further below the center of mass just like adding a stiffer bar. Raising the roll center to be closer to the center of mass gives you less transfer, just like putting on a lighter bar. Please note we are talking about the ratio of weight transfer on the front verses the rear, the total weight transfer is largly fixed by speed and geometery, but the suspension does effect which end the majority of the transfer takes place at. I think front wheel drive cars generally run a higher front roll center to reduce oversteer. I'm not sure why rear drivers run lower front roll centers, but understeer is less of a problem when you can break the rear end loose with the throttle. I believe one of the changes Carrol Shelby made to the original GT-350's was to raise the front roll center to reduce understeer. I hope I got this right, I am at work and my copy of "Make Your Car Handle" by Puhn is at home. If I am turned around just ignore everything I just said.


----------



## fafner2 (Feb 18, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (fafner1)*

Well I just checked the book and I got it wrong. Raising the roll center increases the weight transfer, lowering it decreases it. Given this I don't understand why VW's have the front roll center higher than the rear, other than that for with a macpherson strut up front and a trailing arm at back it just turns out that way. VW may have decided what kind of suspension it wanted to use, and then used the sway bars (and the twist beam rear axle) to balence the handling rather doing it by adjusting the roll center height and screwing up the geometry.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (fafner2)*

Are fafner1 and fafner2 the same person? Actually, I guess not. Must be part of a cult or something... (







)


[Modified by RogueTDI, 12:32 AM 4-27-2003]


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (EA 337)*

I think we have those in our office, but usually the "bible's" are the books by the one and only Carroll Smith


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

Hmm. I only read one Caroll Smith book. I didnt like it.
I have been meaning to check out that RCVD book.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*

You didn't like it?







Which one was it? DId you not like the surprising twist at the end...mr. doubtfire in the library with the candle stick


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

I forgot which one it was, but the cover had a picture of an open wheel car and a red color scheme.
I just felt it didnt explain things sufficiently. It left my understanding full of holes. Perhaps if I read it again and again, it might have made sense to me. But for the most part, my recollection is that the book presented itself with an aire of "trust me, this is how it works" rather than providing a solid understanding.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*

I dont know many people who oppose Carroll Smith's thoughts...well just one really







I think maybe you are just reading it with preconcieved notions. maybe you should try reading it like you have no prior knowledge. Maybe then his explanation will fit together better... I dont know, or just dont agree with him, thats fine







Either way if youj winr aces, that enough proof for me.


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

I dont oppose his theories, and I dont think I suggested such. I just didnt like his manner of explanation. I am sure he has a solid understanding of the subject. Perhaps if I read it again, it would make more sense. It _has_ been a while.


----------



## Racer_X (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*

If that was "Drive to Win," (and your description of the cover sounds like it is) you should try reading one of his other books. I've got the entire collection of his works (along with many other car and driving related titles) and "Drive to Win" was a huge disappointment. I bought that one with low expectations, but I was still disappointed. Carol Smith is an excellent engineer and possibly a good racing team manager, but he has never driven competitively. His book on Driving is at best an Engineer's view of what the racing driver does with the car the engineer has designed and built. 
Check out at least one of his other books. The others are
- Prepare to Win
- Tune to Win
- Engineer to Win
- Screw to Win (actually, I think it's officially "The Threaded Fastener Handbook" or "Nuts, Bolts and Plumbing" or something like that)
Those are specifically about engineering, preparing and tuning cars for competition. On those topics, Carroll Smith is a very successful practitioner with a whole lot of theoretical knowledge and real world experience. Carroll Smith was never a very successful driver, and "Drive to Win" is mostly a team engineers view of what a driver (who has the easy job and only has to drive what the engineer builds and tunes) should know. 
What's really disappointing is that Carroll Smith has worked with so many successful racers and so many successful teams that he could have written a good introduction, and organized a collaboration with several of the very best drivers and racers (He's worked with Andrettis, Unsers, Rahal, and many other top open wheel drivers, and he's well known and respected in many other racing venues as well) and put together a real collection of good driving and racing advice. Maybe that will be the next book in his series. He could call it "Race to Win" or something like that.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Racer_X)*

Well if you put it that way, then noone can tell you how to setup your car correclty, because by your definition its all drivers preference, which is partially true, but physics still has a large role in it








Also you can try "going faster" by skip barber. I got that sitting here for some data acquisition researching I am doing. The current book I am studying for Data acquisition (as our fsae team now has full data acquisition) is "compeition car data logging, a practical handbook" by simon mcbeath. So far its a fantastix book, however it was translated from "english" into US english, so some things are a little strangely phrased, but easy to understand nonetheless.
The best book, or so I was told by a friend who is a professional Data analyst is by Buddy Fey. But its out of production and I cant find any copies


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

Your friend is right! FEYs book is great! I read the one you have,It really isnt all that great. Maybe this summer(after a friend reads it) I could loan you my copy.
Remind me in June or July
Dick Shine


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_Well if you put it that way, then noone can tell you how to setup your car correclty, because by your definition its all drivers preference, which is partially true, but physics still has a large role in it









I was just reading some articles about the two Ferrari F1 drivers (Barrichello & Schumacher) and the writer was pointing out the interesting fact that both drivers set their F1 cars in the exact opposite way! Barrichello likes it soft, with more roll bars and Schumacher likes it very stiff, to almost painful stiffness......... and it is interesting how both go to the two extreme opposit epoints of what the car could offer in terms of setup, and yet both are incredibly fast......... Just found this to be what your observations were above.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

Yep I know this because if you look at the setup even on our fsae car when different drivers hop it, its obivous how some drivers need different setups.Dick I contacted you about Fey's book


----------



## a2vwnick (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

I usually keep quiet, especially when I have been designing a new vw suspension product, but here was a cool quote I saw in _Racecar Engineering_ :
"In a 150 mph corner, a Formula 1 racecar consumes around 125 bhp just to overcome the cornering force." 
Peter Wright
_Racecar Engineering_ Vol. 5 No. 3 
Its just not something I usually think about in design, how much power its costing to keep the car moving.



_Modified by a2vwnick at 3:25 PM 4-29-2003_


----------



## Racer_X (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (a2vwnick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *a2vwnick* »_I usually keep quiet, especially when I have been designing a new vw suspension product, but here was a cool quote I saw in _Racecar Engineering_ :
"In a 150 mph corner, a Formula 1 racecar consumes around 125 bhp just to overcome the cornering force." 
Peter Wright
_Racecar Engineering_ Vol. 5 No. 3 
Its just not something I usually think about in design, how much power its costing to keep the car moving.


Anybody with a VW diesel can tell you that a sharp corner can consume horsepower. A looping freeway exit can slow down my Jetta with the pedal on the floor. 
I've actually done some laps in that car at a club drivers' school, and I can go flat out, foot on the floor through turns 1 and 2 at Roebling Road (Savannah, GA). I enter about 75mph, and by mid corner, I have to down shift and I'm going right at 60mph. It doesn't pick up speed until I start unwinding the steering wheel.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Racer_X)*

Haha I guess you have to practice driving it on the track







If you have been racing you should already know Slow in equals fast out. Its true and cannot be argued with. You dont see formula one guys entering hairpins at 200mph, and exiting at 60... you see them entering at 40 and exiting at 150. Theres a reason for that.


----------



## Racer_X (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_Haha I guess you have to practice driving it on the track







If you have been racing you should already know Slow in equals fast out.

I'm talking about the diesel. I was going in slow. In the ITB Rabbit GTI, I enter the braking zone for turn one at around 105-110 and brake to about 80. Since the diesel was only going about 77 at that point, braking was not necessary. In the IT car, I trail brake slightly through the first half of that turn, then straighten the wheel slightly and brake hard again to about 60-65. In the diesel, I scrubbed enough speed from tire scrub that braking was unnecessary and downshifting was necessary to get the engine back in the power band (what little power band it has).

_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_Its true and cannot be argued with. You dont see formula one guys entering hairpins at 200mph, and exiting at 60... you see them entering at 40 and exiting at 150. Theres a reason for that.


Again, the F1 guys have the horsepower to exit faster. Using all the power I had, I exited that corner as quickly as I could. BTW, I only ran two sessions in the diesel, mostly for fun and to see what it would do. It had the race tires from the ITB car (Hoosiers) on it, but was on the stock GTI suspension that I use on the diesel. For the last 7 laps of the second session, I ran 7 consecutive laps within 0.11 seconds of the same time. I doubt that car would go any faster. One of the other instructors (a guy who drove for team Joest twice at the 24 hours of Le Mans back when they ran Porsches) followed me around for about 3 laps in his turbo Porsche and came up after the session and told me I was a blast to watch, and that nobody else on the track was getting as much out of their car as I was. He said I was actually more fun to watch in the diesel than I was in the GTI.
My point in that post was that cornering takes a lot of horsepower. If you are in a very low powered car, just turning around a sharp turn will scrub speed. Entering those corners slower would have just made me even slower by the middle of the corner because my diesel doesn't have the power to overcome the tire scrub in those sharp turns. Also, obviously my GTI on the same tires is consuming 30 to 40 hp going around those turns just to overcome the tire scrub. 


_Modified by Racer_X at 3:35 AM 4-30-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_...... You dont see formula one guys entering hairpins at 200mph, and exiting at 60... you see them entering at 40 and exiting at 150. Theres a reason for that.


Yeah, there is a reason for that ....... I think there is no such sentence "enering a hairpin at 200 mph"! If anyone in this world can even approach a hairpin at 200 mph - it is either NOT a hairpin or he/sh is an E.T








P.S: Take it easy now, I am just joking ..... I am pretty aware that you know what you are talking about on these forums


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Racer_X)*

Racer_X AH Ok makes sense, sorry about that. Yea I agree with what you said. A lot of the older instructors usually are susprised with the fwd street cars nowadays, since they were used to lightweight rwd cars with high hp, so when they see a 100hp 2700lb car get whipped around it surprises them








Also about the 200mph entering speed, there are turns where the braking point is at 200+ into a hairpin. Hockenheim gets pretty close to that if they dont run that chicane http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

Sorry to disagree, but I would not call the entrance in the slow part of the Hockenhaim track a "hairpin" ...... In the way I see it (and I may be wrong) a hairpin is a sharper than 90 degree curve, almost an U-turn, which I can't recall in Hockenhaim........ A real hairpin for me is the one after the long straight in Magnicours or before the long straight in Montreal. I would not consider a hairpin even a sharp curve like Tosa (Imola)........ But again, I may be wrong.
Also, 200 mph of ENTERING speed to me means you enter the curve at that speed, not that your speed before starting to brake as to aproach the curve is 200 mph...therefore I posted above that whoever ENTERS a hairpin at 200 is ....... nt a human


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

Yea thats not what I meant. Sorry I got a 200 page paper being finished, design project, and 3 finals being studied for.. my brain is fried and nothing I write makes sense anymore.
ofrgive my stupidity for the time being. I'll be back and make sense in about a week.
Hopefully the track (pocono long course) will be a good relaxing day for me friday so I can cool off from finals for a day and then get hardcore back into it.
Peace http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## 2002GTI (Sep 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

A 200 page paper?!!? Thats crazy how in the world did you do it?


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (2002GTI)*

Wait are you being sacrcastic or serious? I am guessing serious...







Well we have 9 people in the group, and after 3 days of writing, we have about 200 pages....however that includes cad, FBD's, formula/calc pages, appendices, all the stuff you put into an engineering design report. Seems longer then it is. All I know is we had to buy a big binder for it


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_......Sorry I got a 200 page paper being finished, design project, and 3 finals being studied for.. my brain is fried and nothing I write makes sense anymore.
Forgive my stupidity for the time being. I'll be back and make sense in about a week.

Peace http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Good luck with whatever you are working on! and take it easy, do not kill yourself with work


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

Haha thanks man. Luckily classes are done today and our design competition is over. Bad thing is now I have a test at 8am, and finals on mon/tues.
But the best part is i got first event of the 03 season Finally! Pocono, long course, friday, i cant wait! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## RogueTDI (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (2002GTI)*

Hehe, GTIVR6RACER4EVER. Man, I feel that. One year ago, right around this time, I was in the same position you are. Design projects, massive papers due. I didnt have to worry about an FSAE project though. I cant believe I ever worked that hard. Its hard to imagine how I did it - nothing but a fading memory. Very intense, must have fried some brain cells on one of those all-nighters.
Good luck - hope you score the grade!



_Modified by RogueTDI at 7:36 AM 5-1-2003_


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*

Haha Thanks guys, I appreictae it.
Yea Fsae is getting tough I have not even been at the shop for a couple weeks now. Last thing I did was make the custom mounted Data acquisition system on the steering wheel and wire up some sensors...and the pressure/temp fixture.
Anyways enough with this stuff, lets keep it back on topic.
P.S. Our group sucked for the design project for individually i did well


----------



## citat3962 (Oct 15, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

I want to get on the track sooooo bad.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (citat3962)*

Update: Today at Pocono was awesome! Worked on a Radical and was asked to drive it, but had to come home for devils game







Either way i got 3 long solid runs in, and 3 tag alongs. I wish I had time because he was letting anyone take the Sr3 out. 
Anyways time to study


----------



## Chapel (Jun 23, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (danny_16v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *danny_16v* »_Dick Shine









Well said. This should be the end of this topic. Anybody who is anybody that wants a good suspension, dont lower your car, listen to dick shine.

good to know someone is getting use out of my icon.


----------



## Chapel (Jun 23, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RogueTDI)*


_Quote »_These arent mustangs,or BMWs
Dick Shine









FYI, BMWs have same front suspension system as VW. Just not FWD. So a lot of this applies to a BMW too. I dont know about Mustangs.


damn straight they arent BMWs








same front suspension how?
just because we have MacPherson front suspension doesnt mean the geometry is the same
my car has like 25° of caster built in, so when it bounds it compresses towards the firewall. dont confuse front suspension types with suspension geometry.
now... rear suspension is a whole nother story. Y trailing arm (E30) independent rear suspension with outboard springs (kinda like an A4)







However, when you lower an E30 so that the trailing arms are parallel to the ground, you get negative camber.
My car is setup to understeer on full power (regardless of the fact its a RWD car) which makes controlling my slip angle easier with the throttle. plus the few degrees of rear camber I have in the rear keeps it stable in the corners. 
my suspension setup is 'similar' to SRS Real Street suspension because my rear








is slightly lower than stock
where as my front:








still has plenty of suspension travel.
of course, I cant take the credit with this setup, as Mario Langsten from Vintage Sports Racing (plug







) built my car to handle this way for Driving Schools.
I will however increase the rear sway bar diameter to about 15mm (up from 14) as well as my tire cross sectional width from 205/60/14 to 225/50/15 (Same overall rolling diameter as stock)


_Modified by Chapel at 10:21 PM 5-4-2003_


----------



## VolkswagenRacingGLI (Apr 15, 2003)

all this is confusing so if i were to get H&R race springs i would have massive trouble?? please would someone enlighten me because i want the drop that the springs provide with some nicer grippier tires and some sway bars so i am "on rails"


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: (VolkswagenRacingGLI)*

First decide what you want to do with your car, then decide your budget, Then everyone here cna help you decide what will get you on rails








Here is our STOCK RIDEHEIGHT E30 M3 WHICH IS FOR SALE BY THE WAY! And this thing handles on rails stock! However with a set of turner jstocks its pretty unreal


----------



## Chapel (Jun 23, 1999)

j-stocks are supposed to be the end all be all of E30 suspension... but they DO dump the car.
but it still handles amazingly.
I have Bilstein Sport Shocks and H&R Sport Springs.
good looks (even though there is some front wheel gap) and amazing handling.
Im gonna get the Turner Sway bar kit. best deal out there
$290 for front and rears (22f 19r) and all hardware.
unless I stumble upon an M3 rear for cheaper
most sway bar kits for E30s are over $400


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: (Chapel)*

Actually the only reason I said jstock is because thats one of the most competitive classes for it asfar as bmwcca goes.
For top of the line, you want protrac or moton triple...you cant compete with them unless you go penske, but those are worth more then the current car








If anyone is interested the car IS for sale


----------



## Turbo aDdIct (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*

Lower is slower...slammed is damned!


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Turbo aDdIct)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Turbo aDdIct* »_Lower is slower...slammed is damned!








But cheddah is betta. [rimshot]badump-bump[/rimshot]


----------



## citat3962 (Oct 15, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Chapel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Chapel* »_
good to know someone is getting use out of my icon.

Youre resposible for that?
You should be shot.
I'm so sick of that emoticon that I'm almost homicidal.


----------



## ScooterMac01 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (hayden)*

Do you mean to tell me that spec cars that come from Germany are the same heght as the US spec ones?? the same US specs that left European car lamenting the one they drove in Germany? That was lower and stiffer??


----------



## Chapel (Jun 23, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (citat3962)*


_Quote, originally posted by *citat3962* »_
Youre resposible for that?
You should be shot.
I'm so sick of that emoticon that I'm almost homicidal.


heh.
yep


----------



## snohobo (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (TarmacSpecial)*

Reading all 9 pages of this thread, and losing countless hours of sleep, I couldnt help but notice most of the thread steering towards(no pun intended) the MKIV and MKII chassis. What about our beloved MKIIIs?
I recently install Bilstein Sport struts/shocks matched with Sparco springs(<-- weird huh, Sparco) Weird thing is that i cant find any info on the Sparco springs, evena call to their headquarters proved useless in finding out some specs on these springs. All they could tell me was that they have been discontinued for 2+years now, and that they were a 1.5-7" drop.
If anyone can shed some light on these for me, its you guys...
























^^ Thats my car. Can anyone tell me whats an acceptable drop for MKIIIs without adversely affecting handling. Ive read everything that oldman, Shine, and many others have said about minimal drop-no drop is best, but what about MKIIIs?
Ive been very satisfied with the setup so far. It minimized body roll a tad, made it a much stiffer ride(while sacrifycing comfort but who cars) and handles better(altho the last 9 pages have been telling me otherwise)
Ahh, ive checked and my A-arm are parallel to the ground http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Next mod: rear sway, 17" BBS RXs with Toyo Proxes TI-Ss


_Modified by snohobo at 11:20 PM 5-12-2003_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (snohobo)*

What you've read in the 9 previous pages applies to the MKIII, MKI and B3/B4 chassis as well. My $0.02 - a reasonable drop would be about an inch.


----------



## snohobo (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_What you've read in the 9 previous pages applies to the MKIII, MKI and B3/B4 chassis as well. My $0.02 - a reasonable drop would be about an inch.

Ok, i can handle that. Now, can anyhone shed some light on Sparco springs, and maybe some specs on em. The Sparco guy told me they just couldnt get a market hold, what with the big names and all(neuspedd, h&r, among others)
Also, whats the deal with reverse rack, as you notice, i have reverse rake syndrome on my car. Why is it best for the front to be higher than the back? Or should the car be neutrally dropped, but with the bigger front wells, it makes it look like the back is lower?


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (snohobo)*

This "reversed" rake you speak of is done by BMW from the factory too (as well as many top manufacturer). I think part of thier intent in the design was for brake performance with the back lower then the front as far as body height, even though the car looks to be level, when you drop say a 3 series an inch you are almost tucking the rear.


----------



## Chapel (Jun 23, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

well, front springs are generally tighter to cope with front end weight.


----------



## roccostud (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (snohobo)*

i don't think this post is making people realize the why lowering a car makes it handle worse...too many people want to make there car look good, if a car can tackle the twisties with ease that makes a car look good.










_Modified by roccostud at 7:02 PM 5-13-2003_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (roccostud)*


_Quote, originally posted by *roccostud* »_i don't think this post is making people realize the why lowering a car makes it handle worse...

But boy have we tried!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_Quote, originally posted by *roccostud* »_if a car can tackle the twisties with ease that makes a car look good.









Yup







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








Function BEFORE form ....


----------



## DieselDemon (Feb 5, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (roccostud)*

I'm sure most if not, everyone knows that, but are you going to take turns at 60mph on your way to work every day or to the beach or something? Id rather look good than get arrested for reckless driving. OH! and what's this? you want to take it out for a rallye run in the canyons but can't because it's too low? Good, it's a daily driver car you don't want to brake anything do you?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (DieselDemon)*

You've completely missed the point .... or chose to ignore it.


----------



## DieselDemon (Feb 5, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

What was the point? How close to stock hight is the best when it comes to handling? or what... i guess i did.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (DieselDemon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DieselDemon* »_ How close to stock hight is the best when it comes to handling?
Stock height, not close to it, but stock. My 16v sits 1/2 in. higher than stock when corner balanced. You can either look cool sitting still (slammed) or you can look even cooler in the corners (stock), leaving whoever's behind you.


----------



## DieselDemon (Feb 5, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

Yes, because there's no possible way that the "slamed" car will keep up with you around turns just because your car handles better. Wtf? 
Say you were driving one car with the best aftermarket coilovers,shocks,tires,braces,...whatever right? then you meet your clone with the same car except it's lowered about 3 inches (not slamed, just a good drop).
The clone would be right on your ass if you were racing to get to the brew store at Turnysville Iowa or something.
If there were alot of people around that raced that way i just might raise my ride and get some 18''. That's my thoughts on Lowering.
And if you like off roading, get a truck...


----------



## MonoSki (Apr 18, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

Yep, there was a pair of really slammed Jettas at the auto-x a few weeks back. They were upset that their times were FAR behind a stock class Jetta with Koni's and a STS Jetta on the Shine kit. It was interesting to see how bouncy they were. They blamed their poor performance on a crappy parking lot, they kept saying how great their car are in the real world or on a 'real' track.... In the end they were posers who were more interested in looks, although they were trying to race them??? It is fine with me.
-I bought my cars to drive.
-You can't look at the outside of the car while driving.
-Years ago I bought into the coilover sensation and ended up way too low and with springs way too soft. After spending 6 weeks trying to get the car to handle better than the stock setup I sold them to a guy in CA and bought something else... Now the car is competitive.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (DieselDemon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DieselDemon* »_Yes, because there's no possible way that the "slamed" car will keep up with you around turns just because your car handles better. Wtf? 

At least you got this part right.

_Quote, originally posted by *DieselDemon* »_Say you were driving one car with the best aftermarket coilovers,shocks,tires,braces,...whatever right? 
Done, thank you kindly.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (DieselDemon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DieselDemon* »_then you meet your clone with the same car except it's lowered about 3 inches (not slamed, just a good drop).

From a performance perspective there is nothing good about a 3" drop.


----------



## Jouko Haapanen (Apr 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

Here's a teaser for the Mk4 owners looking for correct geometry along with their 2" drop...


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (MonoSki)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MonoSki* »_Yep, there was a pair of really slammed Jettas at the auto-x a few weeks back. They were upset that their times were FAR behind a stock class Jetta with Koni's and a STS Jetta on the Shine kit. It was interesting to see how bouncy they were. They blamed their poor performance on a crappy parking lot, they kept saying how great their car are in the real world or on a 'real' track.... In the end they were posers who were more interested in looks, although they were trying to race them??? It is fine with me.
-I bought my cars to drive.........

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Jouko Haapanen)*

Jouko ...... Pro-E or Solidworks? Why don't you really make it happen for the A4s? Looks like you have the capacity......


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

Thats Solidworks Fo Shizzle! (2k1+ I hope)
So is that part being made or is this just a mockup of a prototype?


----------



## Jouko Haapanen (Apr 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

The "as cast" stereolithography models are complete, the wait is almost over...

_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_Thats Solidworks Fo Shizzle! (2k1+ I hope)
So is that part being made or is this just a mockup of a prototype?


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Jouko Haapanen)*

Did you rapidprototype them first?


----------



## LostBoyScout (Apr 18, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (DieselDemon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DieselDemon* »_ I'm sure most if not, everyone knows that, but are you going to take turns at 60mph on your way to work every day or to the beach or something? Id rather look good than get arrested for reckless driving. OH! and what's this? you want to take it out for a rallye run in the canyons but can't because it's too low? Good, it's a daily driver car you don't want to brake anything do you? 


Hooray for you!
Internet is a funny thing. People who don't know much about suspension geometry will come into this post and think that if they lower their car more than .001", their car will lose the ability to turn. Fact is, most points made here are grossly exaggerated or just plain made up. Have any of you guys looked at the control arms on a stock suspended car? And even with the suspension geometry being compromised by a 3" or more drop, the affects on handling for a STREET CAR application are NOTHING like what the 'performance enthusiasts' in here will have you think. 
If you want your car slammed, do it. Forget what some dude on the net told you your car will handle like, because the fact is, my car is dropped 4.25" and it still gets me around just fine, and when I want to rail a corner, it goes around the corner. Not as quickly as had I kept it slightly higher maybe, but the difference is incredibly small. The difference between a decent and great set of tires is about 200 times more noticable.








Besides, wheel gap is nasty lookin'.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (LostBoyScout)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LostBoyScout* »_........The difference between a decent and great set of tires is about 200 times more noticable...... 

Sorry, I would disagree ....... I had average tires and excellent tires, had average susp. kits and excellent one, and it is amazing how much performance a great susp. kit will "extract" from an average touring tire, compare to how much waste is to buy max. performance tires and put them on bad susp. setup! ........... What would you prefer in a fast corner - 205 mm tire width Michelin Energy from which all 205 mm are fully parallel to the ground or 205 mm tire width Michelin Pilot Sport, from which only 155-165 mm are touching the road because of wrong angles which are results of badly designed kits? ......... Numbers may not be the same, but it is just for example. Hope the idea is clear.....
Then again, if you want to go for the low look, please do so, as you correctly said, car is yours, life is yours too. If you are really happy this way - I am happy for you


----------



## LostBoyScout (Apr 18, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

I agree on suspension quality being of utmost importance, and I have a great system (FK Konigsport coilovers - which have Koni adjustable inserts)... I just mean the difference in ride heights


----------



## ScooterMac01 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

I still cannot help but remember back to when the GLX was just introduced in Germany and European Car magazine went over and drove it. They then got the US spec car stateside and drove it. Dating myself here, I think that was late 92 when the review came out, but the verdict was the German spec was hands down a better performing suspension package, that it was stiffer & *lower* , and that we wound up getting the apathetic off shoot, with the Germans thinking us yanks have no love for a tuned and taut car. I thoroughly enjoy the way my Mk III GLX feels with the H&R cup kit in it, and leave many VW logo in the rear view on the off ramps & on ramps of life. And low or high, is not the grin in the rear view staring back at you what it is really all about?


----------



## ScooterMac01 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (LostBoyScout)*

And yes wheel gap is Uber nasty!


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (ScooterMac01)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ScooterMac01* »_And yes wheel gap is Uber nasty!

All fear the wheel gap...except me...


----------



## roccostud (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (LostBoyScout)*

evey one has there opinion on what they want there car to look like. were not telling eveyone to change there minds and jack there car up so they have a little wheel gap. were simply talking about the benifits of stock suspention height compared to lowered suspention. If you don't beleve what is being said or simply just want to be in here to whine about don't. its really anoying. If your happy with your car great have it that way im not here to bash your ideas. your free to do what you want but don't come in here and trash what we have been talking about for 10 pages. 

long live reverse rake and wheel gap


----------



## ScooterMac01 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (roccostud)*

Not bashing the idea of high, low or in the middle persay, though I like the looks of no serious wheel gap. Having read the links, in this thread, to the books that talk about ride height and performance. It left me with the understanding that some drop is (paraphrasing here) desirable and not inherently bad, too much obviously takes out some of the better handling dynamics. So I am trying to figure out if someone has empirical data that shows yes indeed there is height/set-up that is more dominate across the board in similar scenarios in like cars. All I have really got out this thread is blurry eyes and what seems to be a lot of opinions. I assume there are some club racers out here that have figured out what is the more dominant height/set-up, and I would be curious to hear their thoughts, not general prejudices, on the height/set-ups. Could be as I banged my forehead of the desk I missed em...







Cheers all!


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (ScooterMac01)*

Struts are a different animal and can't be lowered much. Many books don't seem to take this into account. I believe they're assuming you never had struts or got rid of them when racing became serious.


----------



## TarmacSpecial (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

I just went to a coilover conversion. My car was slammed on Neuspeed race springs. It handled like crap, except in smooth high speed sweepers.
I am now running arms level with a bit of sag in the back. I don't know exactly konw how much lower the rear should be so I started at 20mm lower. The car is handling much much better, carrying more speed through corners than before. Although I've noticed, or "feel" more body roll. It also doesn't bottom out on every bump I hit, which is awesome.
The one thing I don't liek is the car deosn't launch like it used to, which sucks when yo are tying to use the "swoop lane" in traffic. I got out launched by an SUV yesterday. Oh well, first corner I would have driven around him like he was parked.


----------



## roccostud (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (ScooterMac01)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ScooterMac01* »_Not bashing the idea of high, low or in the middle persay, though I like the looks of no serious wheel gap. Having read the links, in this thread, to the books that talk about ride height and performance. It left me with the understanding that some drop is (paraphrasing here) desirable and not inherently bad, too much obviously takes out some of the better handling dynamics. So I am trying to figure out if someone has empirical data that shows yes indeed there is height/set-up that is more dominate across the board in similar scenarios in like cars. All I have really got out this thread is blurry eyes and what seems to be a lot of opinions. I assume there are some club racers out here that have figured out what is the more dominant height/set-up, and I would be curious to hear their thoughts, not general prejudices, on the height/set-ups. Could be as I banged my forehead of the desk I missed em...







Cheers all!

after reading what i wrote i did kinda word my throughs badly, i apologize if i offended any one. if your happy with your ride thats all that matters.










_Modified by roccostud at 11:15 AM 5-17-2003_


----------



## skater3820 (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*

If anyone wants their car to handle, talk to SHINE RACING in mass. They hooked me up with a suspention that is actually functional. It's lowered mabey slightly more than 1\2", but the car takes corners marked 25 at 110







. Want looks and handling, scrape the bottom of the bucket for coilovers, but these guys know what they are doing.
Peace---


----------



## lfungus (Oct 23, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (skater3820)*

Has anyone tried the H&R Dunebuggy coilovers that are designed for a near stock ride height ?


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (lfungus)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lfungus* »_Has anyone tried the H&R Dunebuggy coilovers that are designed for a near stock ride height ?

Actually Dune buggies are designed for an Above Stock ride height







They go from +1" to -2" I believe. 
Only problem I see with them is that if you raise the spring rate, I am pretty sure that the shocks wont be able to withstand it for long; And I bet revalving them is not cheap








You can always use GC's or Truechoice Koni coils to get 0-3" drop. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## GTItraveler (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

To clarify, H&R dune buggy c/o's go from +1" - 1" from stock ride height. They are valved and sprung the same as standard H&R c/o's: For MkIV that is 400lb F/280lb R. Any thoughts about them? Regarding GC, they don't seem to have products for the MkIV on their website. After contacting Truechoice they were also unsure how to resolve the rear suspension for the MkIV becasue they could NOT get baseline information from Koni (!) and therefore would have to make a set on trial and error. Not very confidence inspiring.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTItraveler)*

Oh my bad +1 to -1, I was just going off memory. And those spring rates should be changed in my opinion, but those are not for the everyday user, those are an exception.
GC should be able to make you a set for MkiV, as can truechoice.
They would have R&D go into them, if trial and error is a part of the design process, then so be it. But it'll get done the right way through either company.


----------



## GTItraveler (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

GTIVR6RACER4EVER: What do you mean by "And those spring rates should be changed in my opinion, but those are not for the everyday user, those are an exception."


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTItraveler)*

Oh haha that was confusing sorry, I was in a rush when I wrote it before. I meant not many people have the Dune Buggy coilovers, and you said they had the same spring rates as the normal H&R coils, which are what 400/280? I dont thinks thats a great combination for a daily driver, especially if its a vr6.


----------



## GTItraveler (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

Could you be more specific "I dont thinks thats a great combination for a daily driver, especially if its a vr6". Is it too low, too high, or not the correct balance? PSS9's are about the same 400F/300R?


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTItraveler)*

I am not a fan of the PSS9's either. I have only seen a couple people bring them to the track and other setups that were much more basic were out performing them. I just think its a better deal to get valved koni's and your own set spring rates for less money. Just makes sense to me...
I know people who also run 550lbs+ all around as a daily driver on an mk3 gti vr6, but its rough...very rough, especially on thier revalved koni's. But it matters what your definition and likings are for daily driver, because fore every person its different. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## 2002gtibluvr6 (Oct 5, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

ok i have a 2002 GTi VR6. everbody on this thread seems to be talkin about max performance and autox'ing and track racing and all that good stuff. 
well i like a car to have good looks, and i care probably more about performance then looks considering im gonna keep my car a "sleeper" im not into the extravigent body kits and slamming of rides and huge rims. but on the other hand im not a racer, i dont plan on autox'in or track racing, i just like to enjoy my car on the street
personally i feel, as well as many other people that the stock ride height for the mk iv is incredibly UGLY theres like 3 1/2 inches of wheel gap, and i just dont like it.
so what im trying to ask of you "suspension experts" is what would be a good setup, im not talking max performance, i do plan on puttin out a lot of power, and i heard a shine setup *front looking higher* is bad for a lot of power cause theres not enough weight on the front. i want to lower the car anywhere from a little more then 1/2 inch to no more then 2 inches, but i dont think 2 would be good....so 1/2inch to 1.5 inches lets say. i dont want to be bouncing, but like i said i dont need to turn on a dime at 100 mph. anybody have an suggestions on a setup or what to do? any input would be helpful and greatly appreciated!


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_Oh haha that was confusing sorry, I was in a rush when I wrote it before. I meant not many people have the Dune Buggy coilovers, and you said they had the same spring rates as the normal H&R coils, which are what 400/280? I dont thinks thats a great combination for a daily driver, especially if its a vr6.

I've got to disagree with you there Steve.
The dune buggy coilovers are a bit stiff for some, and stiffer than my shine kit (by 33% in the front and 42% in the rear) they are a nicely set up kit...which is a great set-up for a car that has to live with real roads and still sees a track and an auto-x. Plus the near stock ride height keeps the front suspension geometry. Not to mention the ability to corner weight the car (good for track and auto-x ... meaningless to the average Joe-street driver).
If I didn't already have a shine kit on my GTi-VR6 (300# front/ 200# rear) the Dune Buggy Coilovers would be on my list!


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (briang)*

Stiffness is regardles, b/c what I think is soft might be stiff to you. Ride quality is comfort is what street setups are about. If you want something to perform to racecar specs, then dont bother talking about these off the shelf kits. If you want a set of coilovers that are made for the generic "enthusiast" then get whatever you like. I encourage everyone to drive something before they buy it. But I still dont feel the dunebuggy's are anything special, just thier standard shock, revalved for the spring rates, which means if you change the spring rates, they are not compliant anymore. I think that fact right there will discourage a lot of people from getting them.


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

Hey Steve!
I did not state that the H&R Dune Buggy Coilovers were intended for the hardcore racer at a track. However, for the average enthusiast, they are a great sporting compromise and maintian correct ride height. 
H&R does sell alternate rates of up to 505#/in (for the front) that do not require a revalving. If revalving is required (most average Joe types won't alter rates/valving) since the damper is a Bilstein design, the cost should be about $65.00 per damper.
Have you seen the H&R damper? It is not a "standard" damper.
Each driver will have to decide for themselves what is right for their needs. For me, it is the Shine Real Street Suspsension!


----------



## FLdude (Aug 22, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (briang)*

Ok.. i read through some of this thread.. I agree the cars look good lowered. but i have on occasion been known to cruise through a hayfield or whatever.. so lowering is not somthing i want to do.
I have a 2002 GTI VR6 24V.. so far.. i put on a 25mm neuspeed rear sway. and i am getting some new 18" rims with the 337 Piolot tires on them.
Is there anything else i should do for daily driving.. with the occassional see how fast i can rip around the corner. I don't want to dump a bunch of cash for minimal improvement.. If i'm good with what i have i'll leave it alone.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (briang)*

I am just going off what some guys I spoke with at the track were saying about them. I guess it was a different environment. I have never met anyone who disliked thier H&R on the street, but I guess the normal and ultra are too low to really be effective on normal chassis setups.
Eitherway it matters for driving style, price, and what the owner is looking for. Some people can make a car with stock suspension handle better then the avg enthusiast with $3K dampers...


----------



## a2vwnick (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_but I guess the normal and ultra are too low to really be effective on normal chassis setups.


not true. the normals can go plenty high, but the ultra lows, yes, they go beyond reasonable suspension geometry.


_Modified by a2vwnick at 8:43 PM 5-21-2003_


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (a2vwnick)*

Well if we're talking Mk4, anything more then 1/2"lower then stock is too low really. Mk3, you can prbably do an 1". But I thought the normal H&r's were minimum like 1.5"? No real reason to get coilovers if you are not suing them for a show car, b/c I can garuntee 75% of people who get quality coilovers even corner balance them, which is the main reason coilovers are even used


----------



## a2vwnick (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_Well if we're talking Mk4, anything more then 1/2"lower then stock is too low really. Mk3, you can prbably do an 1". But I thought the normal H&r's were minimum like 1.5"? No real reason to get coilovers if you are not suing them for a show car, b/c I can garuntee 75% of people who get quality coilovers even corner balance them, which is the main reason coilovers are even used









yeah, i agree. im not sure on mk4, but i know on mk3 you can have the ever so elusive // arms with regular h&rs


----------



## ftillier (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (a2vwnick)*

Ok, so I'm trying to figure out the whole roll center calculation stuff (or at least at a high level). Let me recap my understanding, and y'all can correct me.
1). You draw a line through the two pivot points of the A-arm
2). You draw a line perpendicular to the strut mount (top of strut)
Where the two above lines intersect is the instant center for that side
3). Draw a line from the instant center to the contact patch
4). Repeat for other side
5). Roll center is where the two lines (from instant center to contact patch, on each side) meet
Is this right?
Assuming it is, here's part two:
As the A-arm rotates past horizontal, either up or down, it effectively moves the outer pivot point in the horizontal axis towards the center of the car (by the sine of the angle multiplied by the length of the A-arm). So with the strut top positioned further towards the car's centerline than the bottom, the perpendicular from the top strut mount (used to establish the instant center) becomes more horizontal as the bottom of the strut moves in. At the same time, the line through the A-arm gets less horizontal. This moves the instant center away from the centerline, and down. I'm assuming the suspension desing will never allow the two lines to become parallel, and I have no idea what the roll center would be if that was the case.
Am I still pretty much on track?
Ok, so moving the top strut mount towards the centerline of the car (ignore the contact patch for now), you effectively make the perpendicular (used to calculate the instant center) less horizontal, making it intersect the A-arm line sooner. So for an A-arm above horizontal (i.e. wheel pivot is higher than body pivot), moving the top of the strut towards the center of the car raises the roll center.
If the above is true, then Racer_X's (I think it was him) proposition of dialing in the maximum amount of camber at the strut top and the fixing the tire patch by dialing in opposing camber at the ecentric bolts (on an A1 chassis) should allow lowering the suspension a little bit more (no clue about how much). Is this correct? What amount of lowering does this allow?
Now, onto reverse rake... With a trailing arm suspension, the roll center is on the ground. So lowering just brings the CG closer the the roll center. Is there a limit to the benefits? What amount of reverse rake is best, and why? Wouldn't adding reverse rake increase front dive under braking by angling the longitudinal A-arm axis down?
Did I totally miss the technical stuff?
Thanks,
- Fab


----------



## ingrahamm (Jun 20, 2001)

Bilstein USA quoted me $120/corner to revalve PSS-9s for higher rates, which is what I'm likely to do.
matt


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (ingrahamm)*

To all those who don't already know...seems like shine racing is right ANY lowering on a mklV car will make the control arms NOT sit parallel to the ground(which is necessary for optimum handeling).....i lowered my 2003 GTI 1.25" and it's to much i looked lastnite and the control arms are all jacked....now i know why it's not handeling the way i want and will never....Shine racing you will have yet another customer...fender gap yeah i like the way it looks dropted but F that i'm form follows function all the way.....in conclusion you can NOT lower our cars at ALL if handeling is what you care about


----------



## Chapel (Jun 23, 1999)

*Re: (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

hell
my friend has the Bilstein PSSs in his car
supposed to be a 'race coilover' setup
half of the springs are touching with NO weight in the car
just sitting idle
and when he goes around corners, you can hear them groaning against each other!
the control arms are inverted, and half the springs arent even being used because they are fully bound against each other
how is that supposed to be a 'race suspension'?
it has NO TRAVEL!
the shocks have a few inches of travel, but the springs have like 1 inch
its the same even with the suspension 'raised'
I dont know about other people, but this is the saddest excuse for a coil over race setup Ive ever seen
the car stops riding on the suspension after only SLIGHT body roll
all the weight is pressed down onto fully bound springs
if he wanted better handling, he should have got the SRS kit


----------



## Chapel (Jun 23, 1999)

*Re: (Chapel)*









here are the rear springs
see how the top 4 are all touching
the bottoms are doing that too
there are only like 2 free coils in the rear and they are pretty close too
Ill try to take a picture


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Chapel)*

Chapel, thank you very much for the pictures! I wanted to see this many times, but never had a chance..... Thank you! I think my personal debate (between me and me) is closed forever


----------



## legally insane (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

I made the same mistake. I lowered my 98 Jetta GLX with an Eibach Pro Kit. Looked great, handled like sh!!. Got to looking for a fix on Vortex. I read what OldmanTDI said about using rubber spacers. I bought some, came home and jacked her up, pushed 'em in. 
My arms are now parallel. Ride and handling are greatly improved. I can actually drive on a bumpy road at or above the posted limit. Sure I'm setting with a gap on the front and level on the rear but at least I can DRIVE her now. Cost me $15.00 
I don't know who OldmanTDI is but he was right on with the spacers.
1998 Jetta GLX VR6, Eibach Pro Kit, AT Itallia's, Sumitomo's, Magnaflow, K&N, 12 rubber spacers


----------



## GTItraveler (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: (Chapel)*

How low is the car that these photos are taken of? Is it slammed by any chance?


----------



## legally insane (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (GTItraveler)*

My rear springs look exactly like the photo and thats with an Eibach Pro Kit!


----------



## ingrahamm (Jun 20, 2001)

*Re: (legally insane)*

interesting. my springs look nothing like that with H&R sports (1.4" drop). When I go to the PSS-9s I will run them at about -1.0 or -1.25, i.e., at the top of their adjustment. Perhaps I'll snap some pics while I'm at at it.
matt


----------



## hayden (Aug 19, 2000)

*Re: (legally insane)*


_Quote, originally posted by *legally insane* »_
I don't know who OldmanTDI is but he was right on with the spacers.


Yes he was. I run them on the rear of my stock setup and will continue to use them to fix any problems I may have with running a custom setup. You can also do spring clamping according to Oldman, to lower a car, but have no experience with it, or have seen these clamps available.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (hayden)*

hmm im not clear as to how this rubber spacer fix made your arms parallel again? where did you stick these again? maybe you were trying to fix somehting else then what im thinking


----------



## legally insane (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

I don't know how they made the arms parallel again but they did. I have Eibach Pro Kit with 1.25 drop. I started out with 2 spacers on each spring. Liked it so much I went up to 3. I used the 1.5 inch side. I put the fronts as high as i could get them on the spring, the rears at the bottom of the spring because they are a bitc! to put in. I just jacked the car up at each corner and spaced them evenly around the spring


----------



## WMTJ (Jan 26, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Jouko Haapanen)*


----------



## WMTJ (Jan 26, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Jouko Haapanen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jouko Haapanen* »_Here's a teaser for the Mk4 owners looking for correct geometry along with their 2" drop...

























Can you make this for MK3's as well? That is a huge market!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (legally insane)*


_Quote, originally posted by *legally insane* »_I made the same mistake. I lowered my 98 Jetta GLX with an Eibach Pro Kit. Looked great, handled like sh!!. Got to looking for a fix on Vortex. I read what OldmanTDI said about using rubber spacers. I bought some, came home and jacked her up, pushed 'em in. 
My arms are now parallel. Ride and handling are greatly improved. I can actually drive on a bumpy road at or above the posted limit. Sure I'm setting with a gap on the front and level on the rear but at least I can DRIVE her now. Cost me $15.00 
I don't know who OldmanTDI is but he was right on with the spacers.
1998 Jetta GLX VR6, Eibach Pro Kit, AT Itallia's, Sumitomo's, Magnaflow, K&N, 12 rubber spacers

Cold you please make a picture of those spacers or provide some part numbers or whatever can help me to purchase a set ........ I would like to try this as to have an idea what it gives. Thank you!


----------



## legally insane (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*

You can pick up the rubber spacers at any Auto Zone, O'Reilly's, Pep Boys. Advance, etc. They are usually on the isle with the metal twist in style spacers.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (legally insane)*

and so the weight of the car holds these blocks in place? hmmm sounds a lil scary to me ....i just oredered the shine kit and called it a day....happy birthday to me via shine suspension kit


----------



## melman8r (Mar 19, 2002)

*Re: (RABIDRABBIT1983)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RABIDRABBIT1983* »_and so the weight of the car holds these blocks in place? hmmm sounds a lil scary to me ....i just oredered the shine kit and called it a day....happy birthday to me via shine suspension kit









Amen, another Shine disciple...


----------



## legally insane (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

So far so good. I have run them a couple of hundred miles. Checked them today. Still in the same place on the spring. This is just an experiment to see what changes it would make in a piece of crap Eibach Pro Kit. Going back stock this weekend.


----------



## Jouko Haapanen (Apr 30, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (WMTJ)*

Getting these parts designed and to the market is not exactly a weekend project, but now that we're in the final phases of launching the Mk4 components we are looking at some future products. The Mk3 cars are certainly being considered, but it's too early to commit to anything yet....
Edit...the "we" from above being the H2Sport "we", not the Georgetown Volkswagen "we" - I guess I should post under the "other" name.










_Quote, originally posted by *WMTJ* »_
Can you make this for MK3's as well? That is a huge market!




_Modified by Jouko Haapanen at 9:43 PM 6-2-2003_


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Jouko Haapanen)*

I dont think the Mk3 market is that big though, considering the people who would actually buy these would probably not have a slammed car to begin with. I think since a lot of people are slamming thier Mk4's more and actually tracking them, its not only a better crowd but a crowd that has more $ to spend


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_I dont think the Mk3 market is that big though, considering the people who would actually buy these would probably not have a slammed car to begin with. I think since a lot of people are slamming thier Mk4's more and actually tracking them, its not only a better crowd but a crowd that has more $ to spend








Or... since there are SOOO many more A2s being raced...







Sounds like we're all _slightly_ biased.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

Well I am not being biased, i am taking a realistic business approach...considering I have an Mk3








However I do agree on your A2 comment, but there are a lot of A2 race parts out there, so you have your choices http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_However I do agree on your A2 comment, but there are a lot of A2 race parts out there, so you have your choices http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Just not these. No one will make them well enough (they can and ARE dangerous if made in the garage by "Cooter") on a mass scale.







It makes poor Shane very sad. Very sad indeed.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

Whatdo the gt4/gt2 Rabbit and A2's use?
I'm not too familiar with the newer strictly rae parts for the a2 crowd, just know of the recent mk3 stuff being developed.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_Whatdo the gt4/gt2 Rabbit and A2's use?
I'm not too familiar with the newer strictly rae parts for the a2 crowd, just know of the recent mk3 stuff being developed.
It's all custom, self-made as far as I've ever found. BTW, I thought the MKIIs and IIIs were the same. I know wheelbases are and I thought the suspension geometry was too. See where I'm going... new MKIII=new MKII...


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

Yea thats kind of what I am asking, because I know a lot of the parts are the exact same dimensions, so maybe I ould swap them onto my Mk3...But I got a new bmw project to worry about. Only thing being done to my mk3gtivr6 is tranny, for which Peter is helping me out








LETS GO DEVILS!


----------



## slickstick (Feb 24, 2002)

Is there anything that can be used as spacers between ball joint and the wheel? This is so the control arm can be lower while rasing the wheel into the well. Is this what spindles are?
Cooldubs.com 
Albany, NY


----------



## Jouko Haapanen (Apr 30, 2001)

*Re: (slickstick)*

The loads involved are significant - there are possible solutions for "spacers" but the use of those would be limited to hours/mileage, i.e. not street car parts. Not a pretty sight if your knuckle separates from the control arm mid-turn....
The knuckles/spindles/uprights (too many names for the same thing) are for that same purpose, but they also relocate the tie rod to knuckle point to retain correct geometry.

_Quote, originally posted by *slickstick* »_Is there anything that can be used as spacers between ball joint and the wheel? This is so the control arm can be lower while rasing the wheel into the well. Is this what spindles are?
Cooldubs.com 
Albany, NY


----------



## scolen2 (Jan 16, 2002)

*Re: (GTItraveler)*

Here's the solution you have all been looking for...
When riding though the hood get some fat ass bitchs in your car, then it will look slamed! Then when someone chalenges you, push them out and you're car is now setup for suprime cornering. Now don't forget that when driving BA van to put a couple bricks under the seat to offset the missing weight of his chains.
Seriously, not only are you cuaseing sping issues when you lower a car too far, but you are also over tourqing the bushing. This does induce a kind of spring effect, and unchecked can cuase you some setup issues. BTW: Preloading busshing is accually something we do in Spec Miata racing since we can't do much on setups.


----------



## ingrahamm (Jun 20, 2001)

Steve...glad to see a road racer here, but ah...on your sig link, ya might want to spell VolkswagEn correctly....
matt


----------



## WMTJ (Jan 26, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Jouko Haapanen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jouko Haapanen* »_Getting these parts designed and to the market is not exactly a weekend project, but now that we're in the final phases of launching the Mk4 components we are looking at some future products. The Mk3 cars are certainly being considered, but it's too early to commit to anything yet....
Edit...the "we" from above being the H2Sport "we", not the Georgetown Volkswagen "we" - I guess I should post under the "other" name.








_Modified by Jouko Haapanen at 9:43 PM 6-2-2003_

I didn't mean to imply your project has been simple or fast developing by any means, but a product like that for the MK3/MK2 crowd would be fantastic.
What type of material are you making it out of? I'm interested in reverse engineering a set of spindles and trying to manufacture prototypes myself.


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (WMTJ)*

I'm guessing they are going to be a standard cast, maybe hardened.
Glad to see some real engineering work being done for VW aftermarket


----------



## Cabby-Blitz (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

Then maybe they could eventually get to making a set for the A1 but I gotta a feeling there are not enough A1 people that are interested in something like this since they seem to go for the low German style usually and not the handling suspension tuning that a very few are into.


----------



## Arin (Jun 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Fst'N'Frs)*

I dont get it.
When I installed my Apex cup kit my handeling went up 10 fold. I can whip around corners much faster and more in control than I ever could with the stock suspension. I was told that I have the apex 2.4' suspension, but maybe its only the 1.7', I'm not sure. I also dont know how to check. Is there a way?
Also, does anyone have a picture of the proper parallel control arm deal for a MKIV?


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Arin)*

I Don't have a picture, but if you crawl under the front of your look at your control arms while the car is on the ground. your control arms will have the outer balljoint to hub end will sit higher than the inner end of the control arm(due to your 1.7" drop) in an ideal situation for opitmum handeling the arms will be parallel with the ground instead of having one end be higher than the other -------<--control arm
------<-- ground
in comparison to a lowered mklV your outer control arm end(in the illustration the end closest to the word "other") will sit higher or closer to the hood the the innder end....this makes less tire be on the ground when cornering due to the camber changing so much from less the optimum control arm geomtery....dropping our cars makes the fender gap go away, but in turn messes with handleing due to incorrect suspension angles. the reason your car feels much better then stock is because the different valving of your struts&shocks, as well as the stiffer spring rates of your springs. You have to remeber VW has to please the masses so what us performance buffs enjoy, is harsh and bumpy to others. If you think your car handles well now, go for a ride in a shine street equipted car and you will be amazed.


----------



## Arin (Jun 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

I took a look under my car and they are not parallel. 
Considering the fact that it does ride better than stock because I have driven in the same situations stock and lowered and lowered always wins, I'm happy. I only spent 340 on the cup kit after haggling with the vendor so I would say I made a good investment. I got better handling, a cheap price, and the car looks better in my opinion. So, I'm happy. I drive don't race/autocross my car, so its not a big deal. 
For me, I rather have my car look very good with the best possible suspension setup I can have. there are sacrifices, but if I wanted an all performance car, I wouldn't have bought a luxurious and sporty looking car like the jetta. Instead, I would have bought a cheap o car and built it up from the ground. So, for me, style is very important and so is drive-ability. I believe I have the best of both worlds now.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Arin (Jun 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Arin)*

I guess the real answer for anyone with the money would be to buy larger light weight rims with tires that fill the wheel gap, then install a suspension like this shine one, unless it does have this look I keep hearing where it not level looking at all?
I think thats the major problem in this thread. no one has pictures. Like it or not, looks are very important, because thats most likely why 99.9% of you bought your heavy ass mkiv








Lets see some front, side and back pictures. Do us a favor, use a tripod.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Arin)*

you have a few valid points....i have an 83 gti 2,000lb flickable light weight fun that i drive the wheels off
if i wanted a 11 second car id build up an old aircooled beast with some squeeze for under $10,000 car included
i bought a 3,000lb 2003 gti because i wanted a solid,safe, reliable german car that i could make handle well and be a 14 second daily driver with minimal mods
there are plenty of pics of shine suspension cars in this or maybe other shine topic threads....the car looks higher in the front but is NOT higher, the higher front fender wells give the car a weighted down trunk look, but the car IS 100% level..
to some people this what seems to be unlevel look and fender gap is unaceptable

as for me my shine kits on order, sure i think a 1.25" drop looks sporty, but i cant look at the outside of my car when i'm inches off my friends Mr2 bumper next time we go nose to tailing on the backroads.....for me it's form follows funtion, for others it's looks......god bless the aftermarket if you dream about it someone makes it to satisfy your taste 
p.s friends 86 mr2 has a cage with video mount ill get some fun filled video's once im shinning and sporting some falken azenis.....


----------



## dabongo (Feb 13, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

Ha, that's funny...damn funny...
BTW, thanks for a great rear sway bar..your equipment rules..
dB


----------



## INS0MNESIAC (Mar 17, 2003)

*Re: (Jouko Haapanen)*

Anybody heard anything more about the suspension pieces for dropped MKIVs? What happened to that Jouko guy?


----------



## Jouko Haapanen (Apr 30, 2001)

*Re: (INS0MNESIAC)*

I'm right here at work, and it's friggin 4:05am....it seems having two businesses isn't such a great idea.








The "white paper" with technical specs will be available in the next week or so, and the pricing soon thereafter. The release date on the Mk4 knuckles is probably going to be around late July/August.
There is more on the same topic in this thread:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=876853


----------



## EnzoFerrari (Apr 1, 2002)

*Re: (Jouko Haapanen)*

any idea on pricing?


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: (EnzoFerrari)*


_Quote, originally posted by *EnzoFerrari* »_any idea on pricing?
What do you care? You're Enzo for pete's sake.


----------



## EnzoFerrari (Apr 1, 2002)

*Re: (vuu16v)*

clever


----------



## INS0MNESIAC (Mar 17, 2003)

*Re: (EnzoFerrari)*

So if somebody had a set of the drop knuckles, could they could have a lowered car without any sacrifice in handling? If the car's suspension geometry was set up for a lower car, the only difference would be less travel...right?


----------



## GTIVR6RACER4EVER (Oct 20, 2000)

*Re: (INS0MNESIAC)*

The only thing I would be concerned about is the angle of the pickup points, and the angle the axles are going to be at, meaning the output shafts and whatnot. Lower is obvously not always better, if its a show car, then it wont need to handle its best, and if its a track car, it will be setup otherwise, not height, but corner balanced and corner weighed to a certain height thats matched to the damper legnth/etc.
If its a street car,you should not even have a $2K+ setup, farthest I would go on a street car, even a "canyon trail car" is something similar to Truechoice stage II+, anything higher end than that you are just wasting your money because you won't ever hit your limit on the car, most likely the driver will be at his or her limit before the car is.


----------



## bobh (Jan 26, 2003)

*Re: (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

well after hours of reading this thought provoking discussion i still dont know if the 35/40 fk sportkit i ordered is gonna be worth putting on my corrado vr6, which should be here monday or tuesday. i got the strut bearings/bushings in the garage also putting in new oem control arm busings, i'm not really sold on the poly bushings wanted some ride comfort left and some wheel gap gone, and some cash left for gas. if somebody thinks i'm missing anything please let me know, as this theard has proven my folks right i dont know everthing.


----------



## werewolf (Mar 25, 2001)

*Re: (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*

So what's the conclusion on an Apex 1.7" drop cupkit for mkIV?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (bobh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bobh* »_well after hours of reading this thought provoking discussion i still dont know if the 35/40 fk sportkit i ordered is gonna be worth putting on my corrado vr6, which should be here monday or tuesday. i got the strut bearings/bushings in the garage also putting in new oem control arm busings, i'm not really sold on the poly bushings wanted some ride comfort left and some wheel gap gone, and some cash left for gas. if somebody thinks i'm missing anything please let me know, as this theard has proven my folks right i dont know everthing.

Don't be scared and do your upgrade. This thread is TOO LONG and has correct and incorrect postings. I once got into this discussion and almost took my H&R springs out of my car since it scared me so much. 
The question is, how low is too low? Stock suspension is soft and has too much flex... so you want something stiffer, also lowering your center of gravity is a good thing but then if you do too much of that then it may affect your performance negatively. So, you gotto find a sweet spot between the two. I HATE wheel gap, some people here (Shine) LOVE wheel gap and only care about performance. Now, personally I'd like to have both and I beleive with a good set of shocks/springs or good coilovers which do NOT lower the car more than 1.5" then you can gain both. Setups with drops of more than 2.00" (50mm) most probably perfrom worse than others. 
Now, in your case I beleive you must be fine with 35 mm drop and FK makes good products, so have fun. The bottom line is YOU GOTTO LIKE IT, not vortex people. Street cars are a transportation mean and something to enjoy, it's not a setup to win Grand Prixs with! My setup is WAY BETTER than stock, can I have a better performing setup? You bet I can, but I AM HAPPY with my performance gain and the wheelgap reduction







.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_... some people here (Shine) LOVE wheel gap ... and only care about performance. 

Not true







.... YOU know better than that. I trust your opinion more than that








It's about function -- better performance, yes, but also real world ability to handle the worst that roads can throw at you -- like pot-holes, frost-heaves, driveway inclines, etc..., etc.., etc...
BTW - if you don't like un-even wheel gap, drive a B3/B4 ... chassis is level, and looks like it too


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
Not true







.... YOU know better than that. I trust your opinion more than that








It's about function -- better performance, yes, but also real world ability to handle the worst that roads can throw at you -- like pot-holes, frost-heaves, driveway inclines, etc..., etc.., etc...
BTW - if you don't like un-even wheel gap, drive a B3/B4 ... chassis is level, and looks like it too









Ok, maybe "Not hating != Love".


----------



## docspeed1 (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
The bottom line is YOU GOTTO LIKE IT, not vortex people. Street cars are a transportation mean and something to enjoy, it's not a setup to win Grand Prixs with! My setup is WAY BETTER than stock, can I have a better performing setup? You bet I can, but I AM HAPPY with my performance gain and the wheelgap reduction







.

It took 12 PAGES for this to be revealed?


----------



## ScooterMac01 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (2002gtibluvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *2002gtibluvr6* »_ i want to lower the car anywhere from a little more then 1/2 inch to no more then 2 inches, but i dont think 2 would be good....so 1/2inch to 1.5 inches lets say. i dont want to be bouncing, but like i said i dont need to turn on a dime at 100 mph. anybody have an suggestions on a setup or what to do? any input would be helpful and greatly appreciated!


Tokico Illumina's and Nuespeed sport springs are a great option and get the ride height about 1 1/2 front and back and proivide a smoother ride. Tokico Illumina's are valved to more like an OEM feel at the low setting and if you want to get nutty you can dial it in to uber stiff and go like hell. That is my 2 cents anyway, hope it helps.


_Modified by ScooterMac01 at 8:38 PM 7-15-2003_


----------



## RoninGTI (Feb 11, 2003)

i want to lower my mkiv vr6 1.2 inches. is that a good amount or should i go lower? i dont want amazing track performance, and i dotn want to sacrafice comfort too much. i just want it to look a little lowered


----------



## Jamaican Dub (Jan 17, 2002)

*Re: (RoninGTI)*

O.K. I tried reading all of this thread but I am getting impatient. 
The theory of why lowering MKIV's is bad has been explained, but can anyone explain what negative characteristics the car will have when driving. What I want to know is what does the car do under hard cornering.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (Jamaican Dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jamaican Dub* »_O.K. I tried reading all of this thread but I am getting impatient. 
The theory of why lowering MKIV's is bad has been explained, but can anyone explain what negative characteristics the car will have when driving. What I want to know is what does the car do under hard cornering.

It will roll excessively and become an under-steering pig.


----------



## G3T3I7 (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

Ok, I have to say no to that based on my personal experience. I own a 2001 GTI VR6. In stock form the understeer was ridiculous. I put on H&R coilovers and Neuspeed front and rear bars (28mm rear set to the middle setting). I have the car lowered almost 2" for a nice stance and ride, since I also wanted to able to have whatever height I wanted and still have an ok ride quality.
The car is not slammed. I took the car to the limits at the exact same places, and guess what ? I have some oversteer now! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








That's right, pushing the car really hard with my setup made the rear come around nicely, and I torque- steer'd with a big smile on my face. It's not crazy oversteer, but it's easily controllable and only happens when I'm really pushing it hard. I know it goes against what a lot have been saying, but it's the truth. I'll give you a ride LOL.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (G3T3I7)*


_Quote, originally posted by *G3T3I7* »_... and I torque- steer'd with a big smile on my face ...

'nuff said ... torque steer is usually considered a bad thing ...


----------



## Jamaican Dub (Jan 17, 2002)

*Re: (G3T3I7)*

Thanks G3T317
Everyone makes it seem that there is nothing that can be done to compensate for whatever bad handling characteristics that occur as a result of lowering the MKIV. All I wanted to know if there is anyone that has lowered their car 2". Anyone else care to share their experiences.


----------



## beach_dub (Jun 13, 2003)

*Re: (Jamaican Dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jamaican Dub* »_Everyone makes it seem that there is nothing that can be done to compensate for whatever bad handling characteristics that occur as a result of lowering the MKIV. 

Nobody ever said there was nothing that could be done. What they said is that to compensate for the increases distance between the roll center and the center of gravity you need very stiff springs. When someone says that a car lowered 2" will roll more, I think they are referring to a spring that is relatively the same stiffness.
The problem with having springs stiff enough to compensate for the increased tendancy to roll is that the ride will be way too rough for everyday driving. If you were to keep the car at stock height you could eliminate roll just the same with a much lighter spring and a better ride, hence the design of Shine kits.
Aside from the car's acutal movement, the stress steering and drivetrain components is worsened as far I have read.
The pictures of Golfs/Jettas setup for full race applications show that they are lowerred substantially, but about 10 pages back they note that expensive work has to be done to the suspension and the ride is horrible.
I'm not an expert, but I'm just relaying what I've found out. There are tradeoffs for lowering the car, you just have to decide what you're willing to sacrifice for the look (i.e. ride, handling, durability).


----------



## Jouko Haapanen (Apr 30, 2001)

*Re: (beach_dub)*

This will help those of us with the 2" drops...








http://www.h2sport.com/SportSpindle.pdf


----------



## G3T3I7 (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: (Jouko Haapanen)*

I'm not saying the ride isn't stiff..It is kind of rough on crappy roads, like the city or construction areas, but I expected it to be rough before installing it. Having been dropped 2" I wanted stiffer spring rates to prevent more body roll and also to prevent bottoming out on those really bad bumps. The tradeoff, of course, is a pretty stiff ride, NOT unbearable, but pretty darn stiff.
I took the car to the limits in a controlled environment, and only then was I able to get the rear to come around. I think I used the wrong term maybe (torque steer). What I meant was when the rear of the car started to come around I was easliy able to turn the wheel the other way and hit the gas to straighten the car out. Sorry, I'm just not sure what that is called exactly.
There is no way I could have done it safely on daily roads. For daily driving, normal turns just feel much more controlled, and in wet weather I have not noticed any bad reactions from the car at all. Tires play a big part in that, obviously, and I need some bad


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Jamaican Dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jamaican Dub* »_Everyone makes it seem that there is nothing that can be done to compensate for whatever bad handling characteristics that occur as a result of lowering the MKIV. All I wanted to know if there is anyone that has lowered their car 2". Anyone else care to share their experiences.

Here's my experience. I have H&R Cupkit which is not the greatest handling sestup. It drops the car 2 inches and looks great, the ride comfort is tolerable and it's not too stiff. Handling is much better than stock, lower center of gravity with stiffer springs results in much less body roll. However, it can be much better. If I was gonna do it again, I would not drop the car more than 1.5", get well matched springs/shocks, or coilvers that do not lower too much. 
If you MUST drop the car 2 inches, I would get a coilover since they seem to ride better than springs/shocks combo with 2"+ drops (based on rumor around Vortex and my own ride in a few) and DEFINATELY get a rear sway bar to compenste the roll center issue.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_If you MUST drop the car 2 inches, I would get a coilover since they seem to ride better than springs/shocks combo with 2"+ drops (based on rumor around Vortex and my own ride in a few) ... 

Dampers are dampers, and springs are springs - it really doesn't matter if the dampers have threaded bodies & adjustable perches or not. If the valving is suited to the springs, ride quality/ride control will be good. If not - it won't.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
Dampers are dampers, and springs are springs - it really doesn't matter if the dampers have threaded bodies & adjustable perches or not. If the valving is suited to the springs, ride quality/ride control will be good. If not - it won't.

That's what I though too, but if you remember there was a long thread about this some time ago without any conclusion. So, all I can talk about is my own experience, and I had better ride in coilover cars. I guess the other spring/shock combos are not very well matched which creates the bouncy or stiff ride. As soon as I save enough money I am gonna go with Neuspeed Sport/Bilstein combo and will see how does it handle/ride. Nuespeed told me that the springs were designed and tested with Bilstein sports so they are supposedly a very well matched set... so will see.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_That's what I though too, but if you remember there was a long thread about this some time ago without any conclusion.

Yup ... good discussions ... I saved the url to it:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=585393


----------



## Jamaican Dub (Jan 17, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Here's my experience. I have H&R Cupkit which is not the greatest handling sestup. It drops the car 2 inches and looks great, the ride comfort is tolerable and it's not too stiff. Handling is much better than stock, lower center of gravity with stiffer springs results in much less body roll. However, it can be much better. If I was gonna do it again, I would not drop the car more than 1.5", get well matched springs/shocks, or coilvers that do not lower too much. 


This is what I assumed, I just purchased the H&R Cup Kit but it is not installed yet. I cannot understand how lowering the MKIV's 2" make handling worse than stock height. I will agree that each setup has its pros and cons but what I have been reading in this thread had me wondering what some people were talking about.
I am no expert but I have had alot of experience in driving many different cars with many different suspension setups and the result has always been the same. Regardless of how low the car is, if the suspension is a tuned and tested setup it will perform well. Telling me that the "cars handling got worst" is very vague.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (Jamaican Dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jamaican Dub* »_Telling me that the "cars handling got worst" is very vague. 

Time to repost this ... take a look. It should answer some of your questions:
http://e30m3performance.com/my...2.htm
Keep in mind, that although it's a RWD BMW, the front suspensions are very very similar in the VW.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: (G3T3I7)*


_Quote, originally posted by *G3T3I7* »_Ok, I have to say no to that based on my personal experience. I own a 2001 GTI VR6. In stock form the understeer was ridiculous. I put on H&R coilovers and Neuspeed front and rear bars (28mm rear set to the middle setting).
Notice you added the sways along w/ the coilovers. The beefier sways are (trying to) compensating for your screwed up roll-center. Mac-type struts CANNOT be lowered w/o negative consequences. It's inherent in their basic design. Coilovers DO NOT change this. We cannot get around it. Good day.


----------



## Jamaican Dub (Jan 17, 2002)

*Re: (vuu16v)*

Thanks for the info vuu16v


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: (Jamaican Dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jamaican Dub* »_Thanks for the info vuu16v








I'm no guru or anything even close, but I've found it pays to know what you're working with and what it's limitations are. And better yet, it pays more to know the same about your opponents. Sadly the Type-Rs in my class are simply a cut above as far as racing goes. C'est la vie. Anyone in this thread happen to know where drop-knuckles would put me auto0x classification wise?? I have a solid line on ultra-high-grade titanium ones if (and here's where it gets dicey







) I, and I alone want to try them. My step-father is a first-rate tool and die maker w/ ~ 35yrs. exp. and access to the best stock of titanium available. I need to do some research and make sure it has the properties needed to be safe before I decide as well. If I'm not mistaken, I'll only need two since the back can be slammed w/ almost no ill-effects.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (vuu16v)*

I agree the Type R's are a cut above, particularly within their class. Hard to beat a 
car with a better weight distribution, serious factory suspension and a torque biasing differential.
Put the latter two on a Dub, and now you're forced to compete in Street Prepared. I'm guessing
drop knuckles would put you there as well. 
As for lowering the rear. One problem at the rear is that with a degree or so of static negative
camber, when you lower it, the camber turns into toe-in. VW actually calls it a feature, because
when it compresses while cornering that toe-in is equivalent to a little bit of rear wheel steering
into the turn. You'd probably want to get the rear realigned with shims after serious lowering.
ian


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_I agree the Type R's are a cut above, particularly within their class. Hard to beat a 
car with a better weight distribution, serious factory suspension and a torque biasing differential.
Put the latter two on a Dub, and now you're forced to compete in Street Prepared. I'm guessing
drop knuckles would put you there as well. 
As for lowering the rear. One problem at the rear is that with a degree or so of static negative
camber, when you lower it, the camber turns into toe-in. VW actually calls it a feature, because
when it compresses while cornering that toe-in is equivalent to a little bit of rear wheel steering
into the turn. You'd probably want to get the rear realigned with shims after serious lowering.
ian
I already have a Quaiffe and a serious, non-street suspension and am in DSP, which requires stock pick-up points for suspension. Looks like at least an EP car.








Toe-in would be a good side effect provided it's within strict parameters. Maybe this thing goes on a no interior diet, gets drop-knuckles and moves up a class or two? I'm not winning the plastic trophies now, might as well get crazy. 







P.S. Don't forget real Type-R's got MUCH beefier uni-bodies as well. I've seen identically setup Integras run together w/ the only difference being the Type-R body and the regular body. When real track work is called for, the stiffer shell made tons of difference. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Stewz-GTI (Feb 16, 1999)

2003-07-19 - H2Sport is pleased to announce the all new SPORT SPINDLE for all MK4 VW and Audi shared-platform cars. *Our research and design team has engineered the SPORT SPINDLE to overcome the loss of handling performance suffered by those cars equipped with most aftermarket lowered suspensions. *


----------



## captain spaulding (Oct 31, 2001)

*Re: (Stewz-GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Stewz-GTI* »_








2003-07-19 - H2Sport is pleased to announce the all new SPORT SPINDLE for all MK4 VW and Audi shared-platform cars. *Our research and design team has engineered the SPORT SPINDLE to overcome the loss of handling performance suffered by those cars equipped with most aftermarket lowered suspensions. *


nice piece.. when can us mk3ers expect this?
later..


----------



## The Prof (Jul 18, 2002)

mk3 vr ones please


----------



## bobh (Jan 26, 2003)

*Re: (bobh)*

ok i got my 35/40 fk sport kit on my corrado vr6, its been on now for about 2 weeks, the only problem i have with it, is that the drivers side is alittle over 1/4 of in inch higher (on the front) as far as the control arms in the front they are almost parallel with the ground. and the handling is alot better 50mph on the ramps no problem except the ass wants to step out right at the end of the ramp, i think everyone with a nose heavy vr6 corrado knows what i mean . planning on a rsb to help that. and as far as the ride goes, i'm getting a little old (32) and for me its not bad at all, it is stiff alot more stiff then oem, but its not gonna rattle your teeth out, its more noticable at slower speeds, up to about 40mph but at highway speeds you hardly notice its on there until you use it.







and at very high speeds (you should always obey the posted speed limit, its the law) my disclaimer







but at 130 plus the ass end does'nt feel nearly as light as it did before i guess in part to less air going under the car and stiffer rear setup. also the setting on the rear shocks are at the 2nd from the top just a tad to high so when i get some time i'm going to the 3rd spot, it looked perfect when i had the old suspension in the hatch. over all i'm very satisfied with the fk sport kit in the looks and handling http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (bobh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bobh* »_... 50mph on the ramps no problem except the ass wants to step out right at the end of the ramp, i think everyone with a nose heavy vr6 corrado knows what i mean . planning on a rsb to help that.

If your car already has a tendency to oversteer (back end wants to step out), adding a rear sway bar will incresase this tendency. Is that what you want to do?


----------



## bobh (Jan 26, 2003)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

well HELL no, what can i do any help is welcome and how do you do that quote thing?


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: (bobh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bobh* »_well HELL no, what can i do any help is welcome and how do you do that quote thing?
A bigger front sway will help get rid of any oversteer.


----------



## EVIL6 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: (vuu16v)*

I have no idea how low my car is but I love the way it handles (Full adjust Konis, Nuespeed front/rear sways, upper strut, and lower tie bar. Stage 2 poly dog bones. Adding poly control arm bushings this weekend) My friends and I drive a lot of twisties and my beast has no problems, doesn't rub, doesn't lose control. Yea, my tires need to be replaced more than average, but so much fun.



_Modified by EVIL6 at 6:24 AM 8-14-2003_


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: (EVIL6)*

"Fromally Lucidzen"- WTF is fromally?


----------



## weekendracer (Aug 31, 2003)

I have a BSI setup on my A2 ITB GTI(coilovers, plates ect.)I was told by Stu that the lower control arm should have a 7 deg. angle
Thoughts??


----------



## BoraJetta (Oct 1, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (GTIVR6RACER4EVER)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTIVR6RACER4EVER* »_Stiffness is regardles, b/c what I think is soft might be stiff to you. Ride quality is comfort is what street setups are about. If you want something to perform to racecar specs, then dont bother talking about these off the shelf kits. If you want a set of coilovers that are made for the generic "enthusiast" then get whatever you like. I encourage everyone to drive something before they buy it. But I still dont feel the dunebuggy's are anything special, just thier standard shock, revalved for the spring rates, which means if you change the spring rates, they are not compliant anymore. I think that fact right there will discourage a lot of people from getting them.

he is absolutely right kids~!
I work in the motorcycle industry, we know what suspensions means for motorcycles especially racebikes and GP bikes. It's how much compression dampering and rebound dampering you want. But to fit what you need, you should always try before you buy. Go to some GTGs and ride in other ppls rides. 
I was looking for some advise in the suspension forum because I want to get some shocks for my car that already has INTRAX springs. Then I realize how some people perceive suspension out there is just


----------



## qbanitofl3 (Sep 4, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*

I just had 17" wheels put on my GTI and I'm considering dropping it a bit but am I sacrificing comfort for looks?







There's a small gap between the top of my tire and the wheel well, I want it to look good but still keep it's simplicity.

This is my first VW so any suggestions or opinions are considerably helpful, thanks.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (qbanitofl3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *qbanitofl3* »_I just had 17" wheels put on my GTI and I'm considering dropping it a bit but am I sacrificing comfort for looks?







There's a small gap between the top of my tire and the wheel well, I want it to look good but still keep it's simplicity.

This is my first VW so any suggestions or opinions are considerably helpful, thanks.

You gotto be kidding me







you read 13 pages of posts and you ask such a trivial question?!?!?!!?!??!?!








Anyways, you can drop the car 1-1.5" inches with good setup and also improve handling and maintain relative ride comfort. This topic has been beaten to DEATH, so PLEASE use "SEARCH" at http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerosearch .


_Modified by alexb75 at 5:29 PM 9-4-2003_


----------



## EVIL6 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*

*Hey qbanitofl3.* As far as your question, which I'm not really sure what it is cause it sounds like you already have changed the ride hight. But if not, I would buy coilovers so you can change the ride hight if you don't like the handling. It really boils down to how you drive and how you like the car to handle. I'd test out different settings as much as possible. Nothing better than hitting some twisties, or a road track to see how the car handles with suspension and wheel changes. If you don't like it, change the ride hight.
My car is pretty low and I think that I found a ride hight that's just right with all of the suspension mods I've done (koni coilovers, neuspeed front and rear sways, neuspeed front upper and lower tie bars, prothane control arm bushings, prothane dog bone bushings) A thread I created, talking about my recent control arm bushing mod. http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=986288



_Modified by EVIL6 at 8:21 PM 9-4-2003_


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (BoraJetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BoraJetta* »_
he is absolutely right kids~!


Nah, Steve got it completely wrong when describing Dune Buggy Coilovers.
The damper body is LONGER than the standard H&R Lowering Coilovers, the Spring Rate and Dampening are identical to the H&R Lowering Coilovers...the kit simply offers a different range of ride height; i.e. +1.0" to -1.0" from stock versus -1.25" to - 2.5" from stock (for mk III).
* edited to add MK III reference.




_Modified by briang at 1:17 PM 9-16-2003_


----------



## joyofdriving (Sep 10, 2002)

*Re: (bobh)*

It's all up for debate and I know the above posts will answer my question in a roundabout way, but I need a straight answer but do H&R Sports lower an Mk3 too much?


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: (joyofdriving)*


_Quote, originally posted by *joyofdriving* »_It's all up for debate and I know the above posts will answer my question in a roundabout way, but I need a straight answer but do H&R Sports lower an Mk3 too much?

Technically, yes. And they are a bit too soft for the amount they lower (claim is 1.3" or so). However, if you must lower, it is a fine choice.


----------



## Dark Cipher (May 17, 2003)

*Re: (briang)*

Wow. I have sat here for about 2 or 3 hours reading in detail every-single-post in this thread. Damn you, Jamie.








I wanted to get some quick info on the best suspension kit to get because I wanted a slightly lower stance to my 337, with less Squat and Dive and less Body roll. I already have the 28mm Neuspeed rear sway bar. ANd now... I dont know what the hell to do! I DEFINATELY dont want a Shine setup. I'm not Auto-xing, I'm daily driving, and having fun at night in the Canyons! I understand the point of installing lowered spindels and such.... but I dont know at what point I should use them, or what is a good coilover solution, or if you even are supposed to use the lowered spindels with coilovers. And now I'm totally confused!
Are the Neuspeed Coilovers/Bilstein combo (or whatever it is) the way to go? Are coilovers better than more of a stock style MacPherson setup?
What the hell is good out there for a slightly lower stance and slightly firmer than stock 337 setup, that will corner flat and control the damn body roll, dive and squat!??!?!?!
HELP! AHHHHRRRGGGGHHH!!! I'm Completely blurry eyed and need some morphine for this horrible headache from reading all these posts








Thanks in advance.
-DC


_Modified by Dark Cipher at 10:55 AM 9-27-2003_


----------



## LostBoyScout (Apr 18, 2000)

*Re: (Dark Cipher)*

IMO, Coilovers are most definitely the superior way to go. The only warning I can give is most coilover systems are a stiffer ride than a sport spring and shock combination would be. But to me, that's a good thing. 
Coilovers were designed for the sake of corner balancing on race cars. They will allow you to both do this, as well as set the ride height to best suit your style of driving. Most coilover systems (other than the H&R Ultra-Lows) will allow you to keep the car at a fairly high ride height if you're looking to keep the control arms straight and all that stuff. 
Dampening adjustable models like the Koni's, PSS9s, and FK Konigsports are the best of all worlds!


----------



## ee-gti (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: (Dark Cipher)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Dark Cipher* »_
I wanted to get some quick info on the best suspension kit to get because I wanted a slightly lower stance to my 337, with less Squat and Dive and less Body roll. I already have the 28mm Neuspeed rear sway bar. ANd now... I dont know what the hell to do! I DEFINATELY dont want a Shine setup. I'm not Auto-xing, I'm daily driving, and having fun at night in the Canyons! I understand the point of installing lowered spindels and such.... but I dont know at what point I should use them, or what is a good coilover solution, or if you even are supposed to use the lowered spindels with coilovers. And now I'm totally confused!

_Modified by Dark Cipher at 10:55 AM 9-27-2003_

Get some KW V3s, and you already have the NS 28mm rear sway, and you'll be plenty pleased just like I am.
I run the rear at or near maximum height, and the front coilovers to match the 25.5 inches from fender lip to pavement but lower is easily set.
Compression damping at just over half stiff, and the rebound damping the same or sometimes a little more and the NS at full stiffness. 
Almost no brake dive or acceleration squat, and very little body roll. If going for a ride in the mountains, not a problem to increase the compression and/or rebound damping a bit right by the side of the road.
This is with the 343lb springs, many use the 400lb but for me, the ride is just the little bit too stiff with the 400s for a daily driver. If I want super stiff I take my ex-scca '71 ls-6 vette which rides like a concrete block sliding down the road.


----------



## Red GTi VR6 (Mar 5, 2002)

*Re: (ee-gti)*

Ok - havong one read like the first two pages of this thread and a few others I am still unsure about this.
Recently heard about using the Audi TT a-arms as an upgrade....
would this help or would the change be so small that it wouldn't be worth the money? I have the KW V2s waiting to be put on my 2000 GTi VR6 and the RSD stress bars on their way, I was thinking about doing this 'upgrade' but wasn't sure if it was worth the time and money?
Anyone?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Red GTi VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Red GTi VR6* »_Ok - havong one read like the first two pages of this thread and a few others I am still unsure about this.
Recently heard about using the Audi TT a-arms as an upgrade....
would this help or would the change be so small that it wouldn't be worth the money? I have the KW V2s waiting to be put on my 2000 GTi VR6 and the RSD stress bars on their way, I was thinking about doing this 'upgrade' but wasn't sure if it was worth the time and money?
Anyone?

The million dollar question, eh?! Well, I am not too sure about TT's a-arm. However, if your lowering is less than 1.5", then it's not that big of a deal and you can still gain A LOT of performance with well-engineered setup. More than that, the more you lower, the less performance.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

TT A-arms were used on the One Lap GTI to give a bunch of added static camber.
It doesn't do anything to change the geometry problem that comes from lowering.
But using the TT A-arms leaves you with no place to attach the stock front swaybar.
The One Lap car was running 500+ lb springs up front, so they didn't need a front swaybar
but if your intention is to use TT A-Arms and lower the car on more moderate springs, then
it's going to result in great turn-in response and crazy body roll. 
As for "ok up to 1.5 inches".. I'd say that's maybe true of a Mk3 (although I'd put the limit at about 1"), 
but the Mk4's are already headed into bad geometry territory with *any* lowering at all. 
ian


----------



## Red GTi VR6 (Mar 5, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

I didn't spend the money on a coil-over set up to be ghetto and go as low as I could go







- I bought it for performance







....I don't plan on lowering more than about an inch or so....just have to get the darn things on first...lol
just wondering sicne I have been hearing some things about them - but being that this is the second place (both seem to be VERY reliable sources) that I have heard this from them I guess I will just spend the money elsewhere!
Thanks guys!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
As for "ok up to 1.5 inches".. I'd say that's maybe true of a Mk3 (although I'd put the limit at about 1"), 
but the Mk4's are already headed into bad geometry territory with *any* lowering at all. 
ian

Well, that to me is more of a personal opinion. I actually were told that MK3s are more limited on lowering (not 100% sure though).
I know 337s handle way better by 1 inch lowering and better springs, also on the latest test by car and driver on Nuespeed's Bilstein PSS suspension, it came second in handling among a whole bunch of modified and double wishboned suspension. So, it CAN BE done... if it's done right.


----------



## Centurion (Oct 6, 2003)

i read pages 1-3, 10, and 13 and im still a little lost. im interested in lowering my jetta 1"-1.5". i want to do it for both handling and looks, but dont want to lose ride comfort either. so is there a straight yes or no on 1-1.5 on a jetta mk4 for improved handling with negligable loss of comfort? the improved look of the smaller wheel gap is secondary to me.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (Centurion)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Centurion* »_i read pages 1-3, 10, and 13 and im still a little lost. im interested in lowering my jetta 1"-1.5". i want to do it for both handling and looks, but dont want to lose ride comfort either. so is there a straight yes or no on 1-1.5 on a jetta mk4 for improved handling with negligable loss of comfort? the improved look of the smaller wheel gap is secondary to me.

Look, lowering (the way most people do it) doesn't *improve* performance on our MacPherson 
strut equipped cars. Period. You don't "*do it for handling*".
(Don't everyone get your panties in twist yet.. I'll qualify that). 
Tires, springs, dampers and sway bars are ultimately what are responsible for 
improving the handling of your car. If you put a set of good springs and dampers
on, handling will improve a lot. If you put a set of good springs and dampers on,
and also lower the car 40mm it'll probably still handle better than stock, but will not 
handle anywhere near as well as it would have without the lowering. It may even
have some side effects that are worse than stock (rubbing, and hitting the bump stops) 
You have to compensate for the negative effects of lowering with higher rate springs 
and/or bigger front sway bar. Both help control the increased body roll during cornering 
that comes from lowering the roll center faster than the CG (MacPherson strut geometry), 
but decrease the ride comfort level on normal roads. 
If you want all of lowering, great handling, and decent comfort then you need to spend 
more money on something that has the higher rate springs required, perfectly matched to 
really good dampers and front rates to rear optimized for the weight distribution of the
car. ala: H&R Coilovers. If you lower the car 40mm and put cheap 200 lb springs 
and dampers on, the handling's going to be sub optimal. Comfort might be ok
until you hit a bump while cornering and hit the bump stops. 
If you're really serious about lowering to make it perform better, then you must
change the suspension geometry (ala drop spindles), but that's just not a realistic
option for our cars right now (they're not available now, and when they will be,
they'll cost more than the entire rest of your suspension).
So back to your question. No, there is no straight "yes" or "no" answer to your question.
You're asking for contradictory things. 
No, you're not going to find a cheap setup that will handle really well, lower the car a lot, and still be comfortable.
You're going to get 2 out of 3. 
Yes, it can be done, but it costs more money. You'd be better off foregoing most of the
lowering and getting handling and comfort without the drop. Neuspeed Softsports with Bilstein dampers and a 
big rear bar would probably do the trick, but there's other options as well. 
ian


_Modified by Daemon42 at 12:05 PM 10-7-2003_


----------



## Crash6 (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

That last post should be stickied to the top of this forum with a "READ THIS POST FIRST" title. It eloquently, and in laymens terms, stated everything one needs to know about the MKIV suspension and the concept of lowering as it affects handling. 
Thank you Daemon http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## CRD99 (Oct 29, 2000)

*Re: (Crash6)*

So not to open another can of worms but what do you folks think about lowering the multi-link Passat front suspension? I need to check if my control arms are close to parallel. With the multi-link the car doesn't really have a tendency to bump steer or tram line on grooved roads, especially when compared to my old car. The old car was a stock Gen1 Eclipse GSX with MacPherson front suspension. 
How about the effects of lowering on the rear suspension. Most VWs share the twist beam rear suspension design, is it better to have a reverse rake toward the rear?


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (CRD99)*

I can't speak to the multilink front suspension on the Passat.
As for the torsion beam rear. Here's something to consider. 
The rear wheels have about 1 degree of negative camber.
Exaggerrated here.. as /-----\
When you lower the car the beam swings up, which effectively tips the wheels
forward, and some of that camber is turned into Toe-in. VW calls this a
feature.. "toe correcting torsion beam axle". It's more of a coincidence, but
it does mean that during normal compression during cornering the rear
outside tire actually turns in a little. (think poor man's 4 wheel steering)
If you raised the rear, it swings the beam down, and tips the wheels back
and some of that camber goes to Toe-out.
So those are the effects to consider when you lower or raise the rear end.
The roll center is not an issue with a torsion beam axle. (It's always at ground level)
ian


----------



## CRD99 (Oct 29, 2000)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

And the toe in on the rear suspension isn't helping my understeer problem at all right? Kind of like the multi-link suspension on the rear of a 993 that toes in to keep the rear end from coming around.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (CRD99)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CRD99* »_And the toe in on the rear suspension isn't helping my understeer problem at all right? 

Correctamundo.. John A, pointed out in some recent thread (this one for all I know) that in
Auto-X circles they lower the rear to reduce oversteer, and raise it to increase oversteer in Vdubs. 
Subtle effect, but noticeable. 
ian


----------



## TmT (Nov 12, 2002)

Just got my FK Konigsports installed today, at maximum height. One step away from hardest.
Results: very much reduced squat and dive. Haven't put it through too many corners, but roll is definitely reduced. 
The ride is definitely a bit harsher than stock GTI suspension, but worth it.


_Modified by TmT at 6:40 AM 10-11-2003_


----------



## CRD99 (Oct 29, 2000)

*Re: (TmT)*

OK thanks for the tips. I installed my KW Variant 2s yesterday and the front is sitting with the control arms level (about 1.5-1.75" drop or 1.25 finger gap). The rear is just a little bit lower (1 finger gap). I think I'll raise the rear to around a 1.5 finger gap and see how that affects the handling once I put a few miles on this setup. 
I have the front dampers set to 48% and the rears to 58%. I'm running a Neuspeed 28mm adjustable rear bar on the middle setting and the stock front bar. The ride is actually pretty nice. I could probably handle upping it ten percent or so front and rear but I'll probably keep it where it is. 


_Modified by CRD99 at 10:31 AM 10-11-2003_


----------



## Red GTi VR6 (Mar 5, 2002)

*Re: (CRD99)*

I JUST had my KW V2s put on today - lol
Lowered the front an inch and a half....the rear however is a different story....about 2.5"...stock was 28" high, now it's 25.5"....will be raising it a bit later...probably when I get my stress bars in and we get to putting them on....
had to drive from Austin to Basdrop (~40 miles) then from Basdrop to College Station (75 miles) today right after they were put on...got home and can tell that they have settled a bit..
but they're AWESOME! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_I can't speak to the multilink front suspension on the Passat.
As for the torsion beam rear. Here's something to consider. 
The rear wheels have about 1 degree of negative camber.
Exaggerrated here.. as /-----\
When you lower the car the beam swings up, which effectively tips the wheels
forward, and some of that camber is turned into Toe-in. VW calls this a
feature.. "toe correcting torsion beam axle". It's more of a coincidence, but
it does mean that during normal compression during cornering the rear
outside tire actually turns in a little. (think poor man's 4 wheel steering)
If you raised the rear, it swings the beam down, and tips the wheels back
and some of that camber goes to Toe-out.
So those are the effects to consider when you lower or raise the rear end.
The roll center is not an issue with a torsion beam axle. (It's always at ground level)
ian

Well, the Toe can be adjusted. Here's my alignment numbers after installing Nuespeed Sport. The alignment shop was actually able to adjust the rear alignment by moving the axle (contrary to popular beleif that rear is not adjustable). I got them align it to 337 specs.
Left: 
Camber: -1.58 --> -1.51 (spec: -1.12 -> -1.78)
Toe: *0.01"*--> 0.12" (spec: 0.08 --> 0.16)
Right:
Camber: -1.38 --> -1.44 (spec: -1.12 -> -1.78)
Toe: *0.22* --> 0.12 (spec: 0.08 --> 0.16)
*Bold* are the numbers out of spec which were corrected nicely. 


_Modified by alexb75 at 4:01 PM 10-11-2003_


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Well, the Toe can be adjusted. Here's my alignment numbers after installing Nuespeed Sport. The alignment shop was actually able to adjust the rear alignment by moving the axle (contrary to popular beleif that rear is not adjustable). I got them align it to 337 specs.


The hubs are attached to the sides of the torsion beam arms, and geometry is not controlled by
struts or any other connection to the car. 
Moving the rear axle beam has *no* effect on the angle of the hubs relative to the axle, and 
the only movement of the axle that can have any affect on aligment is up and down (as discussed 
above), which causes total toe to increase or decrease.

All the specs you posted look like front alignment, on which the camber can be
*equalized* by shifting the subframe, but otherwise camber is not adjustable at each side.
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
The hubs are attached to the sides of the torsion beam arms, and geometry is not controlled by
struts or any other connection to the car. 
Moving the rear axle beam has *no* effect on the angle of the hubs relative to the axle, and 
the only movement of the axle that can have any affect on aligment is up and down (as discussed 
above), which causes total toe to increase or decrease.

All the specs you posted look like front alignment, on which the camber can be
*equalized* by shifting the subframe, but otherwise camber is not adjustable at each side.
ian


What are you saying? that I am lying? These were the numbers, if you want I can scan and post it.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
What are you saying? that I am lying? These were the numbers, if you want I can scan and post it. 

No, I'm saying that if they did what they said they did, then it's at best
a hackjob, and at worst total BS, and will change your corner balance, rear camber and 
potentially cause even more strange things to occur when the rear suspension compresses.
It so happens I've been meaning to check my left rear wheel because it's been
making nasty noises that sound like a dry wheel bearing, so your post gave me an
excuse to go out and take some photos. Let me show you why their "solution" to your
problem scares me. 
First of all, let me make it clear what I was saying about the hub. It's hard mounted to
the end of the torsion axle beam arm. Like so.








Remove the strut and the rear geometry doesn't change at all. 
Ok, now the rear axle pivots on bearings held in place by two huge bolts which run through 
two large brackets attached to the underside of the car with 3 more large bolts. 
Now in theory you could loosen those bolts and if there's some slop in the holes in
the brackets, move them around thus shifting the angle of the axle to the
car and thus the hubs/wheels/tires to the car. At best you could equalize the toe side
to side, but can't change the total toe angle (angle of the wheels relative to each other). 
Here's the problem. Here's a photo of one of those brackets.








The camera is level with the underside of the car. Notice that the bracket
is attached to the car at an angle of about 20 degrees. So what's wrong? 
If you loosen the 3 bolts (the head of one is just barely visible), and slide the bracket
"forward" you're also lowering the pivot point. Slide it back, you're raising it. 
Means that every time you try to change the angle of the axle, you're also causing
a twist in the beam which changes your corner balance (any twist in the beam is being resisted by
the stock sway bar, and your aftermarket bar if you've got one), and this will most certainly change 
the camber. Nothing here can be controlled indpendently this way. Total toe never changes. 
It can be equalized, but only if the camber changes by some random amount.
I'd much rather my camber was the same, and let toe take care of itself by
aligning the front toe to the rear. Even if all your numbers came out perfect, but
it caused a twist in the beam, it would still be bad. 
My take is that this whole technique is only acceptible if the original problem can
be pinpointed to the brackets having shifted in the first place, causing a yaw and a twist
in the beam, which you can then try to take out this way. 
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
Ok, now the rear axle pivots on bearings held in place by two huge bolts which run through two large brackets attached to the underside of the car with 3 more large bolts. Now in theory you could loosen those bolts and if there's some slop in the holes in the brackets, move them around thus shifting the angle of the axle to the
car and thus the hubs/wheels/tires to the car. At best you could equalize the toe side to side, but can't change the total toe angle (angle of the wheels relative to each other). 
ian

Well, that's what I beleive they did. They just moved it a little bit to get the toe right. I also checked with VW dealer and my buddy who works there said they do exactly the same. I am not too sure what you mean by the negative effect of fixing my toe can lead to problems. The camber change was a side effect of trying to fix the toe and it was in spec before and after the alignment. I am not too sure if changing the camber from -1.58-> -1.51 and from -1.38->-1.44 which all are withing spec can do anything bad or does twist the axle exsessively. My fixed toe made a HUGE difference in handling though. I remember that I could not take left corner as I could on the right ones, and this fixed it. It's all balanced now, the car handles WAY better, goes straight, and also rides much better (to my susprise). 
I guess you have a point here but I am not too sure if changing my rear alignment by that small of a margin can be troublesome.









_Modified by alexb75 at 8:13 AM 10-12-2003_


_Modified by alexb75 at 8:14 AM 10-12-2003_


----------



## Centurion (Oct 6, 2003)

i never said i wanted to do it for cheap. i understand having to spend some money. i just dont want to feel every bump i hit. i also dont think a 1-1.5 inch drop is "a lot" as you put it. but thanx your post cleared up most of it.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Centurion)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Centurion* »_i never said i wanted to do it for cheap. i understand having to spend some money. i just dont want to feel every bump i hit. i also dont think a 1-1.5 inch drop is "a lot" as you put it. but thanx your post cleared up most of it.

There's one problem though. Lowering means less suspension travel, also better suspension means stiffer springs/shocks... therefore... not as much comfort. There's almost no setup that can be as comfy as stock and still provide much better handling. So, you WILL give up some comfort for sure. However, the question is how much *YOU* are willing to sacrifise comfort over handling. The only person who can answer that is yourself, and the only way to know is to goto events and drive people's setups and see which one has the right balance that you want. There's no magic formula, comfort is VERY SUBJECTIVE. 
From experience, coilovers are pretty stiff for you, Bilstein setups (Shine, Nuespeed), etc... are pretty stiff as well. Koni and not too stiff of a spring at the softest setting could be a little bit better. Eibach Prokit seems to be on the softer side than stiffer (could be your best bet). Also, you may wanna look into H&R OE (only 10% stiffer and 0.5" drop) and not too stiff of a shock (Bilstein TC), or a little bit better handling would be Nuespeed SofSport + Koni at softest.


----------



## lynx8489 (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

i posted this in another thread but didn't really get any responses. Does the shine philosohy apply to coilovers?
also- last month i bought koni yellows on a GB which i have not installed because I am waiting to buy springs to match them. After buying 450 shocks+200 springs... on second thought for a 150-200 more dollars, I can buy a set of bilstein PSS (800 shipped) or KW VI(869?) I think I can still return the shocks or sell them on the tex, i just want to make sure I am making the right suspension decision the first time. 
So my questions are:
1. Is having somewhat budget coilovers all that much better than a good set of springs and shocks. I say budget cause the PSS and KW VI are not dampening adjt.
2. If i buy coilovers at all, is it a better move to save even more money and buy adjustable dampening PSS9 and KWII.
3. Are those with non-adjust. coilovers happy with the set dampening? Is it harsh? do you regret not spending more to get the adjust?? 
...having the height adjustability of coilovers is very appealing.
Sorry for the long post and numerous questions, but this forum always helps me out. thanks in advance.
brandon


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (lynx8489)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lynx8489* »_So my questions are:
1. Is having somewhat budget coilovers all that much better than a good set of springs and shocks. I say budget cause the PSS and KW VI are not dampening adjt.

No. If the spring/shocks are matched they'll be the same. 

_Quote »_
2. If i buy coilovers at all, is it a better move to save even more money and buy adjustable dampening PSS9 and KWII.

It totally depends, are you gonna track them? If not, it may not be requried.
I think PSS9 would be more money though, isn't it?

_Quote »_
3. Are those with non-adjust. coilovers happy with the set dampening? Is it harsh? do you regret not spending more to get the adjust?? 
...having the height adjustability of coilovers is very appealing.


No one can answer that. You gotto ride in one to see for yourself. I have Bilstein+Nuespeed sport, don't have adjustability, but self-adjusting Bilstein valve system (not the same as true adjustability). I am quite happy with them. Basically, if you like to change the height, get coilovers... then look at your budget, if you can and like the adjustability, get the adjustable ones, if not, get into a coilover after test driving one to see you like the way they ride.

_Modified by alexb75 at 9:53 AM 10-14-2003_


_Modified by alexb75 at 9:54 AM 10-14-2003_


----------



## CRD99 (Oct 29, 2000)

*Re: (lynx8489)*

Hmm I was always under the impression that it isn't possible to change the toe in the rear on a twist beam rear axle. The Passat attachment point looks a little different. Looking at the rear suspension it seems like all you can do is actually try bending the rear axle in some way.


----------



## Crash6 (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: (CRD99)*

Shims can be used to adjust toe on the twist beam rear axle. Granted, the second you load the car at speed, it will start gaining toe. Basically, shims just give you a different starting point. Hope that makes sense.....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Crash6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Crash6* »_Shims can be used to adjust toe on the twist beam rear axle. Granted, the second you load the car at speed, it will start gaining toe. Basically, shims just give you a different starting point. Hope that makes sense.....









My shop didn't use Shims for my car and was able to adjust it by moving the axle. Granted that my numbers weren't too off the range, if they were did should have used shims.


----------



## jah328 (Mar 2, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_swaybar, Lowes $3.29 I got a 5/8 steel bar, I welded it across the top of the beam. I got a spare just incase, but I felt 5/8 sufficient for my needs. I've been welding bars across the top since the MK1 days, so I know it works. GLH-S from Shelby has the same setup, Ol Shelby stole the idea from me, but his kid is mighty pretty so I'll let him slide, his chili is only OK, works best with some fresh rattlers in there.
[Modified by oldmanTDI, 11:17 PM 3-5-2003]

Just curious, is that round stock or flatbar stock? How long for a MK3 jetta? 


_Modified by jah328 at 6:58 AM 10-23-2003_


----------



## jersyjvr6 (Oct 24, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

h&r??????
cup kit......any good
?????
shine....how lo does it go??
please help


----------



## SpoolT4 (Dec 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*









Well?









Shine is *not* about lowering and we have discussed this endless times. Shine is about wheel travel, a full and healthy but controlled suspension travel while maintaining correct wheel travel close to stock wheel capability. But the springs are linear and not progressive as found on the OEM VAG units. 








Shine is about a stiffer rear and tighter control while still maintaining ride height close to stock. But the major addition to SHINE is a *linear* PLANT and level chassis for equal weight distribution. The nose of the car may look higher than the rear but in fact the chassis is perfectly leveled. The braking and handling is greatly improved with a level chassis.








If you want lowered you get much less shock/strut travel. That's okay if you like to drive on smooth roads and stuff. I had coil overs, Bilsteins both types, adjustable and non-adjustable but went back to my SHINE set up because the coil overs do not offer high speed driving on REAL STREET with good control.
The sway bar on a SHINE KIT is a real plus, a real work of art and not meant for everyone.
Spool


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (jah328)*

rod stock, my car is too neutral now,


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, it is time for you to update us on your suspension setup...... what are you running now and what are the discoveries you made for the last few months? Thanks!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SpoolT4)*

spool, you got the drop butt rear springs or the more normal semi drop butt springs. 220 and 180 I think?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

200 and 180


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

thanks, I've run into a problem of swing arm oversteer to understeer, I may just need to buy a set of shine springs, the whole thing or just the rears. 
How much does the shine rear springs drop the stock Jetta rear (.3 and .5 for the 200 lbs-in)? or is it more than that. Mayve .5 and .75 for the 200 lbs-in?
I have a full write up on my mods. I need to take some pictures this weekend.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, the 200 lb springs drop even more than 1", believe it or not.... the 180 lb springs drop less than that, but still you got a noticeable drop. The rear of a Shine with 180 lb springs is as low as the rear of an H&R Sport springs, becaus eI had both and my back scrapes if I do the driveway under certain angle with both equally....
As for your setup, I would really love to talk again as had bene long time and I am in a desparate search for a "step back" from the Shine superb handling, as to gain little bit of comfort on our crappy roads...... maybe it is age, I do not know, but can't stand it anymore. Please, let me know what have you bene through. Thanks!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_thanks, I've run into a problem of swing arm oversteer to understeer, I may just need to buy a set of shine springs, the whole thing or just the rears. 
How much does the shine rear springs drop the stock Jetta rear (.3 and .5 for the 200 lbs-in)? or is it more than that. Mayve .5 and .75 for the 200 lbs-in?


Shine springs DON'T lower.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*

Alex, Shine springs do lower the car. Very little in the front and more than that in the rear. The car may look close to stock, but it is not.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

I have all in my signature plus I'm on continental eco tires for MPG. I can get like 47.5 to 48 MPG which is good on 17x8 rims. 
My car has spacers in the back so she sits high, as noted above with the rear bar she tends to be a little too neutral in the steering. Along twisty roads the rear arms can go up and down from parallel pulling/pushing (not at the same times of course which would lead to no steering changes) and pushing /pulling one side or the other of the rear axle, sort of like Prelude 4ws, this maybe fine but adds "thrill" to the ride. I would rather have the shine setup where the butt is always down (arms above parallel) and the additional compression brings the inner loaded wheel closer (always pulling). See if you start with the trailing arm below parallel, she will push the tire backwards as she hits parallel and then yank the tire forward as she goes above parallel. Better to start with both arms at or above parallel; you are always dealing with a toe-in change of the loaded rear wheel.
Rear brake oversteer is also evident with the butt so high. All in all it comes out to a true neutral, something that I'm to old for on the street. LOL
Total cost of the suspension would be sub $250.00. 

I have driven a full shine Jetta with the low butt springs, 15 rims with some sticky Yokos AVS intermediates, my impressions was the Yoko’s side walls were twitchy but the grip was amazing, and the shine of course performs as advertised. It is a harsher setup then mine and he has 15 inch rims. Performance of the shine is untouchable. I just can’t get use to the butt down design, but hey I got $250.00 into my setup and I don’t want to kick myself for not getting the correct shine based setup first and saving some cash and some time. I know I want one. If I had to do it over:
Shine springs, butt down, Koni adjustable, home made rear bar, OZ 16x7.5s with some Yokos, total price with rims about $600 more than I got into now. 
Back to my setup, my ride is really near stock as it is, VR6 front springs, plain jane Bilsteins TC (not the sport with reduced jounce and increase rebound), spacer in the rear. Nearly stock as I said with no tendency to brake dive or bob or weave. She is tight. So I have performance and comfort but not looks. Well some looks as my butt is not dragging. However, the shine suspension keeps the rear arms up and there is no stange 4 WS one way then the other way as the arms oscillate below and above parallel in relation to body roll. Maybe more bar would help at the expense of more oversteer. No forget that, I think Shine has it correct and it just needs butt down springs. I can try that by yanking my rear spacers. 
So I’ll do that this weekend, butt down two stiffs in the truck look suspension:
VR6 front springs, stock rear springs, homemade bar. Hey my suspension is now like $235.00! Of course then I did not even need the VR6 springs, I could have just put spring spacers in the front and been done with it, hey $225.00! Suspension. Come to think of it I was very happy with just front spacers (till I went crazy and needed the VR6 springs and then space the back springs). Oh well live and learn. Front up butt down is good for a VW, just wish I did not have to relearn everything that George Shine already knows. 
So here was and maybe now still is (full circle in my case) a performance VW TDI suspension:
Biltstein TC Plain version, home made rear bar, spring spacers in the front $225.00. Call it shine extra light. Or maybe Shine on a dime. Like a ¼ Shine, the Oldman Shine, Shine for cheapskates. Wanna be Shines, Shine imitation,

My thoughts on all these guys with the 1, nay 1.5 nay 2.0 down drops (don’t see why you don’t listen to Daemon42), One day real soon you will find that your over sprung, over barred “performance” suspension is going to leave you shinny side down in a ditch. I know you will talk smack about the oldman, and fool yourself on your $2000.00 performance suspension, but one day you may meet a real VW on a back road, with a far cheaper suspension, you will find what a performance suspension can do. 



_Modified by oldmanTDI at 12:18 AM 10-30-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, this is now frustrating, because I always thought you would come up with something "magic" that will handle as good as the Shine Kit and will ride as comfy as a stock VW...... after after all these years, you come to the conclusion that Dick got it right and we can't re-invent the hot water. The worse part is that I do love the Shine Kit, and in fact is the longest package I ever had on my car, just completing 35.000 miles and it is really the best thing I ever had and want to have, BUT if the roads are smooth! On my daily commute to work on the crappy 101 in the Bay Area and during my city driving in SF, I sometime really wish to stop the car, lock it and get a cab as to reach my destination! Once out of the Bay Area, I love it and I do not want to go back home. Driving in Nevada or Arizona puts great smile, but once I am back home I am full with desire to sell the whole thing, put some shox on the stock springs and forget about all this torture. Ian was walking me into try to put back just the rear stock springs, but it did not improve much the ride quality (but the handling was no longer the same superb handling I am used to!), so that is not an option........ I am desperate, I want to have good ride quality and the Shine handling! I know it may be impossible, but hey, the possible things we have done alredy.......... Here is even bigger frustration: A friend gets the famouse now H&R Dune Buggy Coilovers, which according to him are 450 (or was it 400?) lb. springs on the front and about 300 something on the rear. Now, we are not going to argue about the numbers because it is jus tindicative and anyway all I want to pint out is that thos enumbers are DOUBLE (or thereabout) the Shine Kit. So, I do expect his ride to be so stiff and so crappy....... but guess what, my friend, his ride is so nice and so smooth on the same damn roads where my head is bouncing up and down in my car!!! And on top of that, he rides on the 18" that come with those 337 and I am no "friendlier" 16" wheels............. So, at this point, the only hope I have is that someone will come here and say that the Shine springs are not really matched with the Bilsteins they are sold and the if I use different shock (Konis? Boge?) or custom revalve the Bislteins - then I will not lose the Shine handling and will have way better ride. But then the question is, why is Dick selling the spirngs with the bilsteins, if there are better options (provided there are!) Did somebody ever try the Shine with Konis 7 bilsteins on the same car? And which Konis or what else shall I experiment? What's next, Oldman? Where to look for some more light? thanks.....
peter
.


----------



## Cabby-Blitz (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

I think you should consider Koni so you can adjust the dampening for those harsh roads. I have heard a few people doing this and having good results. But I remember reading a post that Dick Shine had problems with the Koni setups and he used to offer them but since the problems he has not.
Right now Im going to be running Koni Sports with H&R O.E. Sports which offer good handling but are still comfortable everyday. I think in the future I want to switch to get my self some custom rated springs from Shine to go with my Koni. I believe I will test them with my Autotech 28mm rsb. Then hopefully I will order a Shine rsb and test out the double bar for fun but most likely get rid of the Autotech.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Fst'N'Frs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Fst'N'Frs* »_I think you should consider Koni so you can adjust the dampening for those harsh roads. I have heard a few people doing this and having good results.....

I do not have much choises anyway ...... The things is, I would like ot hear from such people too, so they tell me how good are the results. Because if it is to soften it little bit, I can achieve that with tire pressure too. I am in need of significant improvement, not just something I could barely notice. At the same time I do not want to give up the Shine performance becaus eI am soo hooked up and it is the best setup I ever had! ....... The thing is I was just ready to take it out and follow Oldmans old exeriemnts with the VR6 springs, spacers, etc and he comes here (just in time!) and tells me that his thinkering leads to the Shine philosophy after all, so I am not taking out anyhting, just eventually the shocks, but before I throw other money, need to absolutely know this will give great results. Yes, I also read time ago about Dick not selling Konis anymore, for quality reasons, but then I think that Konis were his first choise and the bilsteins come as "fill-in" jus tbecaus eof the quality, but not because they match better..... I am also willig to re-valve, re-spring and anything that will give me results, just need a wise guidance on what ecatly to do with this precise application, Shine Kit that is.... Thanks!


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

I thought the compromise suspensions for the MkIV were..
MkIV VR6.. Neuspeed Softsport springs.. Bilstein dampers all around and shine bar.
If I recall the Neuspeed rear springs are like 160lbs, to Shine's 180 and 200. 
and
MkIV 1.8t.. Shine fronts, oem sport rears, bilsteins all around and shine bar. 
May be other options.. Would have thought oldmanTDI's *was* the other option.
VR6 fronts, oem rears.. whatever. I think oldmanTDI's oversteer problem has
more to do with his tires and the spacers in the rear than the rest of the suspension. 
My GTI gets a lot looser when I run snow tires in the winter. And the short way to
say what the rear suspension does.. If you raise it, it gives it some static toe-out (which
will make the rear feel loose), lower it it gives it some static toe-in which makes the
rear less loose. Keep it level, and it only sees toe-in during compression
such as during hard cornering (think.. 4 wheel steering.. although in our cars, more like 3 wheel steering..







)
When it comes to picking up a bit more ride comfort, the emphasis here is on lowering the rear spring 
rates a notch though, because that's where the perception of rough ride actually tends to come from. 
It's an easy swap and should be quite cheap, so is certainly worth a shot, before messing with
adjustable dampers and such.
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Daemon42)*

Ian, is there a spring that will be 160 (or less) and at the same time as short as the Shine rear, so I do not lift the car. With the stock (not sport) springs the rear goes up way too high. Thanks!
If Dick was just willing to work on this one and make a "soft" springs, but maintaining the Shine ride height, but he refuses to change the whole thing by even a pound. And I may even understand as he does not accept compromises, but I have to compromise as the taxes I pay where I live do not go for making good roads.....


----------



## SpoolT4 (Dec 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*


_Quote »__*original quote by oldmanTDI*_
spool, you got the drop butt rear springs or the more normal semi drop butt springs. 220 and 180 I think?









Well first off, my cousin and me have Shine's 200 [Burst Rate] rear springs and the heaviest available VR6 front springs. I do not know what Dick calls these front springs. I had mail ordered the heaviest duty suspension available from dick over a year ago and my cousin spoke to Dick's *'right hand wrench'* "Eli" over his use of carrying 300 lb of medical equipment and slides [x-rays] through out the NY-Boston corridor. 








As far as drop in the rear? Couldn't careless what these Shine cars looks like because while behind the windshield it's all the same. *Right*? 









There is a lot to be said for Dick's suspension. One thing that can be honestly said is that few people could actually *over drive* Shine's capacity while...*fewer* can push a car as hard and as fast and not be ticketed while doing it.
So as for me and others who have Shine'd? Shine is ...and will be the only complete set-up on high speed handling. It's a package, a complete and well thought out one for people who drive.
Money is no object with safety.








_This is not my car, it's my cousin's and he took these shots._

End.
Spool


_Modified by SpoolT4 at 12:53 PM 10-30-2003_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

Deamon wrote: _ thought the compromise suspensions for the MkIV were..
MkIV VR6.. Neuspeed Softsport springs.. Bilstein dampers all around and shine bar.
If I recall the Neuspeed rear springs are like 160lbs, to Shine's 180 and 200. _
Problem with progressive springs with progressive dampers on the front is they feel spongy stock on initial turn in, also IMO they give away too much for comfort and by the time they would work on the front you are far into the turn, far into the weight transfer area of life, guys fix this with a even larger front bar given them the flat feel and turn in, but at the ultimate expense of sever understeer when pushed. Vr6 front springs along with the above combination would probably be the god suspension for bucks no object, dependable, all around street suspension. But how many guys want to be a set of softsports and use only the back, that said this suspension would have the proper butt down pose and the ride would really soften up due to the progressive rear springs? IMO the only other way to do this compromise would be softsports, koni adjustable, RSB
and
deamon wrote _ MkIV 1.8t.. Shine fronts, oem sport rears, bilsteins all around and shine bar. _
The shine would be about the same drop as the oem 1.8T Sport suspension, but on a TDI the shine springs are .25 or so down, the Jetta TDI runs the same rear spring as almost all Sport suspensions Golf or Jetta. Meaning this combo on a Jetta TDI would be lower in the front .25, bone stock in the back. I now have a perception this forward rake is not optimal, and that a rear rack is optimal. I’d rather go for the slightly higher VR6 springs (.25 to .33 over stock) with the stock Jetta rear (same as 1.8T sport rear). Point being .25 down and stiffer shine spring IMO would not be as good as a .33 up VR6 spring on a TDI combined with stock rear spring. Yes I know the factory performance setups have a front rake, is this for looks? I now have a perception that a front rake is a looks thing. It would interesting to run your combo against same combo with VR6 front spring, very interesting.
deamon wrote _ May be other options.. Would have thought oldmanTDI's *was* the other option.
VR6 fronts, oem rears.. whatever. I think oldmanTDI's oversteer problem has
more to do with his tires and the spacers in the rear than the rest of the suspension. _
Agree here, I gotta yank the spacers. Also remember VR6 front springs = bout the same height and same spring pound-inch as a OEM Jetta spring with spacers. I’ve run the OEM front spring with spacer for 6 weeks or so, and was very surprised and happy with the results. Not bad for a $5.00 modification. The only reason I went crazy on the VR6 spring is that I wanted to have a lever (raised fore / aft) height with spaced rears. Meaning in a nutshell the average VW just needs $5.00 worth of modification to get a spring rate that maybe near ideal. 

deamon wrote _ And the short way to say what the rear suspension does.. If you raise it, it gives it some static toe-out (which will make the rear feel loose), lower it it gives it some static toe-in which makes the
rear less loose. Keep it level, and it only sees toe-in during compression _
well placed use of ocam’s razor, thanks
deamon wrote _ When it comes to picking up a bit more ride comfort, the emphasis here is on lowering the rear spring rates a notch though, because that's where the perception of rough ride actually tends to come from. 
It's an easy swap and should be quite cheap, so is certainly worth a shot, before messing with
adjustable dampers and such. _
Yes and now that we have had this talk, I’ll yank the spacer in the rear, this will drop the butt to OEM level and soften the rate at the same time. If that does not work, I think the cheapest way to get what I want would be softsport rears, I guess the shine even the softer taller 180 lbs-in would be far too much, especially with my TC non-adjustable dampers.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SpoolT4)*

spool that is the look that says all business http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif other guys should treat such a look as a warning


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Couple things..
1. Just a nit, but "deamon" isn't a word, nor is it part of my handle (and "daemon" != "demon" exactly either). 
Ian will do though. 
2. Re Softsports.. There's no such thing as progressive springs, unless some of the coils go dead 
*only* during compression. Put a soft spring on top of a hard spring with no dead coils
and all you get is a new spring with a fixed spring rate that's some combination 
of the two a bit lower than the lower rate. The only way that changes is if you start out 
with no dead coils but pick more as the spring compresses. I've not seen anything available 
for our cars that actually does that.
Some springs have no dead coils. Some have lots, but the dead coils on
the latter are really just spacers, and they're dead the moment you put the weight
of the car on em.
My understanding was that Softsports rates were really just a notch below the MkIV Shine 
fronts, with minimal if any lowering. Maybe I'm mistaken. Oh, and the Bilsteins
help with turn-in response. One of the reasons Shine uses em. Other dampers 
may produce a more supple ride but don't quite give the initial bite that the Bilsteins 
do.
The whole "rake" problem is that most people acheive it through
excessive lowering so the front geometry goes to hell. Your rake problem is from 
raising the rear above stock giving you some toe-out at the rear. BTW.. What have 
you done in terms of experimenting with the tire pressures to change 
the front/rear grip? 
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

I do have Nuespeed Sport springs (same rate as Sofsport at 160) mated with Bilstein Sports and can tell you that the rear is STIFF. I can actually live very easily with the front since it's independent and carries much more weight and the combo is great. Over bad roads, my front rides them fairly well, but the rear is a different story and it makes me wanna re-think them. I am not too sure if it's the shocks or the springs (or combo) to be the blame. I was in a Shine car and the rear was EXTREMELY stiff and probably not very good for bumpy roads since rear is stiff as hell. I may change the shocks to something else to see what happens, but the setup is pretty nice right now, and money short... so that's a future project. BTW, I have very stiff sidewalls on Pirelly PZero Nero which doesn't help the ride either.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Daemon42)*

Ian, 
I don't have the softsports, it is my understanding they are dual wound springs that stack the coils at minimal compression but something above level weight bearing and below full compression. This is my understanding. 
Now the bils HD will help turn in, but they are stiff, and they get stiffer, the more linear Koni is far better on turn-in overall when balanced with the fact that they can be OEM smooth on the street. But yes I would concede that Bilsteins can be setup with good turn-in specially if ride is not an issue. 
IMO Shine uses Bilsteins as Koni dampers are leaking squeaking nightmares, yes I've owned many sets of Koni. I love the ride and performance, hate the quality. Now Bilsteins, no problems ever.... just my opinion of course. 
Now to me. I yank the rear spacers so I now have: VR6 springs, stock Jetta rear springs (same as WE or sports suspension rear Golf springs), Bilstein TC plain janes, home made rear bar. 17x8 OZ with some OEM Continental tire. The turn-in is much better, the ride is MUCH better, the over all response of the car can be down right scary. I’ve taken it for 3 joy rides down the back roads (bout 10 miles worth of dips and corners). This is really a quick spunky setup. But wait, there is a fly in the ointment, the back feels like a wobbly ship. She likes to sway in the transients like a fat woman during the rumba. There is far more effective rear bar now due to my weaker springs (more movement means more bar is applied which means and it does feel like more oversteer). It feels like the back is just too heavy and the springs too weak to hold it up. It feels um stock in back, and I think we all know what a stock Jetta feels like in back? So there you have it, she needs to be OEM height or lower in back, and she needs to be firmer, just doing the fronts is not going to cut it. Now I’m back to looking for shine 180s rears for cheap. With my luck this combo will turn out to over sprung and under damped! Anybody want to sell me or send me Shine rears for testing? 
To sum it up my ride is like an OEM sports suspension, the fat Jetta but combined with a RSB makes for a quick spunky setup but one that does not feel tight in the butt. Since my RSB is welded in, it ain’t like I can adjust it. Overall it is a really perky and nice riding setup, but that butt rolling in the wind stuff needs to be fixed. Hey maybe I’ll do spring clamps instead? OK, I’ll try clamps in the rear, can’t hurt. These are beehive springs so you can’t just hack a coil off. I just hope they don’t fall out during testing, I have been know to get air.
I got a new Volvo V70 to replace my almost new Volvo that was killed by a Texas truck. Let me tell you that the Volvo suspension (still struts in front with some sort of asymmetric anti dive spring / geometry) rear trailing arm on subframe in the rear. This is the same type of setup as the MK5 has. It is one beautiful and precise setup. A stock Volvo is everything I wished my Jetta could be when it comes to: suspension, and Bi-Xenon lights. Just a perfectly planted and poised set (for a stationwagon). Now I’m thinking of OZ, IPD front and rear bars and dampers....


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

I finally found a car with stock sport package (Beetle) and Bilsteins HD, and running on 16" wheels and she was kind enough to let me drive for about 30 minutes, so to go to work and get back on those roads I know every hole........ Well, to my big surprise (and here someone is going to







), it is not the Shine springs that make the ride uncomfortable, but it is the damn shocks! People had been talking that Shine rates are too high, springs too stiff, etc and I jumped on that train, but to me, on my crappy roads, driving on stock springs and HDs, yes, improved little bit the ride, but to me the improvement was not bigger than 20%, maybe 30% at max! What really went south was the handling thought. The whatever sport package stock springs the Bug has is not any near, I mean ANY NEAR what the Shine springs offer in terms of turn in, turn out, turn whatever can come to your mind







I just realised how "hooked" I am with this Shine thing and how disappointing is to go back to something less.....
So, at this point, half of my big question was answered. I just never thought that the shocks can affect the ride quelity this much! I thought it would be about 50-50, but it is not....... So, the superb Shine springs stay inside and I guess we have to work on the shocks from now on. And here I would love to hear from people who have Shine springs with anything else but Bilsteins. I am really interested to hear what would the Koni offer. And yes, we know it is not Dick's reccomandation and we know they are more prone to failing, but I am in need to make my ride quality better than now...... So, anyone that tried both Konis and HD's on the same springs? You comments or links would be greatly appreciate.... (I will go and do search now too







)
Perhaps, could it be that the real "Shine Lite" is hiding behind Shine springs and Biltein TC? Anyone tried that combo? Thanks.....


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_it is not the Shine springs that make the ride uncomfortable, but it is the damn shocks! 

I can add to your comments:
On my 1988 Audi 80Q I had a set of Shine 250 #/in springs (front and rear) with Boge Turbogas shocks. The ride was great, so was handling, however, one of the front shocks began to leak (probably because I abused them with lowering springs early in their life). I replaced the Boge TurboGas with Bilstein HDs, the ride is *much* stiffer now. (The car handles very well and turn in is incredible.)
Thus, my experiences mirrors those of pyce with respect to Bilstein Dampers. I still love those Bilstein HDs anyway!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (briang)*

Briang, thanks for giving one more confirmation to my thoughts....... I also love the Bislteins, but only on a long drive outside the Bay Area. And it is getting colder these days, which makes things even worse.....
Guys, are those Koni Red Adjustables really that bad quality? Thousands of topics came out on Konis vs. Bislteins and almost everyone agrees the Konis are significant improvent in the ride quality department, but many had something to say about the product's quality.... thanks for comments!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

Koni has lifetime and they need it, Pyce I've raced many cars, I have many VW friends, and I for one never thought I'd ever buy a VW, so I have had many years with Shine, and Koni, the ride is better, the Koni is marginal. My Camaro had Koni OEM, I blew the front one out three times, I replaced them with Bilsteins, ride sucked, but I did not need to replace the shock every 8 months either. There were guys in my group getting the bilsteins revalved and /or adjusting screws put on. Seemed to help, I was going to do that too but ended up selling the car.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, I rather replace shocks every couple of years (specially if the are life-time as you said) and have better ride! I di dnot know they are :life-time" thought, thanks for the info, that makes it even easier for me. Decision is made, I am getting a set of those. From what I read, the choise should be Koni Red Adjustable, right? Or is there anything else (new) that I have to consider? Thanks everybody.....


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

http://koni.com/
says you got the choice of plain, sport, spd3. 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=723060
Looks like Yellow is what you need.
I'm from the old shcool where Koni dampers were DA and SA for dual or single adjustable, now they got all kinds of strange names.


_Modified by oldmanTDI at 1:20 AM 11-5-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, I hear the word "Sport" and I can't help in my mind comes the stiff ride the Bisltein Sports offer (I am always talking crappy roads, ok!) ..... I am just affraid (what I read in the link and other posts too) that the Yellows maybe give-or-take in the same league as the Bilsteins, so it will turn out to be another expansive mistake..... I guess I should play conservative this time and get the "softer" set...... PErhaps more search will help tonight. Let me go read more, so the confusion will be even greater in my head


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Oldman, I rather replace shocks every couple of years (specially if the are life-time as you said) and have better ride! I di dnot know they are :life-time" thought, thanks for the info, that makes it even easier for me. Decision is made, I am getting a set of those. From what I read, the choise should be Koni Red Adjustable, right? Or is there anything else (new) that I have to consider? Thanks everybody.....

Koni Red is NOT adjustable and are valved like stock, you need Koni Yellows. From what I have heard, Koni Yellow at the softest setting is like 5% softer than Bilstein and doesn't provide MUCH better ride as some expect. I have a similar setup to yours (ofcourse Nuespeed Sport+Bilstein Sport has less spring rate and is a bit better riding than Shine) but my ride was harsh and very stiff, didn't provide proper ride for city street, I wanted to change to Koni and talked to Nuespeed about it extensively, they told me not to change. I almost gave up on the whole setup and decided to goto something else or even stock with bigger swaybars! 
Hear this though...I have PZero Nero Tires on 17" Monte Carlo wheels. Ever since I've had them I played with the tire pressure, I went from 26 to 38 PSI and could not find proper PSI for nice ride. Then I realized my air gauge was faulty and was showing 3-4PSI short. So, I got another one and tried different pressures, I FINALLY FOUND IT (actually just 2 days ago). I set it at 32 PSI front and 34 PSI rear and my ride is VERY NICE now. Even setting it at 26 or 28 was not the trick







. So, play with your tire pressure, if you set it too low and it still doesnt provide nice ride, doesn't mean that's the best ride. The whole setup should work together and I just cannot believe how much my ride has changed by 3-4 PSI difference, it's an absolute day and night. Before you change anything, go from the lowest at 2 PSI steps (cold pressure) and see if you can find a sweet sport. Set both rear and fronts at the same rate, whenever you found the best front PSI, change the rear to see if that helps (lower or higher). The reason I set my rear higher was that on a track event I went to, my fronts were working harder than rear and has MUCH more wear, so the instructor recommended higher pressure on the rears. It could be different for you. Good luck http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by alexb75 at 6:41 PM 11-4-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*

Alex, thanks for taking the time to write and trying to help! I appreciate it. Well, I go tire pressure testing tonight....... I tried to talk to Dick as well, and that was his only suggestion - tire pressure. Guess I have to check my guage as well..... Thanks again, is going ot be interesting night and I hope I will have good news to tell tomorrow


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, thanks for taking the time to write and trying to help! I appreciate it. Well, I go tire pressure testing tonight....... I tried to talk to Dick as well, and that was his only suggestion - tire pressure. Guess I have to check my guage as well..... Thanks again, is going ot be interesting night and I hope I will have good news to tell tomorrow









Just one thing. Tire pressure is different to measure when the tire gets hot. What I did was to set it in the morning, drive to work, then before coming back, set it again, and so on. It took a couple of days to test 5-6 different psi's. The problem is if you set it, let's say, to 32, drive it and then drop it to 30... you can actually drop it more to (28) since the hot tire has more pressure. I don't think you can get a good result in one night of testing. Good luck anyways http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

It would be interesting to confirm what you said about the Reds, IMO, and I've not tried them all, the reds are adjustable, they may not have external adjustment. Since most people don't read the instructions, the install the unit and since there is no external adjuster, they think, HEY THESE ARE NOT ADJUSTABLE... This will be true till woman drive, and install dampers. LOL
The reason I though Yellow, is the Shine are not light springs, the damper has to be able to damp the spring as well as body motion. 
Alex, the Koni ride better, I think you vendor is on crack. The Bilstein mono tube design is a two edge sword, it last WAY longer, but it is nowhere as soft riding. The Bilstein TC are twin tube and variable design, the can be order in the sport suspension version (reduced jounce). I have the plain TC. I need try some Shine rear springs, see if I can blow the TC out










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 3:29 PM 11-5-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Well, dumped some air last night (Alex, I am following you here, car was on the lot all day, so cold tires) and the guage showed 32 PSI all four corners. Must say the drive home was very noticeably improved! It was not Nirvana, but it was better than what I was even expecting. Very good! Me happy 'cause the thing is responding as many of you said it will....... I would even leave it like this for few days and see what do I feel by the end of the week. It is a very nice touch, almost liek someone slightly revalved the shox or something........ Very good, thanks a lot! I will give it few days and then maybe play with fine-tuning to see if even better ride quality is achieveable. Thanks again


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

Pyce - I'm glad you are on track http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif ! Pretty cool what simple tire pressure adjustments can accomplish isn't it?
I'm always amazed by some of the pressures I see some folks running on the *street*. With the right tires, and driven in an aggressive, but street sane manner, the OEM recommended pressure + or - a couple of pounds works great. Comfy, decent wear, and with the suspensions most of us have, good handling traits. Auto-x/track pressure levels handle great during competition, but IMHO are completely unsuited for daily driving. Good luck with your experimentation.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

Good words, fork! I just wish I paid more attention on these small detial (tire pressure) earlier..... the thing is, when you drive softer suspension packages, tire pressure does not really make that much difference in comfort as you have all the comfort in the world anyway. Well, it variates, but so little.... So, running on high pressure makes the car roll on the cement better, gives better mileage, etc. But yeah, once bilsteins are in, I now know how important tire pressure is! I guess the othe rfactor is the cold weather nowadays...... I could live with the comfort for the whole summer, it was not that bad...... Any ideas of how to keep those Bislteins HOT down there?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Well, dumped some air last night (Alex, I am following you here, car was on the lot all day, so cold tires) and the guage showed 32 PSI all four corners. Must say the drive home was very noticeably improved! It was not Nirvana, but it was better than what I was even expecting. Very good! Me happy 'cause the thing is responding as many of you said it will....... I would even leave it like this for few days and see what do I feel by the end of the week. It is a very nice touch, almost liek someone slightly revalved the shox or something........ Very good, thanks a lot! I will give it few days and then maybe play with fine-tuning to see if even better ride quality is achieveable. Thanks again









Glad it worked out, I was also shocked to realize the amount of difference the tire pressure made for me. Try some different tire pressures as well. The stock sticker says 26, so you've got a lot of room to play.


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_I set it at 32 PSI front and 34 PSI rear and my ride is VERY NICE now... The reason I set my rear higher was that on a track event I went to, my fronts were working harder than rear and has MUCH more wear, so the instructor recommended higher pressure on the rears. 

Alex -
I don't quite understand your explanation. Why exactly did the instructor recommend the rears be 2 psi higher than the fronts? How does it decrease wear on the rear tires? I'm guessing here... did he mean to increase "oversteer" by setting higher pressure at the rear, which helps rotate the vehicle faster in the turns? Does oversteer equate less work for the front tires?
My NB has the springs from the Sport Package, Bilstein HD and Autotech rear swaybar. Tire pressure has always been 32-34 (F) and 28-30 (R) for daily driving comfort. As I increased the rear gradually higher than the front, steering leans towards oversteer. The problem is 65% of the car's weight is at the front. With a stiffer rear tire pressure, the ride is more bumpy, no?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Cadenza_7o)*

Hi Cadenza,
Sorry, I think I worded it awkward. I had more wear ON THE FRONT. So, front was working harder and by setting more pressure in th rear it did balance it a little bit. This ofcourse was at a track and I was at 38-40 PSI. On the street you may wanna go all around the same, or lower at the rears for better ride, but if you notice on the VW sticker, they specify more pressure in the rear on a full load. Hope this helps.


_Modified by alexb75 at 10:48 AM 11-6-2003_


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*

Thanks for the clarifico!
Do you currently have a rear swaybar? With my Autotech, I notice a bit of oversteer at high speed when the rear tires are set higher than the front. That's why I set the rear 2-4 psi lower than the front. 
When the pressure is in the high 30's to low 40's, the handling goes way up!!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Cadenza_7o)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cadenza_7o* »_Thanks for the clarifico!
Do you currently have a rear swaybar? With my Autotech, I notice a bit of oversteer at high speed when the rear tires are set higher than the front. That's why I set the rear 2-4 psi lower than the front. 
When the pressure is in the high 30's to low 40's, the handling goes way up!!










No swaybar, so I still have some understeer. Your setup may need different PSI becasue of the swaybar.


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*

WELL!! It took me three days to get through this thread (at work, so with interruptions) and I must say that it very informative, once you get out your strainer and sift through some of the crap that people feel obligated to throw in.
My main thought is this:
I my humble opinion, someone should preface this thread with the following point:
Before you change anything on your car (susp. or otherwise), take an honest stock of what YOUR aim is. Some things are hard to quantify and are a matter of personal opinion (ie "the ride is too stiff" etc). I find that many people don't even bother to think about what it is they dislike about their car, they head straight to the 'tex and go shopping. You have to be honest with yourself about yur needs (ie "I want a certain look, but I don't want to be labelled a poser, so I'll justify it with a need for better handling").
There is a WEALTH of info in this thread. There are some VERY patient people here willing to explain. I count myself lucky to have stumbled across this after reading page upon page of "slam that motha'" and "needs to be lower" elsewhere.
One question: Is the Shine kit the way to go for MkII's as well? I don't care much about comfort, I just need to know my tires are touching terra firma on a variety of roads (including some gravel), and the car will be a street car. I'm sure many of you racers would be surprised at how many tenths of a cars ability some of us use on our favourite roads (and please, spare me the moral lecture about where fast driving belongs) Thanks and keep up the excellent work, guys. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (gnashings)*

From personal experience, the Shine Real Street Suspension works exceptionally well on an A2. I had their bits on my '87 Jetta and it was fun, capable, and street-able. It was more fun than my current B4 (also with the Shine RSS) from a handling standpoint.


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

Thanks for the reply. The A2 is in my opinion the last "true" GTi - not to say the newer cars are bad, just of different character. Thats why I was wondering if the Shine set up is as beneficial to the lighter, nimbler A2. I was intrigued with the sofsport set up before learning of the Shine, as susp. travel and ability to keep the rubber on the ground in some rough conditions is very important to me... perhaps this is a whole new thread developing here. If anyone thinks so, feel free to set me straight. Thanks!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (gnashings)*

ride is really more related to unsprung weight and the A2 wheels were very light. 
My bud's full shine A4 rides well as he has Yoko AVS on stock 15 inch Avus (light) rims. Try put some MPG compound 17 or 18 and fill them to 51 PSI like I do and you would think you are in a train. rims and tires 20% less heavy are going to need 20% less control to keep them planted. So a jounce that takes my 17 inch rims to control in say 1 inch of suspension travel is going to take only .80 for the 15 inch rim, maybe .60 for the 13 inch rim A2, and there is lots of enerby absorbed by the side wall so maybe the 13 inch rim would only travel .4 inches! 
That's one reason why I've spent BIG bucks on my rims and much smaller bucks on the suspension, as ride quality and the ability of the setup to take bumps and dips is VERY dependent not on springs and damper, but on unsprung weight. My suspension does not even cost one rim. OZ supperleggera's are very light and strong. So really you should be looking at serious cash for rims /tires if you want performance from the suspension not visa versa.
I fill my tires up to 51 PSI cold and notice very little difference in ride from 51 down all the way to 38 PSI. I do notice noise changes, at max cold inflation the tires sound a little hollow when they hit bumps. I have the at 42 PSI F/R for testing. BTW inflation pressure has no relation to wear pattern (within reason) I've run every radial tire I've owned at max cold PSI with no strange center wear pattern of any sort. This is a wive's tail left over from bias ply days. Now if you are going to run your tires at say 32 PSI and consistantly run them lower before checking, yes your tires will wear uneven. But 32 to 44 to 51 PSI (or whatever your tire max inflation is cold) will not give uneven patterns. Of course never exceed max cold pressure.


----------



## SpoolT4 (Dec 24, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_ 
This is a wive's tail left over from bias ply days. 

I reckon to say that if you run a 17 x 7.0 rim and a 225/45-17 at high pressure [46-48 psi] you could wear a tire strange. Now take that same tire and mount it on a 17 x 8.0 rim? A lot has to be said for section width vs. rim width. I had a friend who drove 205/45-17 tires on a 17 x 7.0 rim and he had no problems in wear until he inflated past 38 psi. The centers were wearing and not the sides.
Proper fit and rim width counts seriously in wear factors and not all brands of tire wrap a rim well in high pressure inflation. As in Audi's A4 with sport suspension they even go *235*/45-17 instead of factory spec'd 225/45-17. 
If you have an answer for that one OldmanTDI I'd appreciate feed back.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SpoolT4)*

maybe, dunno mine are 17x8 and show no uneven wear, going on one year now mainly at 50+ PSI cold. The wife's Volvo went through one set of tires at max PSI. no uneven wear 15x7, my Camaro had 16x8 and 17x9 and they had 42 PSi with no uneven wear on performance tires including drag radials. These were 50s and then 45s. My Honda days I've run lots of 15x6 with 205 at about 44 PSI no problem. Now under inflation there is a problem with the edges wearing out, but were talking max or near max inflation and the tendency to wear the center out, I've just never seen it happen; and I've worked at shops almost my whole life.
The wife's new Vovlo I'm running 44 PSI for/aft and we will see.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_maybe, dunno mine are 17x8 and show no uneven wear, going on one year now mainly at 50+ PSI cold. The wife's Volvo went through one set of tires at max PSI. no uneven wear 15x7, my Camaro had 16x8 and 17x9 and they had 42 PSi with no uneven wear on performance tires including drag radials. These were 50s and then 45s. My Honda days I've run lots of 15x6 with 205 at about 44 PSI no problem. Now under inflation there is a problem with the edges wearing out, but were talking max or near max inflation and the tendency to wear the center out, I've just never seen it happen; and I've worked at shops almost my whole life.
The wife's new Vovlo I'm running 44 PSI for/aft and we will see.

I am sorry to challenge you, but I just cannot beleive what you're saying here. The factory spec is 26 PSI and I can gurantee it if you set yours to 50 PSI, you're gonna wear the middle of the tire more than the sides, you air gauge could be faulty. 
You are also gonna get SH*TY ride, less rubber on the ground and make the tire more suspectable to failure. If you just read a few posts above this, you can see that we had a long dicscussion on tire pressure and ride comfort and quite a few people have crappy ride because of too much tire pressure (including me) and getting it down a notch solved a lot of problems. 
Even if you get even wear (which I'd be shocked if that's the case) I am just wondering WHY would you wanna run them that high in the first place? WHAT'S the reason to do so? Whenever I go to track events, I set mine (on MAX Performance tires) to 38-40 cold and they are more than adecuate, so WHY in the world you wanna run the pressure sooo high on the street is beyond me


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*

Alex, he runs them this high because he is not only anal about power but economy also and now he will come and tell you his average mileage is something beyon 50 MPG..... and that high pressure helps to get better numebr really a lot on a TDI. Then he has the factory spring and that helps him keep the comfort ok.....
On my end, had been some time no on the 32 PSI and it really works fantastic! I guess Dick has to put on his website the tire pressu renext to the spring rates as it came out to me to be almost as important! I enjoy driving my car again, can;t stop going around the whole day


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

Well, maybe that explains the reason why. But, I had set my Honda before on pretty high PSI (don't remember how much, but over 40) and I ALWAYS had premature wear on the middle and it was tested on 3 sets of tires, 1 ultra high summer, 1 all-season ultra-high, and 1 all season (stock). Even on a nicely designed double-wishbone Honda stock supension, anything over 40 PSI was NOT comfy and I had 15 inch wheels ?!?!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*

My cars ride fine, so there is more to ride than tire PSI. Yes most of my peers have Benz, BMW, Lexus, so it is not like I don't have direct comparison between my Volvo (second one in as many years) my Jetta, 3rd set of rims, 4 th set of tires, and other cars I travel in on a daily basis. As stated in my case the most noticeable difference is noise of bumps and I have to trun off the radio to hear that. These cars run Conti or Michlens of some sort, OEM or otherwise, these cars are much heavier than a Honda. Bet you had a Civic with 50s on it say a 1990 model at 2300 lbs. My car is 2850 lbs, Passat at 3150 lbs and the Volvo is 3500 lbs. Camaro at 3450 lbs. So there is far more load in a VW than the typical Honda Civic. My CRX was at 1950 lbs before I threw everything out.
Hey to show my point, my coworker, grandma type has a Avalon (heavy car), she sets her PSI to Toyota spec at something like 28 PSI, her 4 tires need to be replaced as the are worn on the edges. Cause, under inflation. She has like 30K on the car.
Now I agree if you have heavy rims, and a slammer suspension, that something has to give and if your side walls are flexing your ride is going to be better. But if you have a normal ride OEM based performance suspension, you got far more flexibility in the entire setup. How much do you think a 45 series tire flexes over a 1 inch dip or bump? Bet you less than .1 of an inch and since this is about PSI, if one tire had 50 PSI and one had 30 PSI, I'd be surprised that the sidewall flex would be over 1/2 that so there is .05 more flex in the lower PSI tire. Sure makes a difference. The .90 of the inch of travel due to the bump + the .30 inches of travel to dampen the bump is going to be made up by shock, spring, bar, body flex, body movement. Now if you start reducing the OEM suspension movement due to slammer springs, stiff dampers, and huge bars, sure you can try to get some ride back by dropping the tire PSI. Sounds more like bandaid fix. Plus I don't see how a performance suspension is going to work with 26 PSI tires








Lets say for grins OEM is 26 PSI, I don't think anybody runs that low? Say I run 44 PSI right now today (did some performance testing all yesterday). I'm sure most guys are in the mid to high 30's. 
I will agree that performance tires have stiffer sidewalls and can offer more performance per PSI of tire pressure. Surely the guys with Shine 15 inch rims 65 tires say AVS intermediates are going to need 40+ PSI cold to have any hope of performance from the tire. So say the 17 inch guys can get away with 32 PSI? But 26 PSI? dunno seems too low.
My tires wear out even, as already stated. Got about 20,000 miles on my new set of 225 45 now and they are wearing even too, I about 1/3 of the way through, your tires last 60,000? Wife's tires went 40,000 K and I was going to change them but got new Volvo instead, they were always in the 40 PSI range, I think 44 PSI is max cold PSI.
Less rubber on the ground? Sure instead of 8.3 inches I may have 8.2 inches. Do you think my car looks like a bike tire now cause there is 15 PSI more air in it. Bet 99% of the drivers in the world could not eyeball a tire and tell the difference, no visible difference on the tread. Hey they are my tires and I can barely tell from say 40 cold to 51 PSI cold.
I run higher pressure because the turn in and control is better so is the MPG. My tires are all "Energy" type tires and they are designed to run higher PSI. Why would anyone get a performance car and install a performance suspension and run low pressure so that the sidewalls squirm all over the place all in an effort to get a better ride? How do you ever enjoy the "performance" of your car at 26 PSI on the tire? Are you saying a car with 26 PSI of tire for comfort is in the same performance envelope as the same car with 44 PSI in the tire? Since street fights happen, I can't just bust my air tank out of the back of my set my tire pressure and hop back in ready to throw down. You gotta be packing whatever already installed. 
The Ford's spec on a Firestone tire is 26 PSI, which was the minimum PSI for the tire given the weight of the Explorer. The tires failed in operation due in a large part to chronic under inflation. The Factory spec was determined based on ride comfort, not performance, not safety. 
Do people that race autoX run factory PSI? Why or why not?
I have more than one air gauge, they work fine.
Hey, I'm game, I can set my PSI to what do you think 30 PSI? It is only air. Maybe a new thread? Like we can do 26 PSI, then go up by 8 PSI each week and report back... I'd wait for Spring as I'd not rec 51 PSI of tire pressure on mud, snow, ice tires. No problem for me in Texas though.
This is a suspension height thread, so I'll stop here.










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 3:15 PM 11-9-2003_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

It's all fine. You can set yours to anything you want and may get even wear on the type of driving/roads you have. 
I have Max performance tires and it performs WAY BETTER at 32 PSI as did my stock Michelin at 40+ PSI, when I track I set it to 38-42 (cold) and the hot PSI (after event) is about 50 PSI and my tire states max PSI of 50, so if I set it to 50 in the first place I am not too sure what sort of hot PSI I'd have. I haven't set my tires to 26 and won't, but also won't set them at 50, I have fairly nice ride at 32 now (as posted above). I just don't suggest 50 PSI to anyone concerned about ride, tire wear, driving in rain/snow, and off the line performance on street.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*

I think the question is not if your performance tire at 32 PSI are better than your stock tire at 40 PSI, the question is: does either tire or all tires in general perform better in respect to handling at higher PSI vs lower, we all know the answer is the higher the better. Since this thread is about optimal suspensions that has to include optimal tire pressure. As I've already stated above it makes no sense building a performance suspension if you gotta run round with low PSI tires to be able to live with the ride. 
Even you set your performance tires above factory spec as you realize even with performance tires need more air, I just checked my factory spec and it is 26/26 PSI. Real optimal there? Sure there is a law of declining returns at work, you say for your setup and with performance tires, 32 PSI is best (compromise) and I say 42 or maybe 44 or maybe even 50 PSI works the best for me on my econo tires, since I have no complaint about ride comfort, looks to me that 50 PSI is just where I should set them. But the fact remains tires perform better at or near max rated PSI. I have more ride height, I have less stiff dampers, I have light rims, so I can run a more optimal tire pressure.
Just one more reason to have a stock ride (thread related) height and let the suspension do the work, vs dropping it and trying to bandaid fix it by doing things like dropping tire pressure. Better to pick a light rim and tire than try to fix unsprung weight with dampers and springs, I'll add in. 
For me my car has to be ready all the time to throw down any where the action maybe. I don’t got time to pump my tires up to battle station configuration.


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_I think the question is not if your performance tire at 32 PSI are better than your stock tire at 40 PSI, the question is: does either tire or all tires in general perform better in respect to handling at higher PSI vs lower, we all know the answer is the higher the better. Since this thread is about optimal suspensions that has to include optimal tire pressure. As I've already stated above it makes no sense building a performance suspension if you gotta run round with low PSI tires to be able to live with the ride. 
Even you set your performance tires above factory spec as you realize even with performance tires need more air, I just checked my factory spec and it is 26/26 PSI. Real optimal there? Sure there is a law of declining returns at work, you say for your setup and with performance tires, 32 PSI is best (compromise) and I say 42 or maybe 44 or maybe even 50 PSI works the best for me on my econo tires, since I have no complaint about ride comfort, looks to me that 50 PSI is just where I should set them. But the fact remains tires perform better at or near max rated PSI. I have more ride height, I have less stiff dampers, I have light rims, so I can run a more optimal tire pressure.


I'm going to have to disagree to a certain extent here. I run 225/50-16 Kumho MX on a 16x7 rim. I run 36F/33R on the street. I consistently have to air down when I do track events. I usually end up at 34/30 cold by then end of day. I check to make sure tire temps are even across the surface after each session using a laser pyrometer. Higher pressure *almost always* results in less grip and higher center section temperatures(depending of course on alignment and chassis setup but let's restrict our discussion to non-adjustable mK4s for now). 
I also noted that lower pressure worked better with 205/55-16 Falken Azenis Sport on the same 16x7. With All-season Michelin Pilot Primacies, higher pressures did help a bit to reduce chunking, but never above 38F/34R or else the grip would just evaporate. The factory unloaded spec is 26/26, for loads or high speed, it is 32/36. 
-Mike P


_Modified by tyrolkid at 5:25 PM 11-9-2003_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tyrolkid)*

what suspenion setup are you running now kid? Also depends on the autoX as the tire can build up lots of heat. I used to race on an old aircraft run way and it was very coarse black top. I used to run KD and A008R, but since you are racing now, I'll defer to you.
I've been on the road all day, so I can report back on the 28 PSI for /aft, the ride is smoother just like stock or maybe better? I think road noise is up, but the hollow noise over bumps is gone. The car floats more and does not seem as connected to the ground. More like 60 series tires vs 45 series. MPG is going to go down as I can feel the car does not glide so maybe - 2 MPGs. Car has more lean and feels twitch but the grip seems to be there when the tires take a set.
Ii'' drive for a week and try 8 PSI changes up and take notes... I may get a set of shine rear 200 lbs drop butts to test.


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

I'm still on Neuspeed SofSport/Koni Adj/Shine RSB, with some poly LCA bushings. I'm moving up to Shine springs in preparation for next season. I found that cranking the konis to full stiff in the rear makes the car handle better(much better rotation), but overdamps the sofsport spring for bumpy tracks. Im hoping that by going to the stiffer shine rear spring, I can match the dampening better while retaining the rotation characteristics. I'll keep everyone posted.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tyrolkid)*

My factory spec for load for all version is 30/41 for 225-45/17"
for the 90 spec tire normal is 26/26
for the 91 spec tire normal is 28/26
don't know which one is the performance tire and which one is the all season.
Does Koni Make a Dual Adjust for the rear? You could set jounce higher and leave the rebound in the middle.
Shine rears, that is what I want too. You going to go with the 200 lbs-in butt draggers right? How much you want for your softsport rears? See I want Shine rear springs (200 lbs-in) and I'll be testing a set soon with my VR6 fronts, but I don't think TCs are going to be up to the task of dampning these. The car is going to be jiggly for sure. I just don't like that rotation feeling of the Jetta butt, the oldlady's new V70 with IRS multilink subframe rear (like the MK5) is so much better at planting the rear and that car has a HEAVY butt, battery is under the rear floor also!?









Since you are going for the Shine rears why not try the both sets of springs? As stated by me about 10 post ago if I had to do it again:
Koni Yellow, Shine springs (180 lbs-in) normal height rear, home made rear bar.
I got a pay raise so maybe next year the oldlady will let me buy a new suspension to replace the one I just put in that was going to last the life of the car (yeh right)










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 4:08 PM 11-10-2003_


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

The tire pressure specs given by manufacturers are NOT set with performance driving in mind. Also, going with the sticker pressure on a car where the tires in no way resemble the stock OEM tire is just plain stupid. I find that I usually inflate my tires to the max allowed pressure and then adjust the front/rear bias according to what the driving characteristics are and where I want them to be. Overinflating tires is not uncommon - Bob Bondurant states that all the production cars used at his school have tires inflated at least 5 psi over the recommended max psi. I'd be weary of overinflating for constant street use because of legal ramifications, liability and so on, but there is no doubt that the tire pressures are always conservative (for those very reasons) and that a tire with less roll and squirm will help your handling. Oldman has it right, and those arguing with him seem to have a little too much theory and not enough practice, because in the real world his approach works. Nuff said.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (gnashings)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gnashings* »_.... those arguing with him seem to have a little too much theory and not enough practice ....

I drive 40-50k miles a year - for the last 6 years at least. Tire sizes 205/50-15 & 205/55-15 Performance tires and snow tires mounted on 15 x 6 wheels. _Anything_ over about 36 lbs increases wear in the center of the tire -- to the point that when the center is at the wear-bars, the edges are 1 or 2 32nds higher. My experience (should be enough, right







) indicates that high pressures, on the street, causes me less than even tire wear. This is on a B4 Passat Sedan. YMMV
*edit: additional details.
Load is usually only myself and a laptop bag.
Driving is about 50/50 fast twisty blacktop and highway.
Running the full SRS suspension for the B4.
Tires have been Potenza 730, S-03, Toyo T1-S, and Nokian NRW (winter use only).
Tire pressures of 34/32 F/R (cold) provide neutral handling, and good tire wear with my setup.


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 1:36 PM 11-10-2003_


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

My comment wasn't intended as a slight - just an observation. And my comments refer to a relation to the recommended tire pressure, rather than an absolute PSI value. Obviously the pressure situation of your particular tire is different, but you're still going higher than the man. rec., correct? As far as I can tell Oldman was talking about a more radical tire than a 50 profile 205 or a snow tire. There is no question that overinflating is not only dangerous but also economically unsound, it is the definition of OVERINFLATING that varies and is being discussed. I hope that clarifies some things. Cheers!


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (gnashings)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gnashings* »_My comment wasn't intended as a slight - just an observation.

No offense taken







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif .
I've been lurking during the tire pressure conversation and thought I'd add my own experiences. Half load pressures for the B4 are 32/32. Bumping the fronts up by 2lbs offers better turn-in, and increased cornering grip at that end with little change in tire wear. It seems we all have different experiences, with different tires, and different driving environments/habits. So, the message here would be to experiment, and determine which works best for yourself (comment towards no-one in particular). Like all other aspects of chassis tuning, there are no absolutes.


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

Couldn't say it better. And I have to confess that my tolerance for tire wear is entirely out of line with my ability to pay for them... 
I've tried to inflate my tires (on a variety of cars) to full allowable psi, then use the man. rec. as a guide to the difference front to back, I guess that just about translates into that slight bump in the front in most cases. One thing is for sure, even Schumacher and his teammates don't usually agree on susp. setup, and they usually seem to both be going FAIRLY fast...sometimes handling absolutes are outweighed by what setup lets YOU get the most out of the car... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (gnashings)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gnashings* »_Couldn't say it better. And I have to confess that my tolerance for tire wear is entirely out of line with my ability to pay for them... 
I've tried to inflate my tires (on a variety of cars) to full allowable psi, then use the man. rec. as a guide to the difference front to back, I guess that just about translates into that slight bump in the front in most cases. One thing is for sure, even Schumacher and his teammates don't usually agree on susp. setup, and they usually seem to both be going FAIRLY fast...sometimes handling absolutes are outweighed by what setup lets YOU get the most out of the car... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Hey fork, I totally agree with you on that. Any setup is different, not only we have different suspensions, we have different tires, wheels, etc... which makes a huge difference on what tire pressure to use. As was discussed with Pyce, reducing the tire pressure on his setup yeilded a much better ride without too much performance loss. That could be not beneficial to another person with a different setup, or just a different driving style.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_...... Any setup is different, not only we have different suspensions, we have different tires, wheels, etc... 

All this very true, but the real significan (I would say HUGE) difference that we have is the road conditions where we live! San Francisco and the whole Bay Area is really something some of you have to see as to believe! I may even take the camera and go snap few pix on my commute tomorrow, so you guys see what a "highway" looks like here....... But anyway, I have found myself that tires (on the same wheel) make very significant difference in comfort. I have a set of S-03 (not in use now) and the car is significantly more comfortable on those compare to a set of Michelin Energy, same size, even when the S-03 are pumped at 44 PSI!!!


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

I live in Ontario, Canada which leads me to another point I've discovered to have a huge effect: temperature. I found certain Z rated tires tend to turn hard lose grip while shredding incredibly fast as soon as it gets cold - others don't. And I'm not talking about snow, just cold temps. I found that in the colder days attention to pressures is even more important. This is the problem with this discussion - there is a lot of valuable info to be gained from our fellow enthusiasts, but at the same time almost an impossible number of variables that come into play - making any advice very conditional at best (unless its very general advice)... Oh well, this is still one of the most informative threads I've had the pleasure of taking part in...good work.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

well this makes sense as the conti 225x45 I have are also "energy" type tires so they are still stiff even at lower inflation levels. I just measured the tread depth and found that the wear is even after some 15 to 20K miles on the tire mostly at 51 PSI cold. The turn in is mushy but I'll run them for a week and up by 8 PSI. Next spring I'll spring for some grip tires and return to the Audi TT replica wheels 15x7s I have with all season tires M/S rated for Fall and Winter with 205 / 60s. The Conti Eco tire is a M/S tire also.
I was thinking of doing the AVS Intermediates on 15s (205x60s) as that is what a bud has with full Shine setup. His car is tight, his comment is that he can get 5 to 10 more MPH thru the turns vs mine. He also has more tracktion (same engine setup), which I lack with my Conti Eco. 
Now to the topic he has full shine, 200 lbs springs rear, AVS intermediates, his ride is not bad, the 205x60s do a good job a bump dampning. He's going to some 17s in the near future. So maybe he has the smarther setup, full shine and some 205x60s for normal street fights and keep the 17s on the side for the GTCs etc.. I do think his car floats more at high speed, but we have never tried to pump his tires up to cold max. Oh yes athe AVS are like $80.00 a tire!!! which is about 1/3 the price of my Camaro tire!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Ha! Now, check this out...... just coming back from lunch, first time my car was loaded with people, five of us inside..... same crappy roads I drive everyday....... the thing rides like a beutiful family comfy midsize sedan! So, with about 800 lb (maybe more) in the car, the ride quality over the cement joints was absolutly outstanding! On the "waves" over the bridges - fantastic! I want the car liek this, period!!! Now, how can I get there withouth going around with all of them all the time?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Now, how can I get there withouth going around with all of them all the time?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

LMAO! fork, I knew you were coming with something, but your idea is way more than what I was expecting


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

ride = car weight divided by unsprung weight. You can make the car heavy or the suspension and tires lighter: stock brakes, light rims, light tires, 15x7 Flicks or Volks and some light AVS intermediates, would trim 20 to 30 lbs off of unsprung weight. Tossing off the front bar, running an oldman rear bar instead of the big bulky aftermarket bars that bolt to the arm. Bout 10 lbs more there. Forged control arms: MK5? or Audi A4? would give a couple more. So saving 40 lbs of total unsprung weight is going to be like adding 800 lbs to the car in terms of ride.
Going the other way with big brakes, 18" rims, heavy tires, big F & R bars is going to add like 40 lbs of unsprung weight and that would ride like poorly.










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 11:10 AM 11-11-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, here is the paradox, my friend ........ My complains about uncomfortable ride started not long ago, which coincides with the day I put Superleggeras 16x7 with Energys! This is the first time I have really light setup (my scale says 33.7 lb. together!) compare to the 42 - 45 lb setups I had been always running before (all stock VW 16" wheels with mixed tires). So, my experience is exactly the other way around from what you are explaining. To tell you more, losing around 10 lb per corner made a lot of other changes to the way the steering behaves. I have mini torque steer when taking off now. I have to also turn the wheel back by myself once I am done cornering, instead of just letting go. Yes, it tries to turn on it's own, but I have to help way more than with heavy rims. Also, on highway drive, I have to work noticeably more with the steering wheel as to keep the car straight, I mean, all the dishevels on the road make the car change directions very easy. When using heavier wheels, the car goes straight on the same dishevels........ And to make sure that I am not going crazy, I switched back to the other wheels I have and everything is back to normal. Plus an alignment was done last weekend. Sorry, but these are real life experiences I have. Not inventing this....


_Modified by pyce at 8:07 AM 11-11-2003_


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (pyce)*

Perhaps yur damping is not matched to your new lighter set up. Your dampers and springs are now working on an whole different amount of weight. 
Oh, and one more thing: letting go of the steering wheel?... sounds like a bad idea, if your car won't let you do it perhaps its saving you from you...


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*gnashings.....*

Come on now! Do not try to make me feel like a kid ..... it is a way to describe what are the forces I feel on my hands and because I can't measure it in pounds, I found it easier to describe with an example of how much the steering wheel "returns" back to central position after cornering.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: gnashings..... (pyce)*

Odd about the steering wheel not self centering. That didn't happen to me until 
I had the Peloquin torque biasing diff installed, and that's just something they *do*
when they're active and you, for instance, do a full power 1st gear U-turn. With the 
stock diff, and several different types of tires the steering would always self center
because the inside front tire was usually spinning madly. 
What alignment specs did you end up with? I'd be inclined to think that
what you're feeling is a combination of the alignment combined with the
sidewall stiffness of whatever tires you're running on the new wheels. 
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: gnashings..... (Daemon42)*

Ian, the alignment was done to stock spex, as it was a VW shop and I trust the guy. Well, he slightly touched the toe as it was 1/32 off, and that was it, because the rest can't be adjusted anyway. It was more of a check than adjustment, because I happen to change 5 suspension setups and enver did alignment before, so just wanted to make sure it is done at least once........ All I can tell is: Light wheel with Michelin energy does all the tricks I described above. Heavier wheel with the SAME TIRE, same pressure, is completely different! No comfort complains (again, it is not Cadillac, but way better!), no mini torque steer (goes towards the left and it make sense ot me) when taking off, self centers like any stock car. Look, iI would even go and seel those OZ, if it was not for the great acceleration improvement and specially the even greater braking they helped with.....


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: gnashings..... (pyce)*

I didn't mean to be derogatory, its just my snide manner. Sorry. The more I thought about it, the more I think you might have a logical reason:
A rotating mass acts as a gyro, and when you lower the mass it lowers the inertia stored in that rotating object .: lowering that objects "desire" to remain moving in its original direction. I don't know if I made that clear...but its just something that occured to me in relation to the self-centering question. BTW, did you change the dampers and springs at the same time as you went to a lighter wheel/tire package?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*(gnashings)*

Now, what you said make so much sense to me as I was thinking (in secret) about this same thing about masses....... but dare I say something?







Which make sme think, maybe VW purposley come with relatively heavy wheels on the stockers, so people can drive "easier" and the car sort of "collaborates" more..... yeah, another stupid thought, but who knows. Or at least, they do not do a lot to reduce weight below certain point. you should try my car on a highway, tries to go left and right every time it touches even the slight change of surface. I mean, you guys know how you can keep one hand on the steering wheel while cruising at speed limits all day long.... well, now I have to keep it stronger as it wants ot move way too often and too much. And that is the reason I went to do the alignment, because I thought something was going wrong with my car...... then put back the stock whgeels, same tires, BAM! Works like a stock car works on a highway! 
Edited to add that I did not change anything else, but the wheels/tires. In fact, had been super happy Shine owner for about 35.000 miles. Firm ride, but I could live with it as a trade off. My complains started when the new wheels arrived! So, I am on Shine Kit, but instead of Bisltein HDs, I have Sports. Could make some difference there, but again, I could live with it before....


_Modified by pyce at 10:12 AM 11-11-2003_


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (gnashings) (pyce)*

C'mon, TWO HANDS ON THE WHEEL!!! (jus jokes).
Another thought. Stability and maneuvrability (sorry for the airplane term.) are direct opposites. That which you do to increase one, diminishes the other. For example - a mid engine car vs a front eng. rear trans. car. I know that this is a little removed from the subject at hand - but the basic principle is there. Maybe the twitchy anture is something you might have to live with given the increased maneuvrability... Hmmm....


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (gnashings) (gnashings)*

Everything you said so far make sense to me. It is great logical explanation and I am willing to accept it. The whole jazz is about the fact that I did not expect 10 lb per corner will give me this much difference. Many people on vortex go light wheels (even lighter than mine) and I can;t recall anyone recently that have similar findings like in the case I have..... Maybe the way to go would be to swap the heavy S-03 on the light OZs and see what happens. One thing I already know, it will handle like dream, but let's see what else would feel like to put few more lb. on those light wheel. Thanks for the partecipation....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (gnashings) (pyce)*

Interestin Pyce. I always thought lighter-->better. When I had ride comfort issues I actually talked to Nuespeed, they told me that they have designed their Suspension around stock 15" wheels and tires at 39 pounds ea. so if I have a heavier wheels/tires, I'd have less comfort. I also think I'd have other issues if I go lower than 39 pounds... so maybe Shine setup was also designed with stock wheels/tire weight.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (gnashings) (alexb75)*

Well, Alex, Dick always says it was designed around 16" wheel, but never specified weight and stuff and I never even thought it would make such difference.... I wonder what would people with 15" Volks TE 37 have to say on the matter?


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (gnashings) (pyce)*

Yeah, it takes a bit of a mental adjustment when one discusses unsprung weight - its amazing how little makes a big difference. We all want to play race engineer - god knows I do - but then the reality of all the variables makes you go slightly nuts. But I guess that's why we are all here. 
alexb75 makes a good point when mentioning the design parameters of suspensions. It goes back to what I said earlier about the damping changes having to go along with unsprung weight changes. But I am far from being able to give you a definitive step by step on what exactly to do. I'm sure someone out there can, anyone?


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

lighter is always better. Dampers damp unsprung weight (among other things), but for this instance in relation to ride, lets assume we are talking about straight bumpy road, springs hold the car up. Dampers will always work better with lighter unsprung weight that is ALWAYS. There is no such thing as a damper that performs less so with less weight. There is no such thing as an optimal weight design for unsprung weight; lighter will always be better. When a suspension guru talks about optimal design wheel size, he is really talking about max weight and relating what the max weight means in terms of wheel size (something a customer can understand). Meaning that a heavy 16 inch rim based wheel will not perform as well as a lighter 17 inch rim based wheel. Once again this is an ALWAYS. Lighter is ALWAYS better when it come to unsprung weight.
Better means: better ride, better jounce control, less need for rebound control, less need for energy transfer to damper, less wear on damper, less aeration of damper oil. This also means with a lighter wheel, you can get away with a cheaper, smaller, lighter damper, that may work longer cause it got less work to do.
pyce, I suspect you have an issue with the tires, or maybe even the hub centric rims, or maybe the offset, but it can't be the lighter weight.


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (pyce) (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman:
I agree that lighter is always better, but I take somewhat of an issue with what you said about dampers always working better on a lighter set up. I agree on principal, but I think that a damper designed to handle more weight bouncing around on the end of that suspension might be too stiffly valved for a lighter set up. So lighter is going to be better if its properly sprung and dampened. Do you see what I'm getting at? Perhaps I'm out to lunch here... or maybe its a way to approach the subject you haven't considered? If I'm wrong please set me straight - I find your posts more educational than most, so my ears are wide open.


_Modified by gnashings at 1:41 PM 11-12-2003_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce) (gnashings)*

if it is lighter there is going to be less up, hence less down, it does not need more damping, since the damper is not working harder, it will be transfering less shock to the frame (ride will be better). Not like it can be be overdamped on the way down (rebound) as the lighter suspension would have gone up (jounce) in the first place. 
I'm just talking damper in relation to unsprung weight and the effect on ride or is that affect? not damper in relation to spring or car weight. the lighter the unsprung weight the better the ride, the less stress on the damper, sure changes could be made to the damper to further improve on the ride or performance, but I'd rather leave the changes and ramifications of such to one variable, as the solution to a multivariable equation leads to multiple answers...
So lighter unsprung weight delivers a better ride, will ALWAYS be true. But there is more to a damper then just ride, like turn in (jounce), pitching and yaw, spring control especially on rebound. So design the best system for your application, but realize that any unsprung weight reduction will help ride and any increase in weight of the car will help ride. Since this is a performance section, we like to decrease unsprung weight, but if the was buick.com we would be talking about how much better FAT works in terms of ride. My new Volvo rides fine at 3500 lbs and they can come with rims upto 18" and they still ride fine.











_Modified by oldmanTDI at 2:41 AM 11-13-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (pyce) (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, I am with him on this thought..... if the wheel is lighter, the shock becomes sort of "stronger". I mean the ralation bethwene the two. And therefore, the handling will improve, yes, but the ride quality will be worse. It is like to have the same wheel, but mounting stronger shock..... don;t you think?


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (pyce) (pyce)*

OK, I thought I was going in circles, I'm glad you cought my meaning, pyce. For example, leave all as is and add a stiffer shock...well not exactly, but for arguments sake. Ah, hell you know what I mean.... I hope, cause I'm starting to lose track.
And buick.com? Is there such a thing? People who drive buicks using the internet? The motor-carriage is a new fangled devil device to that crowd LOL!!!


----------



## naterkane (Feb 8, 2001)

has anyone tried machining an adapter to sit between the ball joint and the control arm to lower the pick up point of the control arm so it can sit closer to parallel with the ground?
on my old g60 a2 i had the steering knuckles mounting pointes (where the tierod connects) filled and then machined from the other side (pretty much flipping the tierod upside down) that helped my bumpsteer a bit.. but i'm thinking to possibly go a step further and try to create a spacer (i certainly hope aluminum will be strong enough) to fix the geometry on that point at least... 
if the steering knuckle mod wasn't so involved, i'd do it again.... another solution to that (if there's room) is to put shims under your steering rack to raise it up a bit to then level out your tie rods that way....
just some ideas.


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (naterkane)*

People have done the ball joint extension - actually there was quite a discussion about it on the MkII forum. The consensus seems to be that aluminium would not be a safe material for this. Actually, it seems that extending the ball joint is not a very reliable way to go in the average home-made mod. I wish someone was able to actually provide some sort of stress analysis on that area - to see where the loads are distributed and how heavy they are. Just by eyeballing it, though, I would be very cautious of such a mod - especially for a street driven car, where a failure could be catastrophic. The knuckles see, like a better solution - but like you said, a very involved one.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (naterkane)*

reason not done is that you can already buy drop spindles, second reason, and the slammer crowed does not want to admit it, is the car is too low bone stock, the TDI pan is like 6 inches off the ground, what happens when you lower to 4 inches and run over a brick ?







So real drivers of real cars don't want it low as it effects performance of the car in the real world, the slammer crowed just wants to look fast, cause the watched the fast and furious one too many times. By lowering the car for looks you have basically said I don't care about performance, I can pretend all I like, I can make excuses on why the lowing should not effect performance or ride but the truth is lowering can't be done at all on a strut suspension, especially one that already comes lowered from VW.
Now to the light wheel, no the damper is not “stronger” the wheel has NO effect on rate of damping. The rate is constant. What will happen is the lighter wheel will have less upward energy and that energy which is damped at a constant rate will stop moving up sooner than a heavy wheel and it will transmit less energy to the body via damper / spring. Result the ride is better, result the tire stays in contact with the road longer, hence performance is better. The lighter wheel will now return to normal height, at the same RATE but since it went up less, it has to go down less: result less work for the damper, less force exerted by spring on wheel, less time of constant rate of exertion. Result: smoother ride, result: tire stays in contact with the road longer, hence performance is better. 
Once again let me make this clear the RATE of work absorbed by the suspension is constant. By changing the wheel to a lighter wheel makes the suspension do less work because the wheel has less energy for any given movement, the rate of energy absorption and dissipation remains constant, the length of time to do the work has to get longer. Meaning in basic terms the heavier wheel will travel further up during a bump and need to travel further down as a corollary effect. This longer up and down travel results in the same RATE of energy transferred to the car body but over a longer period of time, meaning the ride is harder as the same strength blow is dealt over a longer period, meaning the damper works harder as it has to do energy dissipation over a longer time know as work (energy over a period of time). It can’t work harder it can only work LONGER.
Can you see now the damper does not “get stronger” it rate of work remains the same, it just has to work LONGER with the heavier wheel. Yes I know the Bilstein HD is a variable rate damper and hence does not behave under the general rules stated above. Gut feeling is that the variable rate damper is even more sensitive to unsprung weight in terms of ride. But the whole though of a multivariable damper applied to a sinusoidal spring equation makes my mind ache.
Also IMO the lower pressure tires make a bigger difference on a variable rate damper. 



_Modified by oldmanTDI at 12:04 AM 11-14-2003_


----------



## gnashings (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

I see what you mean - I think I might have been looking at it fromthe wrong direction. Thanks for shedding light on it, I appreciate the time you took. I'm gonna hit the books again today, maybe even do some experiments.


----------



## lynx8489 (Jul 29, 2002)

*traction problem*

oldman tdi
i've been following this thread for a while and learned much from it. This is a bit off topic from your current discussion but i thought i would ask anyway.I have a traction problem and i am hoping to get your thoughts on it. 
I have a 2001 jetta WE (mk4 pig) with newly installed koni yellows and vogtland springs. I have the rears set to 1 turn from soft and the front a bit stiffer at 1.25 from soft. i have fairly light 18" prodrive wheels with yoko avs es 100 set to 43 in rear and 41 in front. 
The problem I encounter is when cornering hard on bumpy or rough road surfaces. The back end "hops" like crazy with seemingly no traction and the entire cabin shakes. People in the car (including myself) are like what the heck is wrong with your car? I am fairly new to tuning and trying to learn..
I don't know the sping rates of the vogtland springs but I know they are supposed to be stiffer than h&r sports. I think that maybe the rear shocks are set too stiff and the springs cannot rebound quick enough?? do you think that by softening the rear shocks the traction will improve? 
Any help will be greatly appreciated!


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lynx8489* »_I think that maybe the rear shocks are set too stiff and the springs cannot rebound quick enough?? do you think that by softening the rear shocks the traction will improve? 
Any help will be greatly appreciated!

To me, and I could be wrong (and if I am, I know I'll hear it), it seems that you need more rebound dampening at the rear. Careful you don't add too much.


----------



## lynx8489 (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
To me, and I could be wrong (and if I am, I know I'll hear it), it seems that you need more rebound dampening at the rear. Careful you don't add too much.

rebound dampening...bare with me..would that mean to make it more stiff?


----------



## ylwGTI (Jan 18, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*

try different settings, it could be either too soft or too stiff
its hard to tell, you said the back of the car hops so it means the rear is pretty stiff. Make sure you are turning in the right direction with those koni shocks , their manuals suck. The general rule for koni shocks are, the harder to pull out the shock after adjustment the stiffer it is. But before you do any adjustments lower your tire pressure, i think that alone should help you in this problem.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lynx8489* »_The problem I encounter is when cornering hard on bumpy or rough road surfaces. The back end "hops" like crazy with seemingly no traction and the entire cabin shakes. People in the car (including myself) are like what the heck is wrong with your car? I am fairly new to tuning and trying to learn..
Any help will be greatly appreciated!

Do you mean that it's bouncy? like after going over a bump, instead of once, it bounces 2-3 times?! If that's the case you are UNDERDAMPED, and you need to stiffen the shocks. Also, make sure that both shocks are set to EXACT same stiffness, I know it's a little hard to tell what setting they're on. Call Vogtland and Koni and try to get a proper shock setting on your setup. Your suspension is just not matched properly.


----------



## lynx8489 (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (ylwGTI)*

i originally had the tire pressure real low in the back and front like 35 psi...bringing it up to 43 didn't realy make a difference. this weekend i am gonna set them really soft and see if that helps.


----------



## lynx8489 (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Do you mean that it's bouncy? like after going over a bump, instead of once, it bounces 2-3 times?! If that's the case you are UNDERDAMPED, and you need to stiffen the shocks. Also, make sure that both shocks are set to EXACT same stiffness, I know it's a little hard to tell what setting they're on. Call Vogtland and Koni and try to get a proper shock setting on your setup. Your suspension is just not matched properly.

its not bouncy over bumps... it actually shakes the car and feels like its hopping around with no traction. the suspension is definately not matched properly.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lynx8489* »_
its not bouncy over bumps... it actually shakes the car and feels like its hopping around with no traction. the suspension is definately not matched properly.
















This mostly sound like a difference in left to right stiffness. Like one side's softer than the other!







So, one holds it, the other doesn't and it makes the car shake (probably







) I'd take the shocks out and compare them to see if they're adjusted at exact same level.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lynx8489* »_
its not bouncy over bumps... it actually shakes the car and feels like its hopping around with no traction. the suspension is definately not matched properly.
















This mostly sound like a difference in left to right stiffness. Like one side's softer than the other!







So, one holds it, the other doesn't and it makes the car shake (probably







) I'd take the shocks out and compare them to see if they're set at exact same level. Also check to see if they're fine. Koni is famous to fail prematurely.


_Modified by alexb75 at 4:39 PM 11-17-2003_


----------



## lynx8489 (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*

gonna take them out this weekend and make sure each side is equal. also turn them softer to match the spings I think the rates are 325 front and 258 rear.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*

sounds more like the piston is frozen, I'd pull it off and see if the compress at a linear rate.


----------



## lynx8489 (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_sounds more like the piston is frozen, I'd pull it off and see if the compress at a linear rate. 

ok i will try/test that at the same time i adjust the settings. i know nothing about spring rates.. it it prefferable for perfomance to have rates such as these: 325 rear and 258 front?? thanks in advance. 
brandon


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*

I won't say I haven't seen rates like that (higher in the back), but personally
I think that explains your problem right there. I'd never do that and 
no decently suspended dub I've ever been in, has ever done that.
The rear spring rates are too high, and the dampers may never be up to the job
of controlling them. 
It reminds me of some IT commercial on TV.. 
business woman: "I feel as though we're lost, adrift in the sea. What does it mean?"
therapist: "It means.. you're lost, adrift in the sea." 
In other words, if it feels bouncy.. like your rear spring rates
are too high.. then it could be that it's bouncy because your
rear spring rates are too high.








ian


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*

I don't think your spring rates are like that, are these custom rates? the shine lite is 180 lbs inch rear the heavy shine is 200 lbs in rear and these are thick springs.










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 3:07 PM 11-19-2003_


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: traction problem (oldmanTDI)*

Correct me if I am wrong, but Vogtlands claim to fame is their "audio" spring setup. It's designed for cars with heavy audio eqpt in the rear, and the rear springs are designed to not sag under the increased weight. I wouldnt be surprised if those rates were correct........


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lynx8489* »_
ok i will try/test that at the same time i adjust the settings. i know nothing about spring rates.. it it prefferable for perfomance to have rates such as these: 325 rear and 258 front?? thanks in advance. 
brandon

Hey brandon, Why don't you call or email Vogtland? I mean they're the manufacturers and know the most about their springs, right? Everyone else here speculates one thing or another. Not sure why are you asking some trivial questions over and over again.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*

Off topic, but related to our conversation about the Shine and not comfortable ride..... the tire pressure deffinitelly helped some, but I am not sure it is the right way to go. I mean, I gain comfort, but the car feels "boaty" and doe snot behave in corners in the way a Shined car should. I mean, what is the purpose ot have Shine Kit if I can't operate it with some good amount of air in the tires. The lower I go with the pressure, the more comfy it is, but the more tha handling sort of degrades..... I think the answer have to be somewhere else and I will be looking for it. I am now taking this issue seriously and the first ste will be to replace the Bilsteins with Koni Yellow and see what happens! Ordered them, and will put them in this weekend....... ciao.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (pyce)*

Let us know how does the Koni's do compared to Bilstein. Did you order a set of 4, or just 2 for the rears?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*

Set of 4, but now you gave me the idea to switch the rears firts and drive it for a day and see what happens....... and then exchange the fronts too. do you guys happen to know what kind of simple equipment I can buy and put on the shocks as to record aceleration between the two connecting points? Like some sort of very simple photosensor to face each other, placed on both upper and lower part of the shocks, so I can collect some data about linear acceleration (deceleration) on same road, same springs, same speed but different shocks...and most of all, how the graph would variate with applying different rebound on the Konis. Thanks!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Set of 4, but now you gave me the idea to switch the rears firts and drive it for a day and see what happens....... and then exchange the fronts too. do you guys happen to know what kind of simple equipment I can buy and put on the shocks as to record aceleration between the two connecting points? Like some sort of very simple photosensor to face each other, placed on both upper and lower part of the shocks, so I can collect some data about linear acceleration (deceleration) on same road, same springs, same speed but different shocks...and most of all, how the graph would variate with applying different rebound on the Konis. Thanks!

That's a great idea, but I have no clue on how to do that. In my own experience, Bilstein on the front are ok in terms of ride comfort and mostly the problem is in the rear. I also posted a while ago if anyone has tried a mix of the two rear to front and how did it perform. IMO, a little softer shocks in the rear with proper swaybar is the best answer for ride/performance compromise.


----------



## lynx8489 (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_I don't think your spring rates are like that, are these custom rates? the shine lite is 180 lbs inch rear the heavy shine is 200 lbs in rear and these are thick springs.









_Modified by oldmanTDI at 3:07 PM 11-19-2003_

my mistake the rears are 258 and front 325


----------



## lynx8489 (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Hey brandon, Why don't you call or email Vogtland? I mean they're the manufacturers and know the most about their springs, right? Everyone else here speculates one thing or another. Not sure why are you asking some trivial questions over and over again.









trivial questions? all i said was that i would re adjust them to a softer setting this weekend and check to see if they compress at a linear rate to detect a frozen piston. If asking about spring rates is trivial, excuse me for wasting your time. I suggest you ignore this post and move on. I thought i was on a online forum partly intended to help out the less experienced. I have called vogtland and they recommended the current settings which are not working. 
brandon


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lynx8489* »_
trivial questions? all i said was that i would re adjust them to a softer setting this weekend and check to see if they compress at a linear rate to detect a frozen piston. If asking about spring rates is trivial, excuse me for wasting your time. I suggest you ignore this post and move on. I thought i was on a online forum partly intended to help out the less experienced. I have called vogtland and they recommended the current settings which are not working. 
brandon

Hey man, I didn't wanna offend you or anything. I was one of the few who was trying to help you out here. These forums are great for asking impressions about different setups, facts can be obtained MUCH EASIER, FASTER, and MORE ACCURATELY from the manufacturers or their websites.


----------



## lynx8489 (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Hey man, I didn't wanna offend you or anything. I was one of the few who was trying to help you out here. These forums are great for asking impressions about different setups, facts can be obtained MUCH EASIER, FASTER, and MORE ACCURATELY from the manufacturers or their websites.

no problem alexb75 i got a little defensive due to some unrelated stress, i really appreciate you and everyone's help on the suspension forum.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (lynx8489)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lynx8489* »_
no problem alexb75 i got a little defensive due to some unrelated stress, i really appreciate you and everyone's help on the suspension forum. 

NP, man. Glad if I helped.


----------



## TorontoCorrado (Jan 27, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*

after viewing all 17 pages LOL here is what I think:
to settle this argument of lowering vs. handling and its negative impacts we need to see bump-toe curves...
has anyone ever seen bump-toe curves for any VW's? I'm tempted to measure them before i install my suspension in 2 weeks.
(to measure this you would need an alignment machine, 4 bottle jacks and a tape measure. Remove springs from damper assymblies then mount bottle jacks on frame to support vehicle then just raise/lower vehicle on jacks equall distance on each corner and measure camber/toe change with hte alignment machine through out the suspension travel and viola! camber & toe gain curves. Its tedious but beats having a 200K K&C Machine to do it)
So any volunteers? or is this data available anywhere? id love to see it!
Mikey


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (TorontoCorrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TorontoCorrado* »_after viewing all 17 pages LOL here is what I think:
to settle this argument of lowering vs. handling and its negative impacts we need to see bump-toe curves...

And that addresses roll center/roll couple/suspension geometry how??


----------



## jhillyer (Feb 17, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vuu16v* »_<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>







There's still a gazillion people on this site that will NEVER get it.







Could you explain it? Something about the change in geometry I suppose. I know lowering too much actually makes handling worse, but don't know why.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This DOES NOT aplly to every car or even every VW. On the A2's especially, when you lower the car to the point that the control arms are beyond parallel to the ground, the roll-center has been raised. One way A LOT of people offset the added roll is by adding bigger anti-sway bars. This will make an old suspension design even less independent and the ride gets worse. Some cars don't end up "handling like crap" when lowered a lot, mine do though. 

I agree, and you're intelligent to observe. My Passat cannot tolerate radical lowering without poor effects for this reason. I'm posting an edited copy of the lowered vehicle because some folks don't think this way and it's a brand new concept for them. 

(if the image is viewable) Each arrow is a bad angle. With the lower arrow, that bad angle pushes enormous force across the upper arms/struts. That force increases as the lower arm (arrow) angles further upward. That force transfers across the shoulders of the car toward opposing wheel assembly if we don't do anything to tie in the parts into their newly "engineered" (haha) positions, at low and high tie points.
I drew an upper green arrow to show how, now, power is being robbed as the drive joints are at less-efficient angles. We want this fairly straight, no elbowing, when suspension is steady -- at least I do.








(edited, I had swapped the arrows in my chatter)


_Modified by jhillyer at 12:50 PM 11-22-2003_


----------



## TorontoCorrado (Jan 27, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
And that addresses roll center/roll couple/suspension geometry how??









well it defenitely adresses "suspension geometry" because while everyone here speculates that lowering the vehicle has a negative impact to handling, NO ONE has shown DATA to support their theories. Maybe particular VW models do not have excessive toe/camber gains with suspension travel. This would mean that kinematically, the suspension characteristics would not be drastically changed. I honestly don't know as I have never seen DATA although I would guess that it is drastically changed. I think by seeing these curves, we can understand what the DESIGN INTENT of the suspension designer was and how much of an impact it is on the vehicle by lowering it x-mm's.
Mikey


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (TorontoCorrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TorontoCorrado* »_... while everyone here speculates that lowering the vehicle has a negative impact to handling, NO ONE has shown DATA to support their theories.

Actually it's more than speculation, and theory. As the distance between a vehicle's center of gravity and roll center increases, that vehicle will roll more -- period. Additionally when lowered beyond a certain point (just about at the point the control arms are level with the ground), VWs lose camber -- the curve goes positive. So by lowering, you have increased the car's tendency to roll, and you have pretty much set the suspension up to gain camber up front with small compression movements. Both are not good for handling, right







? Not sure how quantifiable "data" can prove/disprove this "theory" any further. What kinds of measurements are you looking for?
I don't believe toe changes are much of an issue up front, but as the rear of our cars is raised/lowered, the resultant toe changes reportedly can alter handling balance - I haven't tried tuning the rear of my car, so I have no direct experience with how much or how little rear toe changes with ride height.


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 7:15 PM 11-22-2003_


----------



## TorontoCorrado (Jan 27, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
Additionally when lowered beyond a certain point (just about at the point the control arms are level with the ground), VWs lose camber -- the curve goes positive. So by lowering, you have increased the car's tendency to roll, and you have pretty much set the suspension up to gain camber up front with small compression movements. Both are not good for handling, right







? Not sure how quantifiable "data" can prove/disprove this "theory" any further. What kinds of measurements are you looking for?
_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 7:15 PM 11-22-2003_

thats exactly what I'm looking for... you say that as the VW's suspension is lowered, you "loose camber". Well, the only way you could possibly know just how much it "looses" or how detrimental that camber "loss" is is by conducting a "bump/steer test" (similar to what i mentioned in my earlier post) or put the machine on a K&C machine.
Seems like you are missing my point so I'll try and state it again.
By lowering the car, you are modifying your suspension's bump camber & toe curve's. (Camber has a bigger impact on handling in the front) but how much of a camber gain was designed into the suspension? Does lowering the vehicle drastically change that curve or are losses minimal? Everyone here speculates. That is why I think conducting this test and gathering this DATA is important and should not be simply overlooked just because everyone assumes lowering the vehicle is detrimental to handling.
As for your issue's with "roll centers" I agree with you 100% BUT I would remind you that many of the more modern ie: A4's already come by design with the control arms unlevel to the ground so I think in these 17
pages of arguments we still unfortunately are missing something here. What that is I dont know








Mikey


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (TorontoCorrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TorontoCorrado* »_
thats exactly what I'm looking for... you say that as the VW's suspension is lowered, you "loose camber". Well, the only way you could possibly know just how much it "looses" or how detrimental that camber "loss" is is by conducting a "bump/steer test" (similar to what i mentioned in my earlier post) or put the machine on a K&C machine.
Seems like you are missing my point so I'll try and state it again.
By lowering the car, you are modifying your suspension's bump camber & toe curve's. (Camber has a bigger impact on handling in the front) but how much of a camber gain was designed into the suspension? Does lowering the vehicle drastically change that curve or are losses minimal? Everyone here speculates. That is why I think conducting this test and gathering this DATA is important and should not be simply overlooked just because everyone assumes lowering the vehicle is detrimental to handling.
As for your issue's with "roll centers" I agree with you 100% BUT I would remind you that many of the more modern ie: A4's already come by design with the control arms unlevel to the ground so I think in these 17
pages of arguments we still unfortunately are missing something here. What that is I dont know








Mikey

That's a very good question and I would love to get an answer for it. I don't wanna open the can or worms again, but if you get a BMW with McPherson, the two optional sport suspensions (regular and M-sport) lower the vehicle more and more by going more aggressive. Now, it's a little different design, but it makes me wonder. 
Also, on VW MK4 cars for practical reasons and based on my own experiences with different setups and seeing cars perfrom in track events and autocrosses, properly designed suspensions with no more than 1.5" drop were mostly great handling cars in par with other less lowered or non-lowered aftermarket ones. So, I think there's a compromise between lowering the center of gravity, and roll center and going over 1.5" drop makes the negative effect of lowering more than positive (cars with over 2" drops were almost always not handling well). BTW, this is my opinion, based on the cars I've seen, that's all (don't flame me please)


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (TorontoCorrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TorontoCorrado* »_Seems like you are missing my point

Nope. I was just reinforcing the fact that lowering a VW is detrimental to handling, and that this is based on more than speculation and theory.
Your comments about bump steer, camber curves and toe changes are pertinent, and I'm not trying to dismiss them. Again, I don't believe toe changes are all that dramatic, and the rear probably experiences greater toe changes from lowering. Camber curves at the front of our cars is pretty straight forward -- there is a point at which camber goes positive. Is it +0.25 degrees for each inch past parallel, on a MKII, or B4 chassis (these are the chassis I've owned and had fun with)? I don't know -- but I do know that I want as little camber gain as possible. I can control that with the amount I lower my chassis (I don't have, nor plan to install camber plates for daily commuting duties)







.
I'm sure folks with experience tuning the MKIV chassis will pipe up, but it looks to me that VW compromised a bit on this suspension design. I'm sure they tweaked the tie-rods, axles, and suspension mounting points to compensate for the more severe control arm angle, but I haven't "played" with this chassis and cannot comment from direct experience.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (TorontoCorrado)*


_Quote »_
Well, the only way you
could possibly know just how much it "looses" or how detrimental that camber "loss" is is by conducting a "bump/steer test"


Rubbish.
You don't need to conduct any tests. You need only measure the suspension geometry
and the camber curve falls out of a few trig calculations. As for knowing how much
negative camber increase is desireable, a photo of the car midcorner after it's
acheived maximum weight transfer (on 3 wheels) gives you a pretty good idea.








That's with 200lb springs up front, Corrado rears in back, Bilsteins all around, and 
a Shine rear bar. 
The angle between the two lines is a tick over 3 degrees.
I run 1.8 degrees of static negative camber per side, which is a 
pretty aggressive street setup, but then I drive it aggressively enough
that my tires wear evenly across.
The photo shows though that optimally, I'd want to pick up more than an additional
degree of negative camber during suspension compression, to keep the tire
flat on the ground. That can't happen if the A-arms start above parallel. 
And let me make two facts clear.
1. Going into positive camber during compression is ALWAYS BAD. If you lower to the point
that you start on the flat part of the camber curve (lower A-arm perpendicular to the strut), then 
any further compression leads you into the bad part of the camber curve. VW engineers
can't design that problem away, without changing the pickup points for the A-arm. It's inherent 
in MacPherson strut design.
2. Moving the roll center further away from the CG will always increase tendency to lean given
the same lateral load. The roll center itself, does not need to be measured, or tested. It
too is simply calculated based on the geometry of the strut, A-arms and their pickup points.
And since it is calculated it's immediately obvious that as you lower the car, the roll center
moves down faster than the CG, which means lowering has no positive benefit.
Those two points aren't debateable. Those don't need more study, or tests. 

ian
P.S. I think the reason people see cars that handle well with "some" lowering, is that
practically *all* aftermarket suspensions (except for Shine) produce some lowering
and most aftermarket suspensions do have higher rate springs, and better dampers
so they perform noticeably better than stock. It doesn't mean that they perform
as well as the same springs/dampers would without the lowering, but there's no
way to actually prove that, because the suspension is not offered in that configuration.
And seeing an H&R coilovers equipped car perform as good as a Shine equipped car
doesn't help either because the spring rates may be 200lbs higher to acheive that. 
The closest you could come to a meaningful comparison would be to raise
and lower a set of coilover and see what happens. Some recent posts in other threads
have basically done just that, and shown that higher was better. Even so most coilovers
at there highest are still lower than stock, so that's not a definitive comparison.



_Modified by Daemon42 at 6:51 PM 11-22-2003_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*

Well, I am not an expert in this thing or anything, and speak mostly out of experience and track events. I don't know if this helps, but here are some alignment numbers after installing Nuespeed Sport + Bilstein Sport, before and after alignment.
The alignment shop was actually able to adjust the rear alignment by moving the axle. I got them align it to 337 specs.
Left: 
Camber: -1.58 --> -1.51 (spec: -1.12 -> -1.78)
Toe: *0.01"*--> 0.12" (spec: 0.08 --> 0.16)
Right:
Camber: -1.38 --> -1.44 (spec: -1.12 -> -1.78)
Toe: *0.22* --> 0.12 (spec: 0.08 --> 0.16)
*Bold* are the numbers out of spec which were corrected nicely.


----------



## TorontoCorrado (Jan 27, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
Rubbish.
You don't need to conduct any tests. _Modified by Daemon42 at 6:51 PM 11-22-2003_

well you are correct in saying that with some trig calculations you *could* figure out the camber curves but I wouldn't exactly say that these calculations are "simple". Also, by doing those calculations you are ignoring the effects of bushing compliance which is also important when analyzing overall dynamic suspension characteristic which is why I once again would like to see actual TEST DATA and not just speculation
No one has still shown me just how much camber gain/loss there is at any amount of suspension travel. For arguments sake if it would only be a difference of .01deg/mm camber gain at a 1" drop vs .015deg/mm camber gain for stock ride height then you could confidently state that the effects of lowering a vehicle 1" in the areas of suspension geometry/camber curve is NEGLIGEABLE. Please don't get me wrong here, I am not saying that this is the case, just simply that speculation means NOTHING without hard data or at least a correct calculation which even that everyone here as failed to provide.
As for the facts you stated:
1) I agree, postive camber gain in susp comp is BAD... i never said it was good. I dont even think that was the issue here
2) I agree as well and I never asked for data for any of this
All I asked for was bump/steer/camber data and if anyone had any and apparently no has actual data. 
IMO, actual data would give some more areas for debate and make this thread somewhat more worth while as it then would be actual and not so much theoretical.
Finally, suspension designers put alot of time and effort into setting suspension, establishing bump curves, and endless hours of pv & k&C testing. I am 100% for keeping suspension (ride height stock) for best performance. Afterall, it was intended to be this way. 
I just think many people on here are quick to point fingers on how bad it is to lower a VW suspension but no one has DATA to show just HOW BAD it really is.
Anyhow, this is an interesting thread and there are some people here with genuine knowledge of the subject so please keep it coming!








Mikey


----------



## TorontoCorrado (Jan 27, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
Nope. I was just reinforcing the fact that lowering a VW is detrimental to handling, and that this is based on more than speculation and theory.


I understand what you are trying to reinforce...
I would just like to understand how "detrimental" it is quantitively 
Does anyone have access to ADAMS? it would be nice to set up models for all the VW chassis's. Would be good FYI


_Modified by TorontoCorrado at 9:28 PM 11-22-2003_


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*

BTW, given measured toe and camber of the rear tires, and the angle
of the axle beam, the exact amount of induced toe in or toe out
due to lowering or rasing, can be calculated. Your specs show
-1.78 degrees of camber. If the axle beam could swing upwards 90 degrees, that'd turn 
-1.78 degrees of toe in, per side. Now I need to look up the conversion 
between inches and degrees and work it out for smaller swing angles.. say 5 degrees
up. 
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_BTW, given measured toe and camber of the rear tires, and the angle
of the axle beam, the exact amount of induced toe in or toe out
due to lowering or rasing, can be calculated. Your specs show
-1.78 degrees of camber. If the axle beam could swing upwards 90 degrees, that'd turn 
-1.78 degrees of toe in, per side. Now I need to look up the conversion 
between inches and degrees and work it out for smaller swing angles.. say 5 degrees
up. 
ian

One other thing I just noticed Ian. You have a Mk3, right? I've been told by a couple of tuning shops that MK3 is the wrost Golf to be lowered and the most difficult one to come up with a good suspension for. I was told by a few racers about that (who I beleive in). They said that there's no way you wanna go lower than 0.5-1.0" on Mk3, but you can go upto 1.5" on Mk4. Now, not sure why they'd say that and what's the major difference between the two suspensions but it was the main impression among people who tuned up VWs and raced them.










_Modified by alexb75 at 1:08 AM 11-23-2003_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*

Here are my front alignment numbers BTW:
Left: 
Camber: -0.35 --> -0.32 (spec: -1.08 --> -0.08)
Toe: *0.15"*--> 0.00" (spec: -0.04 --> 0.04)
Caster : 8.15-->8.15 (spec 7.50-->8.50)
Right:
Camber: -0.72 --> -0.64 (spec: -1.08 --> -0.08)
Toe: *0.17* --> 0.00 (spec: -0.04 --> 0.04)
Caster: 7.96 --> 7.96 (spec 7.50-->8.50)
Again *Bold* are the numbers that WERE out of spec.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (TorontoCorrado)*

TorontoCorrado, the proof you need exit in any good suspension book. I should note that the camber changes are not linear; they are the second deferential of a sinusoidal curve. Simple trig does not track the change of camber adequately. There is basically no camber change with the arm parallel (first differential leading to a zero velocity vector), even though the second deferential is the greatest (acceleration), got the idea?
To put it in a laymen nutshell, you may go thru 2 or 3 times as much castor, camber and toe changes at 2 inches down vs parallel. For every delta of upward movement. On a smooth race track, the spring can simply be made stiffer to prevent such changes. On the street spring rates can’t be so hard, a slammed ride goes through a huge suspension geometry change when hit with a few pot holes, undulations, etc during a hard turn.

TorontoCorrado wrote _Finally, suspension designers put alot of time and effort into setting suspension, establishing bump curves, and endless hours of pv & k&C testing _
Are you kidding, suspension vendors put 90% of their time in pretty girls, nice adds, and some pretty suspension paint, cause it sells. Dick Shine want a shoot out, after all he just got plain springs and dampers, nothing special, ya think all these multi adjustable pretty paint snake oil aka suspension vendors would show up and take old Dick to wood shed. I mean they got all that R&D right, their performance products cost upto 3 times as much. LOL The argument you have made is the same one that boys make on their fart pipe gotta add power or vendor XYZ would not be charging $700 for it, and I saw such a pretty girl with nice expensive @$#%@#% holding it, gotta work right? Come now we are all adults, pretty paint and pretty girls sell.
You ever saw a ¼ mile test of the fast and furious? I think the fastest was a supercharged, S2000, with mandatory CAI, fart pipe, header, etc. 14.2 in the ¼ mile. SportsCompact Car came to the conclusion not bad for a car with motor 1/3 of the size of a Camaro. Got news for you, one mod (converter) my LS1 Camaro was into the 12’s on stock tires, and the motor is not 3 times as big, and the Camaro cost about ½ as much. All eye candy and the guys that watch the movie want to build rides just like they see, with the tucked wheel look. These are slow and unsafe cars, why is it so hard to separate reality based on solid engineering and physics vs fast and furious fantasy? 
Final nutshell, even though 1.5 down is OK on an autoX, it is not OK on the street, as the street is not smooth, and a streetable suspension is not an autoX suspension (spring rates, dampers, alignment, tire)


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_
TorontoCorrado wrote _Finally, suspension designers put alot of time and effort into setting suspension, establishing bump curves, and endless hours of pv & k&C testing _
Are you kidding, suspension vendors put 90% of their time in pretty girls, nice adds, and some pretty suspension paint, cause it sells. Dick Shine want a shoot out, after all he just got plain springs and dampers, nothing special, ya think all these multi adjustable pretty paint snake oil aka suspension vendors would show up and take old Dick to wood shed. I mean they got all that R&D right, their performance products cost upto 3 times as much. LOL The argument you have made is the same one that boys make on their fart pipe gotta add power or vendor XYZ would not be charging $700 for it, and I saw such a pretty girl with nice expensive @$#%@#% holding it, gotta work right? Come now we are all adults, pretty paint and pretty girls sell.


oldman, I totally agree with you on most points you made. Fast and furious BS is causing people think what's pretty must be good. However, there are NUMEROUS companies beside Shine who design good suspensions and have proper R&D and make decent products that go on F1 cars or Touring classes. You just cannot dismiss those and it's a bit arrogant to claim that only Shine can design suspension, I call that BS. Slammed cars are JUST FOR SHOW, and they don't perform and that's a fact, but if a company claims and proves that a moderately lowered car can perform and DOES in a track and on the street then I'd be ok with that company too. 
Shine setup is a great street setup apart from losing traction on the front and excessive wheel hop that it can create as opposed to other setups. I am just tired of claims that "Shine is GOD in suspension design", for instance I don't agree with their rear bar design (some do) but I HUGELY RESPECT their engineering and would SUGGEST it to anyone who's looking for what Shine provides. But, it is NOT in anyway the best ever setup for everyone or the best handling setup as some claim. Each setup is good for each application, and that's all. The fallacy is at those 3-4" dropped cars with shiny red springs and thinking that they can handle on the street (or track).

_Modified by alexb75 at 6:12 PM 11-23-2003_


_Modified by alexb75 at 6:13 PM 11-23-2003_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_However, there are NUMEROUS companies beside Shine who design good suspensions and have proper R&D and make decent products that go on F1 cars or Touring classes. You just cannot dismiss those and it's a bit arrogant to claim that only Shine can design suspension, I call that BS.

Do you really want to spend what F1 teams, and Professional Touring Car teams do for suspension work on your street car? Nahhhhhh ... didn't think so. Besides, none of that stuff will work on real streets, with real bumps, and real morons cutting you off. Silly comparison.
Still if you want to, contact the boys at Penske and Ohlin and see if they make anything that bolts onto our cars.
No one is saying Shine is the only game in town, and I really don't remember any credible post stating "Shine is GOD in suspension design". BTW, Dick and VWMS do agree on at least one thing -- that strengthening the torsion beam, rather than strapping on a bar with poly mounts, is the way to control weight transfer at the rear of VWs.








*edit below:

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_But, it is NOT in anyway the best ever setup for everyone or the best handling setup as some claim

Unfortunately, we'll never really know the answer to your latter point in this statement. I'm sure you're familiar with this non-event:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=703998



_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 9:53 PM 11-23-2003_


----------



## TorontoCorrado (Jan 27, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_
TorontoCorrado wrote _Finally, suspension designers put alot of time and effort into setting suspension, establishing bump curves, and endless hours of pv & k&C testing _
Are you kidding, suspension vendors put 90% of their time in pretty girls, nice adds, and some pretty suspension paint, cause it sells. 


geez, we have a vicious crowd here (and alot of shine followers too) You got me all wrong OldmanTDI. When I meant suspension designers, I meant OE suspension designers and not designers @ Koni/Bilstein/H&R and the likes. These names I just mentioned are not what anyone would call "suspension designers" at best, they are damper & spring designers. Suspension should refer to the entire "package" which includes geometry and dynamic kinematics etc..
too many people here are too quick to jump to the gun that anyone who argues the lowering vs. performance argument is ultimately a low riding, "fart pipe" fast & furious machine. This isn't the case all the time.
I just like to see & participate in a good argument that will ultimately broaden my scope of suspensions especially on vw's.
Mike


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
One other thing I just noticed Ian. You have a Mk3, right? I've been told by a couple of tuning shops that MK3 is the wrost Golf to be lowered and the most difficult one to come up with a good suspension for. I was told by a few racers about that (who I beleive in). They said that there's no way you wanna go lower than 0.5-1.0" on Mk3, but you can go upto 1.5" on Mk4. Now, not sure why they'd say that and what's the major difference between the two suspensions but it was the main impression among people who tuned up VWs and raced them.










Whoever told you that, had it ass backwards.
Mk3 at stock ride height has the A-arms well below parallel (as in higher inboard than out), 
and will take an inch of lowering and still have a bit of room left over. 
The Mk4's stock ride height starts with the arms parallel to the ground and even the slightest
bit of lowering, puts them up above parallel (higher at the balljoint). Even the stock sport suspension
(which is really just a set of lowering springs) has the A-arms above parallel.
Comparison pics are in order.
Stock '00 GTI 1.8t








Mk3 '98 GTI-VR6 with 1" of lowering.








Mk3 also has fully adjustable camber up front. Ranges from about +1 to -3 degrees.
Mk4 does not. When you lower the Mk4, it gets some increased static negative camber,
but now you're just starting out closer to the flat spot in the camber curve, and any 
further compression starts to push it into positive camber. 
Given those constraints, it means the Mk4 chassis is fairly limited in suspension choices. 
It's one of the things that worries me, as the R32 is going to be my next car. Thankfully
it reportedly has one of the best OEM suspensions VW has ever made. I need to
get someone to take a picture of the A-arms on the R32 to see where they are.
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
Do you really want to spend what F1 teams, and Professional Touring Car teams do for suspension work on your street car? Nahhhhhh ... didn't think so. Besides, none of that stuff will work on real streets, with real bumps, and real morons cutting you off. Silly comparison.
Still if you want to, contact the boys at Penske and Ohlin and see if they make anything that bolts onto our cars.
No one is saying Shine is the only game in town, and I really don't remember any credible post stating "Shine is GOD in suspension design". BTW, Dick and VWMS do agree on at least one thing -- that strengthening the torsion beam, rather than strapping on a bar with poly mounts, is the way to control weight transfer at the rear of VWs.










Hey man, I had more respect for you to see that weak argument. Ofcourse I don't pay what F1 pays them, and I am glad that F1 pays for that so they GAIN THE KNOWLEDGE. If your argument is true, you don't have to buy Bilstein or Koni since they have link to AutoSport and gain their knowledge from track and racing







(Or, no automaker who gets involved in motorsport gains anything for the street and it's just for the show) None of Bilstein race stuff works on the street though, but you're using Bilstein HDs aren't you? So, if the engineering is there, it's not a rocket science to design a street setup and I believe any of those companies are more than capable of doing that. 
Now, the question is what the customer wants! Because companies deliver what WE want. If people only care for looks and slammed cars and no performance, then they deliver what's asked for. However, if more and more people ask for performance out of the aftermarket companies (like we do here) more and more companies will deliver and I believe quite a few do right now and it's not only ONE knowledgeable street suspension company out there, that's all!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*

I am not an expert in this and stated what I've heard from racers and people who raced both cars. One thing though, it's NOT just the parallel arms that indicates the roll center, the mounting point makes a difference too. So, two cars with two mounting points and one parallel and another non-parallel arms can have different roll centers. I couldn't find the article about it which was for an M3. Again, Mk3 stuff is what I've heard. BTW, I know there's more alignment adjustments on Mk3 and that's what Mk4 lack big time.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (TorontoCorrado)*

just telling ya straight, I was on the Honda board for almost 5 years, it really got tired telling the same thing over and over again, now I'm on the VW board, same goes, time and time again, lower is not better in terms of performance, cars like the 337 already start too low. There is no 1.5 inch is OK, as really stock height is OK MK4 TDI Jetta, anything taken away from height subtracts from ride and/or performance. How much is anyone’s guess, but the truth is the height makes more difference on the street vs the track cause the street ain't smooth. On the track you don't got a bunch of ruts and pot holes mid turn, that were not there the day before.







So you can see the changes are not linear and you can't just slide rule them. Even if you could, you still talking track not the street where one wheel could be 1 inch up and the other 1 inch in a hole. The max amount of movement with the minimal amount of suspension weight, with the minimal amount of negative suspension changes are ideal. This can't happen with the stock suspension -1.5 inches of its 5 inch total movement, I'm just talking movement, not the weird bump steer that happens when the arms go 4 inches above even on a hard turn with a bump. At that point the wheel has so much camber that maybe 1 inch is still in any meaningful contact with the ground.
Lets go one step further, lets talk a pretend GTI, 17, factory sports suspension. Say the car on a smooth surface corners at .79g. How much better will it be with say some coil overs 1.5 inches, f & R sway bar and the same OEM wheels and tires? If you say .81g I'd say try .77 or worst. Same setup add 1 inch undulations on the pad, stock maybe at .70, performance maybe .65g.
What you say, customers toss this setup on all the time OEM tire, they come back talking about curves they took at 40 mph, they can now take at 65 MPH, you are wrong!
Well they have a false feeling of performance cause the large F&R bars make the car handle flatter at the expense of... yep * GRIP *. In all probability the new performance suspension added NO increase in lateral G, in all probability there is a decrease. Body lean is decreased, turn in is enhanced, feel is enhanced and maybe even balanced is enhanced (don’t see how with a larger Front Sway Bar), but lateral G is about the same or could be drastically worst. Hence the driver is just encouraged to eat up the safety envelope of the stock suspension so he can _ feel _ like he is in control, but in reality based on physics and suspension engineering he is just getting closer to out of control. While the stock suspension at least gave some warning of body lean, and was designed for undresteer, this new “performance suspension” gives the drive no inkling of impending disaster. The ““performance suspension” sure feels like it is working till you skid off the road and land shinny side down in the ditch. Repeat same scenerio 100 times every day in the USofA.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*

Need to get something out of the way first.
I've said this about a hundred times, but it gets ignored every time I say it.
Let me try again.
*A-arm's parallel to the ground is not actually the point of no return on the camber curve. *
Instead the point at which the *A-arms are perpendicular to the line between the ball joint and 
the top of the strut* is where the camber curve goes completely flat. (meaning crosses
over from increasing negative camber, to increasing positive camber)
When the A-arms are parallel or below (higher at the inboard mount), 
all it means is you're still on the increasing negative camber side of the curve.
This diagram is going to seem sorta odd at first.








Let me explain
Center of the circle is the inner A-arm attachment point.
Other end of the line from the center, is the ball joint.
The top of the red line up and to the left of that, is the top
of the strut. The long red line is always parallel to the short red line in
each of the 3 scenarios so as to magnify the change in angle. 
The position of those three points and the distance of the lines
between them, define the camber curve. The tricky bit is that
the length of the one from the top of strut to ball joint changes length
under compression, which is why the camber curve is not a pure sine. 
What the diagram shows, is A-arm below perpendicular, then perpendicular, then
above perpendicular, and the resulting camber change. The little yellow highlighted area
shows the effect of the camber change. 
Furthermore, notice that "parallel A-arms" would fall somewhere between
the first and second parts of the diagram. That point is not special in any
real meaningful way.

_Quote »_
One thing though, it's NOT just the
parallel arms that indicates the roll center, the mounting point makes a difference too. 


So yes, it's the mounting point of the top of the strut that's the other relevent factor. 
The more inboard it is relative to the ball joint, the greater the angle from vertical
and thus the greater the angle of the A-arm can be before it goes perpendicular.
The length of the lower arm also controls how fast the camber changes.
The M3's top strut mount, is more inboard then either the Mk3 or Mk4 Vdubs. 
Known measurments for angle from vertical of the strut top to ball joint, and A-arm lengths are:
17 degrees for an e36 318ti (should share same e36 front end with M3), and A-arm is 12.5" long
10 degrees for a Mk3 GTI and A-arm is 15" long
14 degrees for a Mk4 1.8T GTI and A-arm is 15" long
What it means in practical terms is that ball joint needs to be:
roughly (I say roughly because I'm ignoring "the tricky bit" above)
2.5 inches higher than the inner A-arm attachment point on the Mk3
3.5 inches higher for a Mk4 
and 3.6 inches higher for the e36
to go perpendicular.
That'd seem to favor the Mk4 over the Mk3, by an inch. 
Problem is, VW engineers have already taken that inch from you, by lowering 
the car from the factory, so at stock ride height the Mk3 and Mk4 both have
about 14 degrees (or 3.6 inches of compression) before they 
hit positive camber. No advantage to either, unless you felt like
raising the Mk4 from stock.
But the goal here, isn't to see how far we can lower the suspension until we run 
out of induced negative camber. The goal is to retain enough height, 
that you never start losing negative camber during compression, better still if
you can keep it on the part of the camber curve where it's actually changing
rather than getting stuck in the flat part, because the demand for negative
camber goes up the harder the car is cornering. If you take your car 
and lower it an inch, now it only takes 2.6 inches of compression before you 
start going more positive (or more accurately, where you start losing
the negative camber you gained), and if you happen to be leaned over hard
that's a bad time for that to start happening. 
Your options then are 
1. Don't lower it so much to start with.
2. Lower it, and use moderately higher spring rates, and a big front sway bar to 
limit max suspension compression, to keep you out of the bad area. Front sway bar is
not a panacea though. It has known negative side effects.
3. Lower it, and use much higher spring rates to limit the amount of compression. (hurts the ride)
4. Any of the above options + a bunch of static negative camber (fine if you spend most of your time
on twisty roads like me). This does have a downside, which is that the static negative camber
hurts you on the inside front tire while cornering.
Notice options 2 and 3 rely on limiting the compression to keep you out of trouble,
but that also means the suspension effectively has less travel, with the resulting
downsides that creates in terms of the suspension simply not being able to deal
with real world sized bumps, particularly combined with hard cornering. 
Also, because of the roll center problem (which can't be ignored), any lowering at all,
causes an increased tendency for the car to lean. So not only do you have
to user higher rate springs to limit compression to avoid the bad part of the camber curve,
you need em higher still, to counter the fact that the roll center change is going
to cause even *more* compression while cornering than if it weren't lowered at all.
ian


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Hey man, I had more respect for you to see that weak argument.

Oh well.

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_None of Bilstein race stuff works on the street though, but you're using Bilstein HDs aren't you?

Yup - based on experience using Bilstein shocks (prior to using Shine stuff), the fact that they are extremely reliable, and because I don't need adjustable dampers. There are other decent dampers out there, but I just went with what I knew worked well.

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Now, the question is what the customer wants! Because companies deliver what WE want. If people only care for looks and slammed cars and no performance, then they deliver what's asked for. 

Of course. Marketing 101. Know your target market.


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_... and it's not only ONE knowledgeable street suspension company out there, that's all! 

No one said there was only one knowledgeable street suspension company










_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 9:50 AM 11-24-2003_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*

100% correct. I'm sure the parallel control arm description arose from a quick way to run out to the parking lot to see if your shiny new suspension dropped you too far. _"Approximately"_ parallel control arms would be a better way to state this quick check - At least for the MKI/II/III B3/4 chassis. Not sure about the MKIV.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (f1forkvr6)*

Um ok, I’ve whipped out my suspension calculator plug in the numbers for my MK4 setup, I’m sure I screwed up somewhere but anyway.
Start -2.00 static camber, parallel arms I want to find out how much body roll and how much suspension compression does it take for camber on the loaded rim to go positive:
3.0 degrees of roll and .83 inch of spring compression
For 1 inch drop: 2.8 degrees of body roll and .78 inch of spring compression
For 2 inch drop 2.60 degrees body roll and a .73 inch of spring compression
Surprisingly linear numbers, there is about 7% greater camber change to the positive per each delta of movement for each quantized inch of drop of suspension. Clearly showing that only marginally tighter springs would be needed to keep drop suspension camber change in check, which is contrary to my mind.








I would also note that .83 of and inch for 5 inches of stock suspension give lots of freedom for movement compromises and saftey. While the .73 inch of movement on a 3 inch total movement drop suspension is deep into the complete movement of the suspension. 

Oh well, still does not address things like roll angle, bump steer, weight transfer, castor angle.










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 6:56 AM 11-25-2003_


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (oldmanTDI)*

oldmanTDI.. 
I'm not sure I'm following your numbers exactly.
Are you trying to see at what point the outside front tire goes from leaning inward
to leaning outwards relative to the *ground*, as in my photo on the last page of the thread? 
Was that 3 degrees of body roll (which induces it's own compression ) plus .83 inches 
of additional spring compression, or .83 inches total compression at the outside? You can't 
get 3 degrees of roll with it only .78 inches of compression. 
At it's very simplest 3 degrees of roll over the width of the car (don't have exact number handy,
but it's about 60 inches) requires either one side be raised, or lowered 3.1 inches, or each 
side share some of that.. (like 1.5" per side.. one up, one down)
Also, you say, it's not much of the 5 inches of travel, but is that 5 inches
total, or 5 inches of compression available from stock ride height? I don't
think I've seen that much available from the damper with the weight
of the car on the springs. 
And can you use it up, without bumps? Certainly.
The photo I posted before was actually 3 wheeling while on the gas.
This one is doing it under full braking. 








Notice one downside to having -1.8 degrees of negative camber. Look at the inside
front tire. Can see light under 2/3rds of the tread. 
BTW, a Full Shine car wouldn't hike over this much, nor would most of
the BFSB Auto-X cars, although I've seen more dramatic displays from
the likes of Honda CRX's and such.
You can see there, the outside front tire is tucked up into the fender. Not much left 
there, and any negative camber I had relative to the ground, is gone. Not to mention that 
the tire's sidewalls are rolled over. When you're rolled over cornering at the limit, you
don't want just 0 camber relative to the ground. You want some negative camber
to offset the deformation of the tire, so the tread is flat to the ground. This is why competition Auto-X 
tires like the R1 build the negative camber into the tire itself. Hardcore Auto-X'ers in G-stock run R1's 
plus nearly 3 degrees of negative camber. Believe me when I say the car *stands*
on the outside front tire. 
Add to all this talk of camber, what we know about the roll center. You can increase
the spring rate to try to keep from bottoming out due to the lowering, but 
you've got to increase it even more to account for the fact that the car wants to lean
over more, the further you lower the roll center below the CG.
ian


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*

OK I found the problem on the spring compresion, I used a Mustang Strut suspension and forgot to move the spring pickups (which are located on the arm on a Mustang), so yea there is going to be significantly more compresion on the spring say 50% to 75% more, this should not effect roll angle and the camber change of the loaded rim. This would also mean that you would need say a 12% stiffer spring for each inch of drop or 24% for a 2 inch drop, sounds much better. Meaning a VR6 sports rate spring at stock height would give about the same camber change as a Shine rate spring at 2" down. In the real world that would mean to get the same performance from a drop suspension as a stock sports suspension, you would have to have a Shine ride for the drop suspension, all other parameters held constant.








I agree we are looking at only one parameter, I thought I would be cool to check how camber changes in relation to roll, which requires a computer, or a lot of free time.
I'll try to recalculate, anybody esle have a useful model?










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 3:29 PM 11-25-2003_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*

double post


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (oldmanTDI)*

Ian, are those the Azenis (on the picture above) and what was the tire pressure in the fronts? Thanks...


----------



## TorontoCorrado (Jan 27, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (oldmanTDI)*

OldmanTDI:
What program are you using to calculate your roll and camber bump?? I have a Reynard program but it doesn't work really well with Macpherson struts... only wishbones etc...
Mike


----------



## TorontoCorrado (Jan 27, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_oldmanTDI.. 
You want some negative camber
to offset the deformation of the tire, so the tread is flat to the ground. This is why competition Auto-X tires like the R1 build the negative camber into the tire itself. Hardcore Auto-X'ers in G-stock run R1's plus nearly 3 degrees of negative camber. Believe me when I say the car *stands*
on the outside front tire. 


Actually, I don't think the tire supplier's build negative camber into the tire itself. What they do set when developing a tire is "camber thrust" in which a series of tests are conducted to establish lateral forces produced by the tire at various given camber angles. This is tested on a flat track and tire molds are tweaked until the OE targets are met for whatever application it's for. 
Just some FYI...
Mikey


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (TorontoCorrado)*

While not "creating" real camber, IIRC the old Comp T/A-R1s did have asymmetric carcass construction. This allowed camber challenged cars to achieve greater lateral grip - kind of a pseudo camber effect.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Ian, are those the Azenis (on the picture above) and what was the tire pressure in the fronts? Thanks...

No, those were Dunlop sp8k's, and I was running close to 45psi in the front.
The Azenis have stiffer sidewalls. For Azenis I wouldn't go more than 40psi. 
With my sp8k's I found that they achieved the best balance of grip and
sidewall stiffness above 40psi. The Azenis do the more traditional "lower pressure
is grippier, higher is slipperier" thing, and the stiff sidewalls keep them
from rolling over at lower pressures On the street, I run 38psi all around
in the Azenis, and if I want the rear looser, I raise it, stickier, I lower it.
The event pictured above, was one of the very few I ran after I put
the Peloquin diff in (which bumps me out of the more entertaining ST class into SM or SP),
and then the supercharger put me in SM, where I can't compete at all with
some of the monsters there. I haven't Auto-X'ed much since then. 
5-10k max out of a set of Azenis though means I'm making the
most of them on the street though.
ian


----------



## TorontoCorrado (Jan 27, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_While not "creating" real camber, IIRC the old Comp T/A-R1s did have asymmetric carcass construction. This allowed camber challenged cars to achieve greater lateral grip - kind of a pseudo camber effect.

like I was saying, tire suppliers set "camber thrust" which is how much lateral force a tire can generate for a given camber setting from 0deg-12deg (usually) and this is accomplished by mold tweaking, ply orientation, rubber compounds, aspect ratios and tire pressures.
Mikey


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (TorontoCorrado)*

from performance tuner, roll center calculator V1.1C has struts so your be OK, oh yea like $70.00 too.
http://www.performancetrends.com/SuspAnzr.htm
This and cartest drag software which is free in the dos version are two great programs.
http://www.cartestsoftware.com....html
don't play with them too long, you can lose sleep, loved ones, etc.










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 3:51 AM 11-26-2003_


----------



## TorontoCorrado (Jan 27, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (oldmanTDI)*

thanks for the links oldmanTDI!


----------



## PhOO (May 23, 2000)

*Re: traction problem (TorontoCorrado)*

im running eibach prokit springs now and my control arms point upwards. has anyone else had this problem with eibach springs?


----------



## andrew1984 (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (PhOO)*

so stock ride height is optimal for MK2?


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: traction problem (andrew1984)*


_Quote, originally posted by *andrew1984* »_so stock ride height is optimal for MK2?

Stock or very close to it is correct (for optimal handling).


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: traction problem (briang)*

Hey Guys let me throw something out there...
We would be happy to put together a test out of various Golf IV suspension setups out at Tire Rack's facilities. I'm sure we can get enough cars with different suspension setups to draw at least a few conclusions. We'll setup up the time with Tire Rack and cover the insurance issues, we just need to come up with a plan and get it together in the next month or two.
While we can certainly debunk a few myths I think the reality is that a BIG portion of the people out there modding cars don't care - they want the car lowered for looks and in general it "feels' like it is handling substantially better than stock (because they are driving them on the street and not on the track at 9/10th 10/10th.
Let me know your thoughts... this is a good discussion.
-jamie


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (vwvortex1)*

Yes!


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (vwvortex1)*

I hope it'll be more successful than the last time this was tried ... 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=703998
Maybe you can contact Dick and see if the magazine that was going to cover this initially would still be interested in doing a story. It would be good press for the suspension manufacturers and the TireRack.
Good luck and keep us posted http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: traction problem (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_I hope it'll be more successful than the last time this was tried ... 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=703998
Maybe you can contact Dick and see if the magazine that was going to cover this initially would still be interested in doing a story. It would be good press for the suspension manufacturers and the TireRack.
Good luck and keep us posted http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Wasn't Grassroots Motorsprts (GSM) going to cover this event? I know Tire Rack advertises in tha Mag.


----------



## Carbon1.8T (Jul 5, 2002)

*Re: Suspension Software (oldmanTDI)*

hmmm, this may be long...
I have been lurking and reading this thread for a bit and thought I'd add some of my own thoughts. I am part of the Formula SAE racecar team at Cornell University and designed the suspension for the upcoming 2004 car. You can check out the car and the team through the link in my signature, but the short of it is we build a single seater, motorcylce-engined powered 450 lbs car to compete in low speed autocrosses, SOLO II style. We design a double a-arm suspension all around with pull/push rod actuated coilovers like F1, CART and IRL.
Anyways, I have experience with suspension software like Mitchell's By the Numbers and Performance Trend's Suspension Analyzer. If you guys can get me coordinates of all the pertinent suspension points (ball joint, two a-arm points, upper damper/spring mount) I can put the car through any combination roll, dive and steer and get the camber output and make curves that are all pretty. This can't tell us the whole story as there are compliances to deal with, but we can see how lowering moves the roll center and such.
As part of being sponsored by Performance Trends (they gave us their software in exchange for suspension data from two cars) we measured the points of a 99 Mustang GT and a Saturn and entered them into the software and sent the data to Performance Trends. The Mustang was lowered a good amount and after entering the points, the roll center was well below ground. I simulated raising it back to stock ride height and saw the roll center moved at least twice that of the body (and thus CG). It has macphersons up front like the MkIV, so I'd like to get Jetta data into it and see how bad our roll center moves around. I would have measured my 02 Jetta but it has a stoopid semi-independent torison beam axle that the software couldn't analyze







. I would measure these points myself, but I am at school, with no garage, finals and a racecar to build.
So let me know if you have points, measure to the middle of the joint and I can work some magic. About the suspension shootout, shouldn't you reduce variables like keep the same car or at least tires, wheels, engine, mods, so times are directly comparable.
I am waiting for my warranty to go away and my car to be paid off before I get new springs and dampers, but these points would really help me figure out the ride height I want. But for now I'll just have to drive my 90 hp, 620 lb (with me) racecar


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (briang)*


_Quote, originally posted by *briang* »_
Wasn't Grassroots Motorsprts (GSM) going to cover this event? I know Tire Rack advertises in tha Mag.

Magazine was never named .... just wishful thinking on our part.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Suspension Software (Carbon1.8T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Carbon1.8T* »_About the suspension shootout, shouldn't you reduce variables like keep the same car or at least tires, wheels, engine, mods, so times are directly comparable.

As important, the same driver should be used for ALL objectively measured tests. Preferrably a driver with no dog in the fight.


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: traction problem (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
Magazine was never named .... just wishful thinking on our part.

Oh,


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Suspension Software (Carbon1.8T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Carbon1.8T* »_
So let me know if you have points, measure to the middle of the joint and I can work some magic. 


Mk3 GTI-VR6 Lowered 1"
Ball joint and inner A-arm pivot are both 6.25" from ground
Length of lower A-arm is 15" 
Length of strut is 25.1 inches
Position of top of strut relative to the ball joint is 
24.75 inches up and 4.5 inches inward. 
Stock Mk4 1.8t (before 337/20AE lowered it)
Length of lower A-arm is 15" 
Length of strut(measurment from Ball joint to strut cup) is 26.75 inches
Position of top of strut relative to the ball joint is 26.75" up and 6 3/4" inward
Billy didn't give the height of the center of the ball joint from the ground. Assume it's the same.

_Quote »_
About the suspension shootout, shouldn't you reduce variables like keep the same car or at least tires, wheels, engine, mods, so times are directly comparable.


You can keep throwing more and more restrictions on it until it becomes truly impossible to compare, because
there are just too many uncontrolled variables. That's called the real world. 
That's the easy way out. 
If this is going to happen, it's just going to have to happen. Less talk, more action. 
I do think the cars should use the same tires (one reason for doing it at the Tirerack). 
I agree that having the same driver for all the tests would be good, except they should be 
so good (read.. a professional) that they know how to maximize each suspension's strengths 
and adjust tire pressures to suit them and such. Another approach would be to let the owners 
of the respective cars make a run or two to dial it in with the test tires, and then let the professional 
driver at em. Fun to let folks see how they stack up to a professional as well.
All this depends on what you're trying to demonstrate too. If it's just about deciding 
what the effects of lowering are then I'd take two Mk3 GTI-VR6's (because they have adjustable camber)
each running say.. H&R Coilovers (one Dune buggy setup at stock height), and the other at the usual 
40+mm drop. Maybe throw a Shine car into the mix (to see how it stacks up again a Coilover car which typically
has higher spring rates). All aligned to the same static camber, (or whatever 
the owner thinks gives them the best advantage) and go for it. 
Otherwise, the way to to run it is to simply gather a *large* sampling of cars run em all, and then sort out 
the results later and let folks draw their own conclusions. With enough cars, you'll start to see 
distinct trends even if there are some higher performers. 
The only real downside to the Tirerack testing facility is that the whole track is shorter than an Auto-X
course. We're talking 30 second runs. If you're going to do it, at least make it the total of 
2 or 3 consecutive laps. Typical road courses tend to run about 1:30 so 3 laps in a row on the Tire Rack's
track will magnify the difference in performance enough to be meaningful. On a 30 second course, a 
missed shift can cost you a second. 
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Suspension Software (Daemon42)*

In can only think of two "semi" fair ways to conduct a test. 
1. Have one car, install suspensions and test it with same wheels/tires by at least 3 drivers and combine the results to get an aggregate.
2. Ask the manufacturers to bring their BEST handling setup to the test and see which one comes on top.
I personally prefer number 1, although it requires much more work at the test. But that's how tirerack has done their own tests of H&R/Eibach, or Koni/Stock shocks.


----------



## Dubhaus Tuning (Apr 11, 2002)

*Re: Suspension Software (alexb75)*

In my old 87 16v Scirocco, I had Boge Turbos at all corners with Neuspeed Race springs, Neuspeed Upper strut brace and Eurosport rear strut brace. No sway bars other than stock. The car handled very well in the back road twisties at very high rates of speed, but handled like d!ck on the highway at high speeds bobbing and weeving. What gives? Very stiff when hitting a pot hole, but would keep bouncing front to back a 1/4 mile down the road after going over a speed bump.







For the record, I bought the car with this suspension setup on the car.
I currently have a 97 GTI 2.0. I want decent handling, not overly agressive handling, but improved over stock. I also want a lowered look, but don't want to replace CV joints, boots, and axles every 5k miles. My choices are between H&R Cup Kit and Bilstien Sports with H&R Sport springs. I plan on using 17" wheels. Should I invest in a camber kit with the cup kit if I choose that? My friend has the alternative to the cup kit, likes it, but wishes it were lower....







She has the same car, but with 4 doors. Does the cup kit allow the control arms to sit level or down? Too many darn questions!!!!










_Modified by Dubhaus Tuning at 3:57 AM 12-16-2003_


----------



## jhillyer (Feb 17, 2002)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_...
Now to the light wheel, no the damper is not �stronger� the wheel has NO effect on rate of damping. The rate is constant. What will happen is the lighter wheel will have less upward energy and that energy which is damped at a constant rate will stop moving up sooner than a heavy wheel and it will transmit less energy to the body via damper / spring. Result the ride is better, result the tire stays in contact with the road longer, hence performance is better. The lighter wheel will now return to normal height, at the same RATE but since it went up less, it has to go down less: result less work for the damper, less force exerted by spring on wheel, less time of constant rate of exertion. Result: smoother ride, result: tire stays in contact with the road longer, hence performance is better. 
Once again let me make this clear the RATE of work absorbed by the suspension is constant. By changing the wheel to a lighter wheel makes the suspension do less work because the wheel has less energy for any given movement, the rate of energy absorption and dissipation remains constant, the length of time to do the work has to get longer. Meaning in basic terms the heavier wheel will travel further up during a bump and need to travel further down as a corollary effect. ... 
 
Almost entirely so. More wheel mass can cause longer moment in compressing the tire against sharper more transitional bump, where the mass of the wheel through the tire behaves as damper, and where tire design and compression damper + spring determines the rise. A lighter wheel with the same bump _can_ result in more compressive wheel travel in bouncing off the roadway, yet with the same dampers provide quicker wheel return to the roadway. Generally, light wheel + tire and adjustments through tire design, tire pressure, and spring + damper tuning is a good mix. I do clearly see your reasoning of rate and work, given the same roadway scenario -- the same bump at the same attack (moment). 
Variable rate dampers, and rebound adjustment affects: yes, without tuning my dampers, especially rebound, with lighter wheels I get more sudden upward motion, and as I've them tuned now they remain compressed so each rapidly successive impact compounds the compression and the wheel sits higher in the well.
--edit--

_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_...what kind of simple equipment I can buy and put on the shocks as to record aceleration between the two connecting points? Like some sort of very simple photosensor to face each other, placed on both upper and lower part of the shocks, so I can collect some data about linear acceleration (deceleration) on same road, same springs, same speed but different shocks...and most of all, how the graph would variate with applying different rebound on the Konis. Thanks!

That's inertial sensing in multi-G and no cheap hobby, but the solid-state tech has been available to the public for over a decade. Good old Analog Devices, among many, has an inexpensive single-chip solution, but the data acquisition is the costly part. A home PC with a $100 acq. card and freebee software will get you going, pdf
--edit again-- research ultrasonic doppler, may be interesting



_Modified by jhillyer at 9:33 PM 12-15-2003_


----------



## Chapel (Jun 23, 1999)

here is a nice diagram.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (Chapel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Chapel* »_here is a nice diagram.









Yup! Posted a link to the article that contains this diagram very early in this thread ... Page 3, 2nd post. It's a good one to bring back as most folks probably aren't closely reading all 19 pages of this thread. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Nuzzi (Oct 18, 2001)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

just curious, i have a g60 corrado with a vr6 swap, would it be better to install the slc suspension? wider is better right? the longer control arms would allow for better handling when lowered right?


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (Nuzzi)*

I can tell you this , my daughters 1993 vr-6 slc i bought her handles like a go kart very neutual and its on stock suspension wish my mk1V would handle like that







p.s. i would bet the perect combo is a 1.8T in one of those things Bob.G


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: Suspension Software (Dubhaus Tuning)*

The dampeners where the problem with the rocco you needed get some koni adjustables . You should contact http://www.srsvw.com/ and talk to him about your current cars suspension , they have all you need to do the system right including camber plates , only thing is they will tell you that going to low will hurt handling Hope this helps







Bob.G


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
Rubbish.
1. Going into positive camber during compression is ALWAYS BAD. If you lower to the point that you start on the flat part of the camber curve (lower A-arm perpendicular to the strut), then any further compression leads you into the bad part of the camber curve. VW engineers can't design that problem away, without changing the pickup points for the A-arm. It's inherent in MacPherson strut design.
2. Moving the roll center further away from the CG will always increase tendency to lean given the same lateral load. The roll center itself, does not need to be measured, or tested. It too is simply calculated based on the geometry of the strut, A-arms and their pickup points. And since it is calculated it's immediately obvious that as you lower the car, the roll center moves down faster than the CG, which means lowering has no positive benefit.
Those two points aren't debateable. Those don't need more study, or tests. 
_Modified by Daemon42 at 6:51 PM 11-22-2003_

I am still having a problem with this, both scientifically and based on intuitive knowledge. You've reduced the entire question of Mac Strut handling to 2 properties and 2 dynamics, which as you said are both deduced geometrically and don't need tables of observed data to 'prove' them. 
But there has to be more to handling than this. Weight transfer is one main thing not being discussed here, and c of g height has to play a main role in that. The only 'roll' you are considering is the rotation of the c of g about the roll centre, but the vehicle also tends to rotate in some way about the outer contact patch, which acts as a fulcrum. Even if the car is at stock height or higher and the roll couple is optimized, the car still has a tendency to want to lean about the contact patch and the driver can surely feel this. And it has to be exacerbated by a higher centre of gravity, does it not? Ultimately this is why Troopers and Broncos like to flip, and I'm sure even with stiffer springs, their combination of c of g height plus track width contributes to a tendency to roll. It's just that this kind of 'roll' is different than the one this entire thread has been focusing on. 
Or so I think. Can anybody correct me?


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: traction problem (Mr Black)*

I have *not* reduced it *all* to two properties and two dynamics. You're
taking my statements out of a very specific context (the exact negative effects
of lowering on the MacPherson strut suspension), and putting them
into a very much larger context (everything that defines the "handling" of a car). 
Yes there are plenty of other factors including the tires grip, sidewall stiffness, static negative camber, 
the rate of the springs, the rebound damping (which plays a greater roll in steering feel 
than compression damping) and so on. What I am saying is that lowering MacPherson 
struts produces no positive benefits at all and at some point does very noticeable harm. You may 
be able to compensate for the negative side effects by improving all the other things (increase the 
spring rates, increase the rebound damping, add some sticky tires with stiff sidewalls, maybe 
a sway bar or two.. etc), but doing all those things and *not* lowering the car will *still* 
be better. If you want to lower it properly, then get drop spindles or equivalent. 
For instance, the MkIV based R32 appears to use TT A-arms, and completely
different front hubs from the GTI with with a lower attachment point for the ball joint , 
and even with an inch of lowering, its A-arms are level. Lower a GTI 1.8T and the same 
can not be said. 
More than a couple people have come here in the last year and said
either in this forum, or to me personally
"I was skeptical, but decided to try raising my coilover equipped suspension
and the handling has improved dramatically." One very recently. Perhaps
he'll chime in soon.
That, right there is what I consider to be the the very simplest, and most objective test. 
Keeping essentially all other things equal, they raise the car 15-25mm and see a marked 
improvement. 
As for rolling over the edge of the contact patch. 
That's mainly a function of the tire. 
What you feel most in normal cornering *is* the car rolling around the roll center (which I'll
get back to in a sec). But at the very limits of adhesion or with crappy or underinflated tires, you 
will feel it rolling  onto the sidewall. When I switched from the original Goodyear Eagles to Dunlop 
SP4000's I saw an improvement in sidewall stiffness and less roll.. again from SP4's to SP8k's but the 
most dramatic was going from sp8k's to my current Falken Azenis Sports which have the stiffest
sidewall of any tire I've ever run. There was a noticeable reduction in body roll. But the CG height
of the car has very little effect on how much the sidewalls roll over. It does play a large role
in how likely the car is to flip over on its head *after* the sidewalls have collapsed
but that's not something any of us realistically have to worry about.
But let's take the tires out of the equation. The're just the last thing in the chain so
they only compound any other suspension traits. Good tires can make a bad suspension
better, but they also make a good suspension better too. If the tires have infinite sidewall stiffness, 
then all that's left is 1. the car rolling around the roll center, which ultimately affects the angle the tire
meets the ground and 2. the camber curve under compression which normally is meant to
counteract the negative effects of #1. And the geometry of MacPherson struts says that
if you lower the chassis without changing the pickup points, then the roll center
lowers faster than the CG, and the tendency of the car to roll is defined very simply
by the lateral force applied at a right angle to lever arm defined by the
two points at the CG and roll center with the force applied at the CG. So the further
they are away from each other (given the same spring rates) the further the car
leans over given identical lateral loading. And while lowering often gives you a bit more
static negative camber (only way to do it on the MkIV chassis), it also puts you
further along the camber curve where it changes less and less quickly, 
so that any additional suspension compression produces proportionally less and less 
additional negative camber.
So you've got a car that wants to lean over *more*, but is able to counteract
it with added negative camber *less*. With an inch of lowering, you can fix that
with good springs, dampers, a rear sway bar. With any more than that, 
you're just fighting a losing battle. And keep in mind, that high rate springs 
are still high rate springs when you're driving straight, so maybe 500lb
springs can compensate for 60mm of lowering when it comes to
cornering, but now you're going going to feel every single bump in the road.
Lastly.. (I know, it's too long already).. The whole idea of the car rolling
around the roll center is inherently *not* intuitive. I still grapple with
getting my mind around it myself. I've got a project on the backburner to
actually model the suspension realtime with a Java applet (something I've
discovered noone else has done, because.. well.. it's not easy)
but it should be fairly obvious when you look at it, that since no part of
the suspended chassis touches the ground, and we know that the suspension 
compresses on the outside, and extends at the inside while cornering, that whatever 
point the car rolls around must be defined by the suspension geometry, and in fact, it is.
It's a virtual point in space, that defines physical behavior based on a couple
very simple rules. That point is the instantaneous roll center. The rules that define the roll 
center are essentially the same for all suspension types, but the different suspension geometries
all cause that point to react in different ways to compression and static lowering.
MacPherson struts just happen to be one of, if not the worse design when it 
comes to static lowering and the effect on the roll center. They're designed around
a specific ride height. 
BTW, that diagram above has been posted a few times. Problem is, it shows "good" (A-arms
above parallel) and "bad" scenarios (parallel), neither of which come close to what we're *actually* seeing people
do with their Vdub suspensions, which starts at what that diagram shows as bad, and ends up
looking something like this








or even worse (blue and green lines.. and lower the CG point a quarter inch too)
ian



_Modified by Daemon42 at 11:57 PM 1-8-2004_


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_I have *not* reduced it *all* to two properties and two dynamics. You're
taking my statements out of a very specific context (the exact negative effects
of lowering on the MacPherson strut suspension), and putting them
into a very much larger context (everything that defines the "handling" of a car). 


Sorry, I overstated my case- what I meant was, these 2 components of Mac strut handling have been the main ones discussed in this forum, and are often presented as the 'whole story', particularly by Mr Shine. I have asked and asked for the kind of further detail that you have now given, and now I am happy and better educated.
Having some physics background, the dynamics of the roll couple and deriving the instant centre make perfect sense to me, it's just that I figured there were other factors being overlooked in the total handling picture. Since you have presented a convincing case that there are not, I'll take it as it is








Don't worry about the long post- it's fascinating stuff and I'm sure most people here are keen to read it!


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_More than a couple people have come here in the last year and said either in this forum, or to me personally "I was skeptical, but decided to try raising my coilover equipped suspension and the handling has improved dramatically." One very recently. Perhaps he'll chime in soon. That, right there is what I consider to be the the very simplest, and most objective test. Keeping essentially all other things equal, they raise the car 15-25mm and see a marked 
improvement. 


Funny as it may sound, I was already planning on doing this. I have Neuspeed Sofsports on order, which will replace my Eibach sportlines. Should raise the ride height about 25mm. 
I am indeed a skeptic, but a healthy one. So while I am keen to try what seems to be based on good theory (and solid testimony), I like to test the theory at the same time.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: traction problem (Mr Black)*

You may find the posts offered by Ceilidh, on pages 5 & 6 of this thread - http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...91751 - interesting.


----------



## georgeblue (Oct 28, 2003)

what is a good drop on an 87 scirocco 16V? 1.5 in. too much? my goal is better handling. lovered cg etc. don't want to spend a G on something that will make it perform not as good as stock config.


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: (georgeblue)*


_Quote, originally posted by *georgeblue* »_what is a good drop on an 87 scirocco 16V? 1.5 in. too much? my goal is better handling. lovered cg etc. don't want to spend a G on something that will make it perform not as good as stock config.

Very little (not more than 0.5") or no lowering is best for a Scirocco. Check out 
http://www.srsvw.com/parts/partdetail.asp?pid=7


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (georgeblue)*


_Quote, originally posted by *georgeblue* »_what is a good drop on an 87 scirocco 16V? 1.5 in. too much? my goal is better handling. lovered cg etc. don't want to spend a G on something that will make it perform not as good as stock config.

I can't believe you would ask this question after 19 pages of detailed explanation


----------



## andrew1984 (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_
I can't believe you would ask this question after 19 pages of detailed explanation


----------



## o2bad455 (Aug 22, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vuu16v)*

Basically, for good camber-change characteristics with the steering wheel straight, you never want the angle formed by the A-arm (actually defined by balljoint center to inner pivots) with the strut to become greater than 90 degrees. 
So, parallel to the ground on an A1/A2 leaves just a liitle more travel in the "good" range for cornering loads. Likewise, just a tad up from parallel is the best you can do for an A4 Golf. 
The BIG problem with the A4 is that moving the upper strut mounting inwards has a *terrible* handling effect as soon as you start turning the steering wheel away from dead-on straight. Since the camber was set with the steering wheel straight, negative camber is lost at a much higher rate as soon as the steering gets turned, often leading to noticeable positive camber on the outer front wheel in a turn. That's bad! 
Thus, IMHO, VW didn't finish thinking through the A4 strut-top mounting location. The A2/A3 will always have a handling advantage over the A4 without serious re-engineering. Likewise, the A1 will have a slight handling advantage over the A2/A3 for a similar reason. 
VW must have finally figured out that they were headed in the wrong direction, as a much better solution is finally supposed to arrive with the A5 chassis, which uses an upper A-arm like most of the Audis.


----------



## Morgan Perez (Apr 29, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*

oldman,
Not to bring this out of the grave, but you are wrong about why ford chose 26PSI for the Ford Explorer.
The inflation pressure was picked so the truck would pass the J-Turn consumers union test.
Ride had nothing to do with it.
At 35PSI the truck would pass every once in a while, but mostly fail. At 26 it would pass the J-Turn test.
A quote from Thomas Baughman:
"We ran the tests, and in really severe maneuvers, emergency lane-change maneuvers, 35PSI is not where you want to go."
Morgan


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (AceFreedom)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AceFreedom* »_Would a 2" front and 1.7" rear be too much for a mkIII jetta.

If your priority is handling -- *YES*


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (AceFreedom)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AceFreedom* »_Well I do like the looks of a nicely dropped jetta, but I do want to be able to handle better than stock. The cupkit does increase handling capabilities, mostly because I dont drive in the 8-9-10/10ths range most of the time, the handling for that low wouldn't be that much of a sacrifice. Because it does sit like a 4X4, the drop would be a good change, and the stability increased even though it doesn't handle like a pro...am I correct?

Hey dude, if you like the looks of those Jettas, then GO GET A RIDE IN THEM, see if you like the handling. If you do, BUY IT and don't ask around here since you know what answer you'll get. 
The amount of handling improvement you need is ONLY and I mean *ONLY* determined by  YOU . 
Instead of spending the time here asking people after reading 19 pages, go get a ride in one and choose what you like the best "FOR YOU". I spent a year on vortex and bought setups that X and Y and Z liked or sweared by and ended up losing $$$$$$$ since what X liked "I HATED" and what was the best handling setup for Y, "was not a good handling setup for me" and what Z won Auto crosses with, lost me my kidneys










_Modified by alexb75 at 1:01 AM 2-6-2004_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Instead of spending the time here asking people after reading 19 pages ... 

The point was, he didn't - or didn't ask clarifying questions for the points that weren't clear. You have offered some very good and practical advice for anyone trying to choose the suspension that fits them the best - DRIVE AS MANY ALTERNATIVE SUSPENSION PACKAGES AS YOU CAN (or make sure you can try for a limited period of time and send the kit back if yo don't like it) - witness Pyce's adventure in the  "other long" suspension thread.
BTW, we aren't all militants around here - _this_ thread focuses predominantly on handling, and the affects on handling that lowering the VW chassis has. There is nothing wrong with wanting a lower ride height for appearance purposes ... It's a perfectly valid priority. BUT, it is not the best solution for _handling_, and may actually _decrease_ handling ability, as some folks have found out *after* lowering their cars.
So, AceFreedom, instead of jumping from one quick conclusion to another, ask some more questions -- *after really reading* the information contained in this thread. Folks are willing to help around here, and there are many, smarter than I am, who have added a bunch of excellent information to this thread.


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 8:31 AM 2-6-2004_


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

Come on guys, cut him some slack. His question is will a Cup-kit equipped Jetta handle better than stock, and quite honestly we all know it will, due to the higher rate springs and higher quality dampers. 
Would those same springs and dampers be even _better_ at stock ride height? Yes. It's a trade off, and i think he understands that.


----------



## improvius (Mar 6, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Mr Black)*

*sigh*
Ok, I've been going over these threads trying to figure out what to do for my 2001 GTI 1.8T. My priorities are:
1) Performance (60%)
2) Comfort (40%)
3) Looks - I don't care. My car is a gorgeous Green Rave and will look great no matter how low/high it is.
Also, I live in Rochester, NY, so I have to drive on crappy roads and plenty of snow in the winter.
Summer tires are 225/50/R16 Eagle F1 GS-D3, on fairly light (16.5 lbs) Motegi wheels.
Winter tires are 195/65/R15 Dunlop M3 Winter Sport on stock Asus wheels.
I was looking at Eibach Prosystem, but after reading all this stuff about lowering/not lowering, I have just about decided to go with SofSports and Bilstein HDs. Plus, I can get the SofSports for only $100 right now. And I'll probably get some sort of RSB as well. So does this seem like a good plan? Or have I learned nothing from all of these posts?
-Imp


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (improvius)*


_Quote, originally posted by *improvius* »_*sigh*
I was looking at Eibach Prosystem, but after reading all this stuff about lowering/not lowering, I have just about decided to go with SofSports and Bilstein HDs. Plus, I can get the SofSports for only $100 right now. And I'll probably get some sort of RSB as well. So does this seem like a good plan? 

Sounds like a good plan. And yes, you'll probably want the RSB.
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
The point was, he didn't - or didn't ask clarifying questions for the points that weren't clear. You have offered some very good and practical advice for anyone trying to choose the suspension that fits them the best - DRIVE AS MANY ALTERNATIVE SUSPENSION PACKAGES AS YOU CAN (or make sure you can try for a limited period of time and send the kit back if yo don't like it) - witness Pyce's adventure in the  "other long" suspension thread.
BTW, we aren't all militants around here - _this_ thread focuses predominantly on handling, and the affects on handling that lowering the VW chassis has. There is nothing wrong with wanting a lower ride height for appearance purposes ... It's a perfectly valid priority. BUT, it is not the best solution for _handling_, and may actually _decrease_ handling ability, as some folks have found out *after* lowering their cars.
So, AceFreedom, instead of jumping from one quick conclusion to another, ask some more questions -- *after really reading* the information contained in this thread. Folks are willing to help around here, and there are many, smarter than I am, who have added a bunch of excellent information to this thread.

_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 8:31 AM 2-6-2004_

The point is that most of the handling improvement that people talk about is SUBJECTIVE. Just a little less body roll is all what "some" people need. Some need more. 
AceFreedom, I can tell you from personal experience with H&R cupkit, that it "DEFINATELY" handles better than stock no matter who else says what. Now, the handling improvement over stock was not big enough "FOR ME", so I changed it, but it might be good enough for you... so try riding in one for as long as you can (one drive around the block doesn't help that much) and then decide.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (improvius)*


_Quote, originally posted by *improvius* »_*sigh*
Ok, I've been going over these threads trying to figure out what to do for my 2001 GTI 1.8T. My priorities are:
1) Performance (60%)
2) Comfort (40%)
3) Looks - I don't care. My car is a gorgeous Green Rave and will look great no matter how low/high it is.
Also, I live in Rochester, NY, so I have to drive on crappy roads and plenty of snow in the winter.
Summer tires are 225/50/R16 Eagle F1 GS-D3, on fairly light (16.5 lbs) Motegi wheels.
Winter tires are 195/65/R15 Dunlop M3 Winter Sport on stock Asus wheels.
I was looking at Eibach Prosystem, but after reading all this stuff about lowering/not lowering, I have just about decided to go with SofSports and Bilstein HDs. Plus, I can get the SofSports for only $100 right now. And I'll probably get some sort of RSB as well. So does this seem like a good plan? Or have I learned nothing from all of these posts?
-Imp

Well, read the other thread about Prokit! 
Sofsport/Bilstein HD setup is great in terms of handling. However, that setup with Bilstein HD will NOT be comfortable AT ALL. Based on your priorities, a Prokit set (with its own dampers) matched with a nice RSB (25 or 28mm) would be probably what that can satisfy you the best. Now, as I mentioned earlier, NO ONE can tell you if what I suggest or someone else suggests is good for you, but "YOU"... so if you get a chance get a ride in one and see for yourself. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## improvius (Mar 6, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Well, read the other thread about Prokit! 
Sofsport/Bilstein HD setup is great in terms of handling. However, that setup with Bilstein HD will NOT be comfortable AT ALL. 

Really? Others seem to think it is.
mtn.bora:_I was expecting it to be way harsh, but it is not... I took my wife for a ride and she didn't seem overly concerned about the stiffness_
phatvw:_I think the last few days of hard driving have softened up the BIlsteins a little bit. Comments from passengers were along the following lines:
"... its definitely stiffer, but not uncomfortable. Just feels like a sports car thats all."_
Not trying to be argumentative. I've jsut been looking at a lot of threads on this, and as far as I can tell everyone with this setup seems pretty happy with it.
-Imp


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (improvius)*


_Quote, originally posted by *improvius* »_
Really? Others seem to think it is.
mtn.bora:_I was expecting it to be way harsh, but it is not... I took my wife for a ride and she didn't seem overly concerned about the stiffness_
phatvw:_I think the last few days of hard driving have softened up the BIlsteins a little bit. Comments from passengers were along the following lines:
"... its definitely stiffer, but not uncomfortable. Just feels like a sports car thats all."_
Not trying to be argumentative. I've jsut been looking at a lot of threads on this, and as far as I can tell everyone with this setup seems pretty happy with it.
-Imp

Hey man, that's exactly what I listened to and ended up buying 3 different suspensions and I am in the process of one more. What's comfy for X and Y maybe too harsh for you, that's why I suggested to take a ride in one! Bilstein is known for harsh riding, just read the "pyce thread" http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?&id=1124933 and you'll see. 
I have Bilstein sport which is exact same valving as HD and it's not comfy for me. BTW, I am on Pirelli Pzero Nero (Max performance) 225/45/17 tires, those other people maybe on softer sidewall all-season or higher profile tires set at 26 PSI. 
Bottom line, this is all "MY" or "OTHERS" *impressions*... doesn't say anything about how does it feel for you. Ride is the most subjective characteristic of a suspension. I'll end this discussion here since it's all up to you now. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

people were saying that the SofSport/Bilstein HD was rough, how about SofSport/Bilstein Sports?
I have that set on my car, with Neuspeed sways and a strut tower brace. handles quite well, and with the kinda worn out front strut tower bushings and the 215/40-ZR-16's the car looks pretty even and the fendergap aint bad at all.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_His question is will a Cup-kit equipped Jetta handle better than stock, and quite honestly we all know it will, due to the higher rate springs and higher quality dampers.

Sorry, but I disagree. No flame, no criticism, not a ton of experience on my personal vehicles either, but I disagree non-the-less. I've ridden in a lowered vw - suspension kit unknown, and it did not handle better than stock. It was too softly sprung, roll was not controlled, and it bottomed out.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
Sorry, but I disagree. No flame, no criticism, not a ton of experience on my personal vehicles either, but I disagree non-the-less. I've ridden in a lowered vw - suspension kit unknown, and it did not handle better than stock. It was too softly sprung, roll was not controlled, and it bottomed out.

Sorry man, I totally respect you, but may wanna talk about setups you have tried for yourself. I had H&R cupkit, and went back to stock becasue of "THIS THREAD" and there was a significant reduction is handling. Although, H&R Cupkit didn't handle anything close to my current setup (Bilsten sprot+Neuspeed sport), it still outperformed stock BIG TIME. The setup you tried was probably a lowered spring with stock shocks or something like that.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*

Just relaying my limited experiences with lowered VW. Nothing more nothing less. Stock springs and Good shocks would have handled better than the one I had a ride in. Good to have balancing viewpoints, don't you think?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_Just relaying my limited experiences with lowered VW. Nothing more nothing less. Stock springs and Good shocks would have handled better than the one I had a ride in. Good to have balancing viewpoints, don't you think?
















Absolutely! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I also have seen a lot of ****e that just get springs that are lowered. To them lowered springs mean sport~better handling. They still have stock shocks and mostly the shocks are dead already and they think bouncy ride is good since it's "SPORT"


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
They still have stock shocks and mostly the shocks are dead already and they think bouncy ride is good since it's "SPORT"
















ricers too!


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

I happen to have SofSports and Bilstein sports, along with sways and a strut brace....considering people are saying that this setup handles much better than more lowered setups...im kinda curious to drive a car with a cup kit or with coilovers(set low). 
does that who camber issue cause the car to not stick as well, with the front wheels going into positive camber?


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (vr6ofpain)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vr6ofpain* »_
does that who camber issue cause the car to not stick as well, with the front wheels going into positive camber?

Yes. Negative camber keeps more of the tire contact patch on the road as opposed to rolling onto the sidewall.


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (Bora1.8TMan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Bora1.8TMan* »_Also, the Eibach pro kit (1.3") is a slight possibility.
Is it really that much better than the suspension from the 337's or 20th AE's??
Just give me your thoughts, please!!!


Read *Catalytic's *review of the Pro-System (Pro kit springs + matched Eibach dampers) and see for yourself. I think numerous others have been very happy with it too.


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (Mr Black)*

So, after watching this thread for a long time and forming an action plan, I have ditched my Sportlines and installed Neuspeed Sofsports. The car of course looks like a "Jetta Country" now, but it does indeed seem to have noticably less body roll. Since the springs are softer, it also rides a bit more forgivingly. 
A full verdict is tough to give because I'm still on crappy winter tires, need an alignment and one of my rear FK shocks is blown, but the signs are quite encouraging. The car feels lighter on its feet too. 
Bad points? A bit more brake dive, and possibly some lost steering feel, although that could be alignment-related.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_Bad points? A bit more brake dive, and possibly some lost steering feel, although that could be alignment-related. 

Dive and squat are not alignment dependent. Dampers and Springs need to be adjusted to add or diminish dive and squat.


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest they were. The dive is obviously related to the softer springs and is inevitable. I was speculating that the steering feel may be related to alignment. 
If I feel up to it in a few months I may throw on some Bills or Konis. Or maybe the H&R shocks that can now be purchased separately.....


----------



## Das Guy (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: (Mr Black)*

This may have already been brought up but I'm going to be lowering my Mk3 jetta using a cup kit, I know it helps handeling more than stock but it's not optimal, would a camber kit help to gain some of the lost handeling from the a-arms not being parrel







really don't know how they work, so if some one could also tellme that would be awsome. Thanx


----------



## the governor (Jan 24, 2002)

*Re: (StoutGLX)*

yeah Nate a camber kit would help.
a camber kit would allow more of the tire surface to contact the road in the roads, it will negatively affect braking and acceleration due to the smaller contact surface when the wheels are straight but that difference will be hardly noticeable with the few degrees of camber you would run. the camber kit will not reverse the affects of the lowered suspension but will help.
hope that makes sense just got done with work, a little tired.


----------



## Das Guy (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: (tenacious jett)*

thanks Noah, I would rather have a bit more handeling over straight line anyway http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## A3VR6 (Sep 12, 2000)

*Re: (vr6ofpain)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vr6ofpain* »_people were saying that the SofSport/Bilstein HD was rough, how about SofSport/Bilstein Sports?
I have that set on my car, with Neuspeed sways and a strut tower brace. handles quite well, and with the kinda worn out front strut tower bushings and the 215/40-ZR-16's the car looks pretty even and the fendergap aint bad at all.

I'm about to run that same setup







Next week can't come soon enough!
I'll be using the stock sways but have an OMP strut tower brace and will throw in an Autotech front lower stress bar. What part #s are the Bilsteins that you are using? Also, where did you set the rear spring perch at? Thanks for the info!!!










_Modified by A3VR6 at 8:57 PM 2-23-2004_


----------



## HidRo (Sep 19, 2003)

HR cup kit 2" low.is too much!?to stiff!?rides good!?


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (HidRo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *HidRo* »_HR cup kit 2" low.is too much!?to stiff!?rides good!?

This thread is not about giving specific recommendations for specific suspensions.
Don't ask. 
However, I've answered this question in this thread already here:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...29372
That pretty much represents the summary of this whole thing so far.
With some more here.. http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...80686
What you need to do is take this information and make your own choices.
ian


_Modified by Daemon42 at 11:56 AM 2-24-2004_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

I'm on full Shine springs 225 F / 180 R, with shine RSB, I'm on Bilstein TC which seem to be OK for control and I got lots of rolling back roads to really test this. I'm not running any front bar and on my 17x8 superleggeras. 
Let me just say that the stick of the car is beyond what one can use on the street. It is near imposible to break tracktion, not even stupid people tricks gets little more than a slight neutral drift. The lack of front sway bar had very little effect on turn in but there is more lean, I thought this would be a bad thing but it turns out the slight lean tells me the limits I'm reaching and for sure ultimate grip is up compared to the Jetta bar (same size I think as GTI /VR6 front bar). Also the lack of front sway seems to help the tracktion out of a turn, I get less wheel hop and the unloaded tire tends to bite more (yes I know I need a LSD but I'll wait till I get a 6 speed). 
All in all I think you have not lived till you do a full shine with no sway bar. I see Koni front and new bushings (stock strut and poly rear arm) in the near future, and maybe TT spindles (same height but better arm geometry). I going to get the AVS EC100 from dezljet for a few weeks so I can really go crazy....










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 1:04 AM 3-8-2004_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (HidRo)*

bora1.8tman wrote _ Will the difference of 30 mm. to 40 mm. make a huge difference?
Do you have any experience with either suspension (riding or driving) ?? _

the best drop is no drop at all in the front and maybe even TT arms to keep the body height but to drop the arms closer to the ground. The rear you can get away with some drop say upto 1 inch. The is no if 30mm is OK, then 40 mm is only 10mm more so that is ok and 2 inch is on 51 mm so really that is OK too. I just don't understand after all this why one can't understand the stock suspension at least on a MK4 alread has too much drop bone stock.







So there is no well 25 mm is ok, then the next guy says well then 30 mm is ok, then 40 mm then 50 mm.... You got only a few inches of camber and say 3 inches, you take away more than 50% of this and you going to need a spring that is MORE than 50% stronger just to keep some camber and you can't live with a 50% stronger spring. Hence only 10mm can't be done with a liveable spring rate.


_Modified by oldmanTDI at 1:21 AM 3-8-2004_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (alexb75)*

alex75 wrote _
had H&R cupkit, and went back to stock becasue of "THIS THREAD" and there was a significant reduction is handling. Although, H&R Cupkit didn't handle anything close to my current setup (Bilsten sprot+Neuspeed sport), it still outperformed stock BIG TIME. _

alex that is cause stock dampers suck, if you had a set of koni and stock springs it would be much better than most kits. Bone stock sucks the most cause of the poor damper, less so cause the spring, which in some cases can be stiff like the 24V VR6 front spring.
So the question should be would stock springs and a set of Koni perform better than most / all kits and I really think the answer is yes. But if the question is anything with a performance damper better than stock, I would say yes, cause the stock dampers SUCK so bad. 
So yes a cup kit performs better than stock, not cause the spring is stiffer / or about the same as stock, not cause it is lower, but cause a cup kit at least has a damper that is worth something. But I assure you a sports spring OEM MK4 with Koni dampers will be better than most / all kits. A full shine is way better than any kit. Now with drop spindles soon, you can even get some looks too with your Shine, say 1" down in front and 1" down in back yet stock geometry.



_Modified by oldmanTDI at 1:15 AM 3-8-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_
alex that is cause stock dampers suck, if you had a set of koni and stock springs it would be much better than most kits. Bone stock sucks the most cause of the poor damper, less so cause the spring, which in some cases can be stiff like the 24V VR6 front spring.
So the question should be would stock springs and a set of Koni perform better than most / all kits and I really think the answer is yes. But if the question is anything with a performance damper better than stock, I would say yes, cause the stock dampers SUCK so bad. 
So yes a cup kit performs better than stock, not cause the spring is stiffer / or about the same as stock, not cause it is lower, but cause a cup kit at least has a damper that is worth something. But I assure you a sports spring OEM MK4 with Koni dampers will be better than most / all kits. A full shine is way better than any kit. Now with drop spindles soon, you can even get some looks too with your Shine, say 1" down in front and 1" down in back yet stock geometry.


That *could* be the case. My point was that a good moderately lowered aftermarket setup with good shocks is better than stock with stock shocks. From my experience, lowering has exponentical effect, while I cannot see a SIGNIFICANT reduction in handling at 1" lowering, with going to 2" lowering, the effect is noticable. 
In the other thread there's actually a write-up of Stock/Koni setup by Winston which is very interesting http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...ge=13 .


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_alex75 wrote ... if you had a set of koni and stock springs it would be much better than most kits. Bone stock sucks the most cause of the poor damper ... 










_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_So the question should be would stock springs and a set of Koni perform better than most / all kits and I really think the answer is yes.

















_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_So yes a cup kit performs better than stock, not cause the spring is stiffer / or about the same as stock, not cause it is lower, but cause a cup kit at least has a damper that is worth something.

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_A full shine is way better than any kit.























Back to basics .....


----------



## 1.8T-ZRyder (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

Going with the stock sport springs on my Wolf with some Bilsteins or Konis is the way I want to go, then add a rear sway after that. After reading and re-reading, this is the conclusion that I have come to as being the better setup for me. I've had a ton of guys recommend every cup kit under the sun, and I considered the ones with a mild drop just for cost effectiveness, but stock height is where it's at. Low looks good, but so does the front lip on my Jetta.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (1.8T-ZRyder)*

you will be 100% happy with the setup your WE should have the pink/purple 6 coil .500 wire GTI spring in front and the green / green /green /silver 7.25 coil .497wire GTI / Jetta spring rear.
I've gone from OEM VR6 sports suspension springs (blue/blue/white/white 6 coil .513 wire), Bilstein TC, and a homemade RSB, to full shine and yes there is a huge difference. But the last setup was 50% of the way there and it had a * stock * ride. You will be very happy with dampers and a RSB.










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 3:06 PM 3-8-2004_


----------



## BadassVW (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_I'm on full Shine springs 225 F / 180 R, with shine RSB, I'm on Bilstein TC which seem to be OK for control and I got lots of rolling back roads to really test this. I'm not running any front bar and on my 17x8 superleggeras. 
Let me just say that the stick of the car is beyond what one can use on the street. It is near imposible to break tracktion, not even stupid people tricks gets little more than a slight neutral drift. The lack of front sway bar had very little effect on turn in but there is more lean, I thought this would be a bad thing but it turns out the slight lean tells me the limits I'm reaching and for sure ultimate grip is up compared to the Jetta bar (same size I think as GTI /VR6 front bar). Also the lack of front sway seems to help the tracktion out of a turn, I get less wheel hop and the unloaded tire tends to bite more (yes I know I need a LSD but I'll wait till I get a 6 speed). 
All in all I think you have not lived till you do a full shine with no sway bar. I see Koni front and new bushings (stock strut and poly rear arm) in the near future, and maybe TT spindles (same height but better arm geometry). I going to get the AVS EC100 from dezljet for a few weeks so I can really go crazy....








_Modified by oldmanTDI at 1:04 AM 3-8-2004_

I have Neuspeed SofSport's & 28mm RSB w/ Bilstein HD's running on 17x7.5 SSR Comps (~13.5lbs) ...very tight (sharp) for local road conditions, yet liveable







at the track, understeer *when accelerating* is a real PITA. Better tires would help but anyways, question...
With the 24V boat anchor cantilevered out front
...would you recommend removing the front factory sway bar to increase traction? (I'm thinking the nose weight would magnify the lean?)


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (BadassVW)*

I think that the VR6 24V is too heavy for that and the softsports are too soft too (for no FSB). The 24V is a great motor but it limits performance on a FWD IMO. I think your combination is near ideal already. You would need something like a 250 or 300 lbs-in spring to run with no FSB and these will have to be stiff like .590 wire 6 coil. At some point the degration of ride is not worth the performance. Maybe custom coil overs with near stock height and two springs? Say 250 lbs-in and a helper at 75 to 100 lbs inch. 
With all you instant torque you may look into a LSD too.


_Modified by oldmanTDI at 3:16 PM 3-8-2004_


----------



## 1.8T-ZRyder (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

I'm looking at buying a slightly used set of Koni Yellows from a guy on here and more than likely a Neuspeed 28mm bar not long after. I like to do things in stages, if possible, this way I can have referrence points to measure differences. I saw a lot of you going back and forth on the 20th/337 springs. Is the jury still out on those? Reason I'm asking is because I can pick a set up pretty cheap, and maybe couple those with the Konis and the bar...


----------



## BadassVW (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_I think that the VR6 24V is too heavy for that and the softsports are too soft too (for no FSB). The 24V is a great motor but it limits performance on a FWD IMO. I think your combination is near ideal already. You would need something like a 250 or 300 lbs-in spring to run with no FSB and these will have to be stiff like .590 wire 6 coil. At some point the degration of ride is not worth the performance. Maybe custom coil overs with near stock height and two springs? Say 250 lbs-in and a helper at 75 to 100 lbs inch. 
With all you instant torque you may look into a LSD too.

_Modified by oldmanTDI at 3:16 PM 3-8-2004_

Yeah, the VR6 is a "bull in a china shop" http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
I think the LSD is probably my next best move considering design limitations I'm facing. If I was to upgrade the front as you mentioned how much extra should I increase the rear rate? Should I keep the same approx 220/160 ratio??? Thanks for the reply


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (1.8T-ZRyder)*

the dealer or 337 or WE springs are all about the same about stock in stiffness just lower. So there is no upgrade in terms of performance and in fact they are really a down grade due to their lower hight and increase roll center. They look good and combined with a RSB and good dampers you will have a very good setup for ride, looks and performance. Maybe even a unique combination of all three but it will NOT be anywhere close to a Shine setup in terms of performance. Shine springs are like $250.00, 337 springs are like $100 used. The $150 is a huge difference in terms of performance.
I would rather see you do VR6 Jetta springs, Koni used and wait for drop spindles, at that point you may look into 337 rear springs to bring the whole car down. You will end up with stock ride, stock geometry, far better than stock performance, 337 height.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (BadassVW)*

good question about ratio, I'm not sure if the ratio works with a VR6. The Jetta is a little more balanced with the VR6. IMO your softsports in the rear should be OK. You really need to spend the money upfront. Just IMO as this is way out of my league.










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 1:15 AM 3-9-2004_


----------



## 1.8T-ZRyder (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

So, should I do VR6 springs all around, or just in the front? Oldman, I appreciate the info. 
Lowering for looks is not a priority for me. I see cars that are lowered, then there are days when I walk up to my car and think it looks pretty low. 
I've been reading mixed reviews about ride feel with Bilsteins, but just about all positive with the Konis, so I'm more than likely going with them.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (1.8T-ZRyder)*

almost all Jetta and the older 99 type GTI have the same green/green/green/ silver rear spring. So if you have that spring in the rear you are all set and need to look for a front set. Shine springs are $250 so don't spend too much on a stock VR6 Jetta set, $75.00 shipped or $50.00 pickup is good. Don't know too much about the VR6 in a Golf body, but at most the rear are about stock Jetta.
Make sure the front has a wire size of .513 or LARGER. Almost all NB have a heavier front spring, at a minimal the NB has the pink/ purple WE front spring at .500 and 6 turns.


----------



## mathuaerknedam (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

I'd be happy to sell my 97 GTI VR6 springs if anyone is interested.


----------



## 1.8T-ZRyder (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

I am definitely going to look into the Shine springs since you speak highly of them. I would like to put something together here in the next couple of weeks, but if I have to wait a little bit for funds needed, it might be worth it for a quality setup. Are there any other springs comprable to the Shine springs in term of coil diameter and rate? If I looked at the aftermarket for springs then, like Shine, should I look at springs for a VR6, or 1.8T. Some companies list them as seperate applications and some list them as the same. I guess it all depends on the diameter and rate for the user's application/requirements.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (1.8T-ZRyder)*

If you want to design your own spring combination, these are the folks that produce the Shine springs:
Suspension Spring Specialists


----------



## 1.8T-ZRyder (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

I'll check them out. I don't think I will need to go with a custom combination as much as I will need something that will satisfy my requirements, which aren't a lot. I don't track my car, or really drive like hell, but I like to enjoy the road, so whatever will get me those results will get my $$$


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (1.8T-ZRyder)*

there are some near stock height springs that may also work, not as good as Shine but not bad either: H&R OEM sport and neuspeed Softsports come to mind. Say these are 7 or 8 springs vs Shine 10 out of 10 as a true give me the ultimate spring and swapping in VR6 springs say is a 4 out of 10 mod. Hate to put numbers on these. For ride the Vr6 springs would be 9 out of 10 and bone stock 10 out of 10 and shine would be 3 out of 10. Softsports, HR OEM about say 5 out of 10 ? So there are at least 5 choices for near stock height: stock, VR6 spring swap, Shine, Softsports, and H&R OEM.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (1.8T-ZRyder)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.8T-ZRyder* »_I am definitely going to look into the Shine springs since you speak highly of them. I would like to put something together here in the next couple of weeks, but if I have to wait a little bit for funds needed, it might be worth it for a quality setup. Are there any other springs comprable to the Shine springs in term of coil diameter and rate? If I looked at the aftermarket for springs then, like Shine, should I look at springs for a VR6, or 1.8T. Some companies list them as seperate applications and some list them as the same. I guess it all depends on the diameter and rate for the user's application/requirements.

What are you looking for? Is it only racing? How much racing/street combination are you gonna be doing?
Everyone here talks about Shine and swears by it and make them look like the one and only springs for MK4. I disagree. Shine is a very well designed spring/shock setup with its own applications. If you read some more (not just this thread) you will see that Shine is the STIFFEST suspension around and for people who drive on bad streets it's just something that's gonna kill your kidneys. If u don't care about ride quality, then that's a good setup for u. If u do, then look elsewhere, as oldman suggested, Neuspeed Sofsport and H&R OE are very comparable with great handling while much better ride (Neuspeed stiffer than OE). You also may wanna mate them with Koni to get a little better ride on the streets (if that matters to u).


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Everyone here talks about Shine and swears by it and make them look like the one and only springs for MK4...
If you read some more (not just this thread) you will see that Shine is the STIFFEST suspension around and for people who drive on bad streets it's just something that's gonna kill your kidneys. If u don't care about ride quality, then that's a good setup for u.... 

Alex,
This is a valid - but still subjective - opinion regarding the SRS suspension setup. Like all subjective opinions, it is not universal. As far as the stiffest suspension around, that's just not true. It is a stiff street suspension, but it is not the stiffest (perhaps only the SRS RSB can make that claim).


----------



## 1.8T-ZRyder (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

I'm not going to say that ride comfort isn't a factor, because everything is a factor, I guess. Although I will sacrifice comfort for performance, that's all to a certain degree. I rode in a MKIII with a H&R cup kit and it was pretty stiff and the driver was confusing the stiffness with good handling. I think the stiff dampers are what really prevented the car from handling as bad as it could be. We'll see when they wear out....
I am not going to use my car for race purposes as much as I'm going to raise hell occasionally when I ride to work for the night shift. I'm not necessarily worried about a stiff ride, just as long as it provides comfort to passengers, i.e. kids in the back. I have some serious on/off ramps here as well as potential for awesome highway merging, and lane changing. That's where the majority of my happiness comes from.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (1.8T-ZRyder)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.8T-ZRyder* »_ ....... I rode in a MKIII with a H&R cup kit and *it was pretty stiff and the driver was confusing the stiffness with good handling*. I think the stiff dampers are what really prevented the car from handling as bad as it could be. We'll see when they wear out....

This is one of the greatest statements I have read on the vortex! A lot of people fall in that sentence! You said something worth entire new topic!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (1.8T-ZRyder)*

right and then you for the guys that run the shine, they now need to get some really sticky tires like S03 and at a minimum AVS ES 100, then they need to up the camber, you know it never ends. But the guys that go to say a H&R OEM spring, they would be OK with normal performance tires like an AVS 100 or a Kumho 712 or like my Conti Touring Contacts. 
So it is not only the suspension and ride, it is the cost to keep the shoes on too. My Camaro would go thru a set of front tires every year and blow through a back set every 6 months at $200 to $250 a tire, the $1500 a year got kinda of expensive, but boy could she track and the hook, well let me say I pulled a hole shot on a Syclone and he is 4WD....


----------



## jermarlang (Mar 26, 2000)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

Since everyone on this thread is offering opinions, here's mine. To me there is nothing soft about SofSport springs. With the factory wheels, and RSA tires for winter, it's acceptable.[also to the wife] With Z rated Dunlops, every pothole is a jolt. I'm changing back to factory sport springs with Koni. I will most likely sell the SofSports in a few weeks.


----------



## improvius (Mar 6, 2001)

*Re: (jermarlang)*

Currently I am running a 2001 GTI 1.8T with SofSports in the front and stock sport springs in the rear. I have Bilstein HDs front and rear. I have my 15" winter Dunlop M3s on now. I've had this setup for just about a week, and I LOVE the ride comfort. It is firm but not harsh. I prefer the ride to stock because it is not nearly as bouncy as the OEM sport, yet I do not find it harsh at all even driving over the crappy end-of-winter roads here in Rochester.
The handling is a definite improvement from stock, although there is still some body roll that I could do without. The front end feels very solid. I feel much more confident pushing it through turns now, even with the winter tires on. The overall handling is much more *predictable* than the stock suspension, which to me seems like the greatest performance benefit.
I'm going to switch the rear SofSports on soon, just to see what the difference is. But if the ride is considerably worse than it is now, I have no problems staying with the current setup and possibly adding a Neuspeed RSB in the future. When it eventually warms up around here, I'll be going to my fairly light 16" wheels with 225 Eagle F1 GS-D3 rubber, so I don't expect the ride to be too much more harsh than it is with my winter sports.
I'll put up another post in a week or so comparing the setup with and without the SofSport rear springs. But so far I am pretty happy with what I've done.
-Imp


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (improvius)*

great I should add that I found my comfort is lower with a RSB than with stiffer rear springs. So be warned that a RSB is a good thing but their is a ride penalty for it too..


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (jermarlang)*

I'm kind of the other way, I figure I run the shine and if I want a better ride, I switch my rims to stock Avus and some energy tires, my MPG goes up to 49 or 50 MPG also....


----------



## mathuaerknedam (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

Odd. On my way to full shine, I installed only the RSB and took a 500 mile road trip the next day. My wife and I noticed no loss of comfort, but I did notice a gain in stability and poise.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (1.8T-ZRyder)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.8T-ZRyder* »_I'm not going to say that ride comfort isn't a factor, because everything is a factor, I guess. Although I will sacrifice comfort for performance, that's all to a certain degree. I rode in a MKIII with a H&R cup kit and it was pretty stiff and the driver was confusing the stiffness with good handling. I think the stiff dampers are what really prevented the car from handling as bad as it could be. We'll see when they wear out....
I am not going to use my car for race purposes as much as I'm going to raise hell occasionally when I ride to work for the night shift. I'm not necessarily worried about a stiff ride, just as long as it provides comfort to passengers, i.e. kids in the back. I have some serious on/off ramps here as well as potential for awesome highway merging, and lane changing. That's where the majority of my happiness comes from.

Ok, we are AGAIN getting into subjective opinions, and everyone offers their own impression about ride (I am guilty as well). 
As I have said MANY TIMES on this thread and other threads, the ONLY and I mean the *ONE AND ONLY * way for you to know you will like a certain setup is to TRY IT. Everything you hear from people on vortex, your own mechanic, and tuner shops have to be taken with a grain of salt. I have WASTED more than $1000 on suspensions since I listened to the next guy who said something. 
You don't buy a car without test driving do you? With a test drive you test engine and Suspension for most part. Suspension is VERY important factor on a car, with a dramatic change of Shine + Bilstein (or Koni) the car will definitely feel COMPLETELY different... so PLEASE go and find someone with such setup (or at least something close to it) and see for yourself if you like it or not. Everyone must do a test drive before buying a suspension since you will FEEL the suspension EVERYTIME you get into your car and drive it.
I also suggest to do upgrades in stages, like first add shocks to your own suspension and that could be enough for you. Then you can try springs and/or swaybars to go with it. Just my 0.02$ http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

Someone please point out to me what any of the posts on this last page of the
thread have to do with the effects of lowering on handling. 
This thread is badly in need of some spring cleaning. 
ian


----------



## improvius (Mar 6, 2001)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_Someone please point out to me what any of the posts on this last page of the
thread have to do with the effects of lowering on handling. 
This thread is badly in need of some spring cleaning. 


Ok, I was considering the Eibach kit, but after reading this thread (and others), I decided to go with a setup that had little or no lowering (Sofport front, stock rear), as described above. So far I am pleased with it.
-Imp


----------



## mathuaerknedam (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

Would it be too broad of a generalization to say that lowering, in an of itself, will never improve the handling of any vehicle with McPherson strut suspension? Or should it be limited to VW's?


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (mathuaerknedam)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mathuaerknedam* »_Would it be too broad of a generalization to say that lowering, in an of itself, will never improve the handling of any vehicle with McPherson strut suspension? Or should it be limited to VW's?

No reason to limit it to VW's. That statement is in general, correct. 
The caveat is, that when we say "lowering" we're talking shorter springs alone without
replacing the spindles, or ball joints. You may also be able to compensate for
the negative effects of lowering with better dampers, stiffer springs, etc, but it's
an improvement in handling in *spite* of the lowering, not because of it.
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (mathuaerknedam)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mathuaerknedam* »_Would it be too broad of a generalization to say that lowering, in an of itself, will never improve the handling of any vehicle with McPherson strut suspension? Or should it be limited to VW's?

It depends on the mounting point. So I disagree with Daemon on this one. For instance M3 sport suspension is lowered and undoubtedly is a HUGE improvement over bimmer's stock.
If the mounting points are where the a-arms are parallel, then no, if they are pointing down, lowering helps. The roll center is dependent on the mounting points, strut installation degree and a-arms. A-arms being parallel is the "idiot-proof" method, while it could be that non-parallel on either way may be better or worse. 
Again, the best article around is this one http://e30m3performance.com/my...2.htm and I quote " figure shows why it might be bad to lower an E30 M3 *too much*" ... TOO MUCH being the key word.


----------



## 1.8T-ZRyder (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (alexb75)*

I see what you are saying about mounting points. Today, as I traveled home from work, I followed behind a new 330 coupe. I looked specifically at the way it handled as we went through some nice twists at 60+ mph. The car moved very little as I felt unstable. As we straightened, I noticed the lower control arms were just like most cars -definitely not parallel, and man did that car go, and it had a nice lowered-looking stance. The arms looked something like this: > < (looking at the bottom lines of those symbols), so I see where that article is coming from in the link.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
It depends on the mounting point. So I disagree with Daemon on this one. For instance M3 sport suspension is lowered and undoubtedly is a HUGE improvement over bimmer's stock.


It didn't get better because it's lower. It gets better because it has higher rate springs
and possibly better damping as well.
The M3 also is a high powered RWD car so "better" can actually mean more balanced, 
and more balanced can mean the front is sliding around more than what would be acceptible 
for a FWD car. I very seriously doubt that if you lowered an e36 bmw with same rate, but 
shorter, springs, and no other changes, that it would be considered an improvement. 

_Quote »_
If the mounting points are where the a-arms are parallel, then no, if they are pointing down, lowering helps. The roll center is dependent on the mounting points, strut installation degree and a-arms. A-arms being parallel is the "idiot-proof" method, while it could be that non-parallel on either way may be better or worse. 


Yes, the roll center is dependent on all those things. BUT, regardless of where they start, with
MacPherson struts when you lower the car without also *changing* those mounting points, the
roll center lowers faster than the CG. And the tendency to roll under a lateral load (roll couple)
depends on the distance between CG and instantaneous roll center. The further those two
points are from each other, the more it *wants* to roll under the same lateral loading. As 
I've said many times, you can counter that with stiffer springs, but the stiffer springs 
*without* the lowering would have been even better. 
GTITraveller recently mentioned in another thread that he proved this to himself by 
raising his H&R Dune Buggy coilovers from the stock GTI 337 level another 10-20mm
and found that that his handling improved significantly. Still wishing he'd write up
a full report of his experience. (or maybe he has, I missed it) 

_Quote »_
Again, the best article around is this one http://e30m3performance.com/my...2.htm and I quote " figure shows why it might be bad to lower an E30 M3 *too much*" ... TOO MUCH being the key word.

Notice that in their diagram their "bad" geometry is with the A-arms parallel and good is well 
below parallel (using the convention that "above parallel" is when the outside of the arm is higher than the inside). 
Notice that they say exactly the same thing I do about having to increase the spring rates to
counter the increased roll couple. With Mk4 Vdubs, folks seem to be striving to acheive 
that diagram's idea of "bad" (parallel), starting from what a lot of us consider to be "horrible". 
And as for "A-arms parallel" being idiot proof. There's nothing magical about parallel,
except that at least it means your roll center will be somewhere above ground, 
rather than below, but it's continuous change. What really matters is the distance 
between CG and roll center. The e30/e36 front suspension gets away with some lowering 
because the top of the struts are further inboard than they are for Mk3 and Mk4 Vdubs
reducing the angle between strut and A-arm. 
That angle keeps the A-arm from moving into the flat part of the camber
curve as quickly under compression and reduces the distance to the intersection
point between the line perpendicular to the strut and parallel to the lower
A-arm, which is part of the roll center calculation. With enough angle you
might be able to keep the roll center above ground even if the A-arm is slightly
above parallel. Unfortunately that same angle actually causes a rapid
decrease in negative camber the further you turn the steering due to
a quirk of geometry, so having the struts angled in more, is not always better.
The fact remains, that lowering a MacPherson strut suspension causes increased
roll coupling. That is not in dispute. One could ask whether the slight
improvement that comes from reduced weight transfer is more benefitial than 
the loss in handling that comes from the increased roll center. I contend that 
it is not, and there's plenty of evidence in the V-dub world to prove it, but
then with our 70:30 to 60:40 weight distributions, our cars live or die on
their front suspensions. When it comes to a RWD BMW with a 50:50 weight
distribution, the front roll coupling may simply not be as signficant a factor. 
I've seen plenty of folks put big sway bars on the front of their e36 M3's 
at the Auto-X to *decrease* the front lateral grip so that front and rear are 
sliding about the same under power. What'd be better than
both ends sliding by the same amount would be both ends sticking the same.








ian



_Modified by Daemon42 at 2:46 PM 3-11-2004_


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

Hey Ian, what's your take on the following:
If a control arm is 'below' parallel, using your convention, then the force that the tire exerts on it laterally (assuming tire stays 90 degrees to the road), should cause it to rotate _downward_ about its bushing, should it not? I.e., extending the shock travel rather then compressing it and thus countering body roll? 
Does this hold water? Is what I'm saying even understandable without a diagram?


----------



## StealthVR6GTI (May 1, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*

If you have coilovers my first suggestion is to set it up so that the a arms are parralell to the ground. This should optimize your geometry although this doesn't allow you to go much lower than 2" or so. My next suggestion is to sit the rear the way you like and have the car corner weighted. It seems like a small thing but it helped the balance of my gti considerably. It's always cool to know the weight distribution on the car as well.
Dave


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_Hey Ian, what's your take on the following:
If a control arm is 'below' parallel, using your convention, then the force that the tire exerts on it laterally (assuming tire stays 90 degrees to the road), should cause it to rotate _downward_ about its bushing, should it not? I.e., extending the shock travel rather then compressing it and thus countering body roll? 
Does this hold water? Is what I'm saying even understandable without a diagram? 

What you're describing is basically *why* the roll center is defined the way it is. 
Looking at this diagram again, notice how the roll center is calculated.








You draw a line extending through the A-arm up to the point that it intersects with
a line drawn perpendicular to the strut (which is actually not quite right.. should be 
perpendicular to the line that runs between the top of the strut and the ball joint). 
From that point of intersection draw a line back to the center of the contact patch 
of the tire. Repeat this on the other side, and where the last two lines intersect, 
that is where your instantaneous roll center is. 
Notice what happens if you move the A-arm way "below" parallel (higher on the inside).
The roll center gets higher and higher. If you the angle the A-arm so that it points
above the CG, then the roll center is above the CG as well and the car will actually
lean *into* the turn. That's not desireable as it'll cause the outside suspension
to jack up raising the CG and the car can then launch itself over the the outside tire
ala Corvair-style ("Unsafe at any speed"). 
People look at all the weird lines that define the roll center and don't understand what
it means. You've grasped the underlying mechanism.. except for one bit, which is
that it's the position of the CG relative to the roll center that determines which
way it leans and by how much. The A-arms can, and should be below
parallel for optimal handling, not *just* parallel. What you want is for the roll center 
to be close to the CG, without being above it. A little body roll is good for feedback. 
Again, there's nothing magical about the A-arms being parallel. That really
tells you nothing. We know instinctively that well above parallel is bad because 
the roll center is underground so you know the distance between it and the CG 
(wherever it is), is at *least* the distance that the chassis is above
ground. If the CG is say in the center of the engine block (this is the
CG for all "sprung" parts of the car, so exludes the suspension and wheels/tires),
then the moment arm that defines the roll coupling is like 18-20 inches. 
That's a pretty long lever arm for the 2700lb+ weight of the car to be
pushing on. 
I've got a rough diagram I made a long time ago, that sort of demonstrates what happens 
then looking at it from your perspective (as a force on the end of the A-arm).








Notice that the A-arm is parallel but the effective lateral loading directed through the CG 
causes an upwards vertical force on the strut, causing compression.
That compression translates into body roll to the outside.
On the left is the A-arm directed at CG case which would result
in no body body at all. You want something in between. 
ian


----------



## 1.8T-ZRyder (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

Won't the weight of the car ultimately have an effect on the way the weight is transfered? What I mean is, isn't the heavier the car is with a strut design going to have an effect on how much of an exaggerated roll the car is going to have under the same situation? Maybe that isn't too clear, but I'm thinking if the vehicle is heavy, and the dampening doesn't compensate for the amount of compression it is being asked for, the car will be more willing to give in the scenario you described.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (1.8T-ZRyder)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1.8T-ZRyder* »_Won't the weight of the car ultimately have an effect on the way the weight is transfered?

Yes. Total weight is always a huge factor. Lighter is better. 
Lighter with a low CG, is better still.
Lighter with a low CG, and proper strut geometry is best. 
If you can't control the total weight, or the CG significantly,
then strut geometry becomes the overriding factor. My R32
weighs 3400 lbs, but still leans less in corners than a lot of
"well suspended" 2700-2800 lb GTIs. It comes from having much better
strut geometry (see the TT spindles thread). 
On a side note:
As mentioned in the article linked a few posts back, tires don't have a normal
static and kinetic coefficient of friction. With most things, the more weight you put on
them the better they grip in direct proportion. Put twice as much weight on it, it grips twice 
as much. With tires this is almost true, except that the coefficient of friction decreases
with increased force per unit area. So you put twice as much weight on them, and they only 
grip say.. 1.7 times as much. It's why lighter cars can pull higher lateral G's on a given patch 
of rubber. It's why serious race cars are always as light as possible. 
It's why various attempts must be made during suspension tuning, to minimize lateral 
weight transfer (keeping the CG low, spring rates high.. etc), because 4 tires with equal
weight on them grip a lot better than 2 tires with twice the weight, or in our case the
outside front tire with 70-90% of the weight on it (braking hard into a sharp corner)
It's why sway bars can actually reduce the lateral traction at one end of the car,
because they *cause* weight transfer to the outside tire intentionally.
And avoid letting the tire run on its edge (due to soft sidewalls, or body roll which causes 
positive camber changes), because more weight concentrated on 
a smaller contact patch makes the above effect even worse. If rubber didn't
have this property, then a lot of what we do with suspensions would be unecessary. 
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
.......................The M3 also is a high powered RWD car so "better" can actually mean more balanced, 
and more balanced can mean the front is sliding around more than what would be acceptible 
for a FWD car. I very seriously doubt that if you lowered an e36 bmw with same rate, but 
shorter, springs, and no other changes, that it would be considered an improvement. 
...............

Thanks Ian for your great explanation. But from all you said, I still get that lowering McPherson on other cars may or may not help in handling. Even your own example of M3 and RWD cars shows that handling CAN be improved with lowering (like u said more roll upfront helps to balance the car, etc...).
My point is, we KNOW that roll center gets lowered faster than center of gravity. We KNOW that the lower the roll center the more the roll, and we KNOW what having roll center going under ground is bad!
We also KNOW, that lower center of gravity helps handling, the weight transfer is a BIG problem in track situations and I really like to keep it low, one of the most important things on a track is to have a smooth line in cornering, and not sudden body dynamic changes, having higher cars increases the weight transfer no matter what. A lower car also helps QUITE A BIT in braking, off the line traction, and aerodynamics (less wind underneath the car). 
So, the QUESTION is, how much do you *gain *with lowering, and how much do you *lose *with roll center. This question can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. From experience we all know that dubs are not good candidates for lowering, and from other people's experience we know that's not NECESSARILY the case for 3-series BMW or Mini's. 
I think people completely take this roll center to be the ONE AND ONLY indication of handling. It's just getting crazy. I only see this negative impact at 2"+ lowering, and at anything less than 1.5" lowering, the difference to normal drivers are negligible. If lowering did not improve things, then you would see all porchses 10" off the ground and all race cars to look like 4WD cars. The Audi TT for German touring cars is sitting on the ground!!! Now, those are designed properly not to screw up roll centers etc... however, they are lower for reasons and the benefits of lowering CAN outweigh the negative effects of roll center UP TO A POINT.
What *I* care about, is NOT how much roll-center gets screwed up, how much body roll is reduced by lowering, center of gravity, etc... *WHAT I WANT*, is a car that goes around the track THE FASTEST, that includes off-the-line traction, braking, cornering, handling chicanes, etc.... FROM experience, I can tell you that *(FOR ME) *moderately lowered MK4 achieves the best track times. This could be subjective to *my *personal driving abilities, but that's my experience. By moderately lowered car, I mean about 1". At 1.0" my A-arms are parallel, I have seen people saying that their stock a-arms are not parallel and I am confused







since mine are parallel at 1". Now, it's hard to get something with that amount of lowering, the closest is SofSport.
So, to sum it up. Try to keep your a-arms parallel, and as long as (on MK4) you are not lowering more than 1.5", I would say the negative effect is not noticeable to most drivers. People don’t be scared, a well designed suspensions with about 1.0” of lowering is not going to handle worse than stock, PERIOD. 
DISCLAIMER - I know people are very passionate about roll-center and this thread, there seems to be an anti-lowering lobbying going around







so I am *NOT * arguing about *ANY *theoretical and geometrical data that was presented here. My point is from *PERSONAL *experience and what has worked for *ME *in *PRACTICE*. So, pelase do NOT *flame* me.  http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Whole lot of RAISED arguments there..








Saying it louder doesn't necessarily make it more convincing. 
You say, from personal experience, that your car works better with 1" of lowering.
That was tested with identical rate springs, identical dampers, but 1" lower? 
or higher than stock rate springs, better dampers, and 1" lower? 
You know what I'm getting at. 
I know of at least one person who started at 337 stock height with
their H&R coilovers, and later raised their car 1 inch from there, and found 
the handling was noticeably improved, much to their surprise because they 
were just as adamant about lowering as you are, until that moment. (Probably 
why they haven't posted their experience in any detail, but only hinted at it). 
As for the A-arm position, we've seen photos of stock GTIs and Jettas 
sitting on the dealer lot with the A-arms above parallel.
Mind taking a photo of one of your front A-arms, from roughly this angle?








(Actually best if you can see both rear tires in the frame as they offer a handy 
reference for what's level)
Keep in mind also, the center of the ball joint is actually a little above
the end of the A-arm, so even when the arm looks level, the line
between inner pivot and center of the ball joint is already a little above
parallel. 
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

My car is not at 1.0" right now, it's at 1.5" with Neuspeed sport. Right now, it is "very little" above parallel. So, I know at 1.0" it would be parallel. I can take a pic, but it's very hard to take picture of this, can u tell me how to do that from the same angle you took? What car is that pic with what spring setup?


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_My car is not at 1.0" right now, it's at 1.5" with Neuspeed sport. Right now, it is "very little" above parallel. So, I know at 1.0" it would be parallel. I can take a pic, but it's very hard to take picture of this, can u tell me how to do that from the same angle you took? What car is that pic with what spring setup?


Try this angle then








That photo was reportedly of tyrolkid's stock 1.8t (not 337 or 20AE). 
In the thread in which that was originally posted, there was also a photo
of the A-arm on a stock Jetta 1.8t on a dealer lot, which looked pretty 
much the same.
My first photo above was taken on a Mk3 GTI-VR6, about an inch below stock height.
The A-arm looks like it's below level, but the height above ground of the ball joint
and inner A-arm pivot were measured to be about the same. 
BTW, I drove Neuspeed Sports mounted on a Mk3 GTI-VR6 a little on
my local roads, and they were always bottoming out on the bumpstops.
Perhaps they've increased the rates some for the Mk4 to prevent that, 
but based on my own experience, they certainly didn't leave a good 
first impression.
That brings me to another short discussion though. Body roll in itself is not the killer. 
We've talked in the past about the unintended camber changes that come from body 
roll, and the fact that when you start further along the camber curve with lowering you
lose the ability to compensate for the positive camber change that comes under compression.
But the additional problem with increased tendency for the body to roll
combined with the lowering itself is that you can simply run out of suspension 
travel when hitting a bump midcorner (you listed, off the line handling, handling while braking 
and encountering chicanes as important to you, and those are all the places you'll find
big bumps and max suspension compression). Once the suspension hits the bumpstops, 
it's as good as having no suspension at all. It has failed in its job. 
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

Thanks man, I will try to get a pic like that. 
The Neuspeed sports + Bilstein do NOT bottm out AT ALL. Not sure about MK3. I agree with you on hitting bumps in the corners and I have experienced that on the street but on track the setup is just beatiful and no problems whatsoever.


----------



## BadassVW (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

You could place a measuring tape on the ground and use the stamping rib as a reference point. You need to get something in the picture that can provide a reference


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (BadassVW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BadassVW* »_You could place a measuring tape on the ground and use the stamping rib as a reference point. You need to get something in the picture that can provide a reference









Where and what do u want me to measure? Can u point out on the pic posted above?


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: Camber (Blueback)*

Alexb It is simply impossible for those springs not to bottom!
Tie a plastic tie around the shock shaft,pull it down until it contacts the shock body,lower the car carefully and go for a drive. You will find the tie is at the top! My kit bottoms and it is far stiffer and higher. The bumpstops do a very good job,so you arent feeling it bottom is all. On another note regarding lowering. The bumpsteer and roll steer are both effected negatively by lowering! There is no easy fix for this! Breaking oilpans is a common problem for lowered cars also. The loss of grip that comes with lowering is something that is readily measured and not a subjective matter!
You can postulate about what the effects are and how they fit into your needs and wants,but the performance is not a guessing matter. All else being equal,a lowered strut suspension on a VW will always have less front grip! Try my little experiment and see how much travel you are actually using! I think you will be surprised. Good luck!
Dick Shine


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Camber (SRSVW)*

Well, as my experience shows my car performs fine. If I didn't have ride comfort issues, I wouldn't have changed anything. I totally agree with the negative effects of lowering, but there ARE positives AS WELL and the key is to find what's a good compromise.
I may bottom, but it's not aparent to me. My older H&R cupkit used to bottom-out often, but not this setup. Breaking oilpan has been reported by some people but I have no prbolems with my car and even the older setup that was lowered even more. 
I may try your suggestion and will report (so little time, so much to do







)


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Experiment .....*

*This is the "GTItraveler" experience about which Ian is talking above .....*
He is very busy lately and most of all, is going to be even busier in the near future, so I take the freedom to write about this. It would have been better if he describes it as the car was his, but I was somehow involved and witnessed all of the below, and I do have time today, so I will try to put in in short. It is very important experiment, because it is actually the only way to put in real life all the talk in this specific topic. but let me describe first the setup.....
We are talking a Golf 337, with the stock 18" wheels/tires, equipped with the "H&R Dune Baggy" Coilovers. If I remember correctly, those are know on vortex as 400 lb. Front and 290 lb rear (please anyone, correct me if I am wrong). When he first installed them, they were set and aligned at the 337 ride height, which is basically about 1" lower (front and rear ) than stock. This is also quiet close to the lowest point these coilovers can get. They are advertised as -1 to +1 (basically can go from 1" lower than stock to 1" above stock). So, he had been driving it quiet close to the lowest setting (IIRC, the dimension from the floor to the fender lip was about 26"). Must also note he has a Neuspeed 28 rear bar, set at full stiff at that time. So, initial he like it very much (of course, an improvement over stock) but then with time he felt that the front was not quiet right, it was leaning too much, specially in fast, long curves. He was thinking then to upgrade the front springs from 400 lb to 450 lb, in an attempt to make the car leaning less........ But before going out spending the money and perhaps screwing up the beautiful shocks settings (they say for such small change, 50 lb, the shocks do not need to be revalved, but who knows) .... so, before going out that way, we decided to get together and actually give it a "Shine-like" lift in the front because first it was free, and second, most important, it would have been the only realistic proof of whether this whole theory here actually works in real life. I am saying "the only realistic" because using this setup is the only way to increase ride height without actually changing other parameters like spring rates, shock rates, etc, which is essential in this experiment. 
Step One was to go crazy all the way, regardless of look, and lift it to "Shine-like" front (in his case was about 27" from ground to fender lip), which is more or less where my car is (Shine 225 Front springs). Done faster than said. He goes out for a drive and comes back shortly after, so it was kind of slow in the neighborhood spin. He noticed good amount of improvement, but again, it was few minutes slow drive. Then I jump in the passenger's seat and we go for some faster corners. We find this place with four on/off connecting to each other ramps, where basically you can stay in curve the whole day and here is where he notices bit improvement. I am not driving, but I see the front no longer leans, it is so flat and so precise. I see the way he operates the steering wheel and the car responds differently. Also, the tires sound differently (basically there is no sound at the same speeds as before, when was lowered) It was a success! The theory actually works! So, we decide to go back in the garage and lower the car at 1/4" steps back, so to find out a nice compromise between not-so-tall front and good handling feel, so here we go with:
Step Two, where the front goes slightly lower (now it is about 26" 3/4 ground to fender's lip) and immediately we go out for a drive ...... and here is the big surprise! We thought, that lowering this little would degrade the front's capabilities by little bit, but we were wrong! Yes, only 1/4" lower than "Shine-like" front ride height transformed in very noticeable degrade! The car started leaning noticeably even to me (passenger) at the same corners at even lower speed than before! The tires also started "squealing" earlier, at lower speeds! It was good that we were together, so there was no day dreaming. Needless to say, the car went back to the garage and the 27" height (Shine-like) was quickly restored! Then, for several weekends later he had been on drives through mountain roads and he even moved the Neuspeed 28 rear bar setting to full stiff on one side and mid on the other, as full stiff was way too much for the new setup. He now describes it as much quicker turn-in, superior traction in curves, and much more prone to oversteer if such characteristics are desired. As far as I remember, he is on these setting since then....
So, here is this interesting experience in few words. I hope he will find time to add something more as I am sure I did not (could not) say all of it as I am not familiar with the car. But the moral of the story is that our MkIV cars are very sensitive to front end lowering and the even more interesting fact is that the degrade is not linear! I mean, lowering by 1/4" is not half as bad as lowering 1/2" - it is almost equally bad! After the first 1/4" everything goes south and from there on there is little difference whether you go only 1/4" or you go full 1".....
I know it may not sound convincing, but it was our experience, real life stuff, no theory. Hope someone will chose to believe us and try this on his/her own.
You all have a great week....... and lift up those cars, if you want to be faster


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Experiment ..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
I know it may not sound convincing, but it was our experience, real life stuff, no theory. Hope someone will chose to believe us and try this on his/her own.
You all have a great week....... and lift up those cars, if you want to be faster









Wow. Thats some nice info! I'm surprised 1/4" made such a difference. Kudos for some good experimentation.
As per Neuspeed's recommendation, I removed the aluminum spacers from the front struts (VR6) when installing my Sofsport springs. I think I'll experiment a little and put them back in when its time to change the strut bushings...


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Mr Black)*

Plus the little detail that the Mk4's camber is *not adjustable*.
That and the fact that your roll center is now somewhere deep underground
and everytime you corner hard it rolls so far that it hits the bumpstops.. 
Details.. details. Oh, but looks like a race car.. right? 
ian


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KGilman* »_There is absolutely no reason that a 1.7" drop will screw your car up. Take the time to get the car aligned after you install the suspension and you will be fine. If you can bring it to a shop that does four wheel alignment. Ask for 1 deg. neg camber and 1/32nd toe in. 

He's right, it really won't screw up the car. You can drop the car almost that much by weighing it down with 5 XXL passengers and a trunk full of bricks. It'll kill your fuel economy but cost a lot less in the short term


----------



## feuerdog (Feb 11, 2002)

Technical specs wanted:
Does anyone know the stock Mk4 GTI/Golf.....
SAI(KPI) = ?
Caster angle = ?


----------



## BadassVW (Oct 16, 2002)

*suggested suspension tweaks and else for reducing time thru corners*

I'm getting caught up in all the suspension tweaking and wanted to get your opinion on something...
I run SofSports/HD's/28mm RSB on a VR6 JIV and want to see if I can achieve additional cornering prowess within limitations of OEM static camber. Keep in mind that I would only spend the time/money if I would achieve a noticeable difference in 'spirited' backroad driving...if the only place I can tell the difference is the track then I would just the same be happy remaining with my current set-up
That said, I am considering three options...
1)Replace SofSports (F&R) with Shine 250 F/200 R ...better weight transfer to front from stiffer rear springs in conjucntion with RSB and reduced positive camber with stiffer front springs(?) 
2)Replace SofSports (Front only) with Shine 250... less roll, less positive camber?
3)Replace SofSports (Rear only) with Shine 180... better weight transfer to front with RSB
which, if any, of these options might allow for decreased time thru the twisties?
also factor in I run Pilot A/S which tend to heat rather quickly under continued push. Am I searching for the Grail or what? 
or, in a totally different direction, do you think camber plates and/or an LSD would offer more productive gains?
How much negative static camber would you recommend for a car that spends majority of time on the street?


----------



## DedRok (Feb 16, 2004)

Sooo... I want to know the difference between Coilcovers and springs...
Springs lower the car, and give the same ride as usual. My city is very bumpy, so I want that. It will somewhat help me in Autocross with lower center of gravity.
Coilcovers, lower the car, give a stiffer ride, and are adjustable. 
Am I right... someone tell me.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (VWA2MKII)*

There's nothing *inherently* different about springs/struts and coilovers
in terms of ride quality. 
A strut is a spring mounted to a damper with a fixed position spring perch and
hard mount to the hub.
A coilover is just a spring mounted to a damper/strut with a adjustable height 
spring perch. 
What is never recommended however is lowering springs on stock 
struts. They won't take the abuse and you'll blow the struts in
no time. A spring that's well matched to the damper can
ride identically to a coilover if they have equivalent spring rates
and damping characteristics.
ian


----------



## hypnos (Aug 21, 2003)

so we've pretty much decided, it seems: get a shine kit or adjust your coilovers similarly


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (hypnos)*


_Quote, originally posted by *hypnos* »_so we've pretty much decided, it seems: get a shine kit or adjust your coilovers similarly









The problem is, most of the popular coil-overs out there will NOT allow you to raise the front high enough. Only the "Dune Buggy" coil-overs seem to have this capability. Gotta make decisions and have a plan first -- then purchase suspension components and install.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (hypnos)*


_Quote, originally posted by *hypnos* »_so we've pretty much decided, it seems: get a shine kit or adjust your coilovers similarly









That's one conclusion. The other is simply for folks to be aware of the compromise 
they're making when they lower their car. That "lower" != "better" on the stock suspension geometry. 
To realize that when you start a thread and say: "I want an inexpensive 60/40 kit that handles really good.
What do you all recommend?", that you're really asking for the impossible, and don't
expect much advice other than "Don't do that." The Suspension *Tuning* forum is not
the place to ask about what slammed suspensions look or handle the best. For looks,
ask in the MkIV forum. For handling, don't slam it.
ian


----------



## loyski (Apr 2, 2004)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

This thread has gotten me paranoid now..... I just bought my rado vr6, and when i hit a bump, the wheel turns. Even worse at high speeds, i wont go over 100mph, it feels like im going to crash into a divider.
All i know is that the car has 18" wheels with 35 series tires, and a set of neuspeed lowering springs.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (loyski)*

Sounds like you need an alignment, but that is an
awful lot of lowering for a mk2/Mk3 chassis. Bump steer 
and bottoming is inevitable. 
Here's my GTI-VR6 with an inch of lowering.







.
Notice my A-arms are still above higher on the inside. 
ian


----------



## rexxmann (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

Just curious if anyone knows how much a Shine Suspension raises the front & back end from a stock 337 suspension....


----------



## rexxmann (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: (rexxmann)*

Also...shouldn't the R32 also have the same problems? It also has Macpherson struts up front just like all A4 cars. My friend has an R32 and I can say that it is far lower than any stock Golf/GTI and is probably very close to being as low if not actually as low as my stock 337. The only answer I can think of is the R32's front suspension is not attached to the chasis at the same points that it is on my 337.


----------



## GTItraveler (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: (rexxmann)*

The R32 has the same front suspension as the TT. The control arms are a different shape and are parrallel to the ground, which is why it can be lower.


_Modified by GTItraveler at 5:27 PM 4-21-2004_


----------



## OstTrefftWest (Sep 28, 2002)

*If this has already been answered, just tell me*

I'll admit that I haven't read this whole thread yet, so if this question has already been answered, just tell me!
First, what I've come to understand from lurking in this forum -- do I have these right?
1. Lowering our cars increases their tendency to roll because of the roll center dropping at a different (faster, right?) rate than the center of gravity.
2. Therefore, lowering springs need to be stiffer to fight the car's greater tendency to roll (as well as prevent bottoming out with reduced suspension travel).
So, my question is, is there a quick-and-dirty calculation a non-physicist like me can do to determine whether a given lowering spring is stiff enough to compensate for the additional roll tendency? (Examples: 20AE springs, H&R OE Sports, Eibach Pro-Kits, etc. -- ones that lower, but aren't terribly stiff?)
Thanks in advance -- and again, if I just need to read the whole thread over a few evenings, just say so!


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (GTItraveler)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTItraveler* »_The R32 has a different front suspension from the TT. The control arms are a different shape and are parrallel to the ground, which is why it can be lower.

You sure you didn't mean to say "The R32 has a front suspension that is virtually the same as the TT's"? 
The R32's front suspension is very much different from any other Mk4 Golf/Jetta, but from what I understand
it shares the same lower balljoint location on the hub, sway bar end mount location on the struts 
and forged control arms as the Audi TT. The lower ball joint pickup allows the chassis to sit lower, without 
the LCA's being above parallel. If you put an R32 front suspension on your Mk4 GTI you'd have something 
that looked a lot like Tyrolkid's TT hub swap. 
OftTrefftWest, no there's no simple calculation. There really isn't even a non-simple calculation
because among other things we don't really know the true location of the CG for most of these cars.
Keep in mind also that while raising the spring rates may counter the roll tendency, it also makes for 
a harsher ride.
ian


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: If this has already been answered, just tell me (OstTrefftWest)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OstTrefftWest* »_I'll admit that I haven't read this whole thread yet, so if this question has already been answered, just tell me!
First, what I've come to understand from lurking in this forum -- do I have these right?
1. Lowering our cars increases their tendency to roll because of the roll center dropping at a different (faster, right?) rate than the center of gravity.
2. Therefore, lowering springs need to be stiffer to fight the car's greater tendency to roll (as well as prevent bottoming out with reduced suspension travel).
So, my question is, is there a quick-and-dirty calculation a non-physicist like me can do to determine whether a given lowering spring is stiff enough to compensate for the additional roll tendency? (Examples: 20AE springs, H&R OE Sports, Eibach Pro-Kits, etc. -- ones that lower, but aren't terribly stiff?)
Thanks in advance -- and again, if I just need to read the whole thread over a few evenings, just say so!


Yep, you got the gist of it!
Most of the spring kits you can buy have better handling than stock simply because the stock spring-rates are so low. Even the kits that lower 2" can have better handling than stock because of the spring rates alone - they just won't be as good as a kit that doesn't lower at all.
I take it you're looking for a calculation that would tell you something like this:
"If I lower 2 inches, I must raise the spring rates by 150%"
"If I lower 1 inch, I must raise spring rates by 75%"
I don't think its that simple. Suspension design is all about engineering tradeoffs: comfort vs. handling vs. durability, etc. There are a lot of non-linear variables to consider. Someone with a bit more insight can probably explain it better...


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: If this has already been answered, just tell me (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_Even the kits that lower 2" can have better handling than stock because of the spring rates alone - ....

Actually, the improved dampers that come with most of these kits are responsible for a lot of the feeling of "improved" handling.


----------



## OstTrefftWest (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: If this has already been answered, just tell me (f1forkvr6)*

Thanks for the feedback, everyone -- that's about what I figured. Is it probably a safe assumption (obviously, still just guesswork) that even something like H&R OE Sports (about 15% stiffer than stock) are sufficient to compensate for the additional roll tendency caused by the little bit of front lowering?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: If this has already been answered, just tell me (OstTrefftWest)*

F1forkvr6:
Doh! I completely forgot about the shocks. Very important part!
OstTrefftWest:
Compensating for change in roll centre is just one element to be considered - its not the end-all of suspension design. I think it is a safe assumption that with good aftermarket shocks, the H&R OE sports will handle better than stock. With OEM shocks, perhaps not.


----------



## GTItraveler (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

Yes, Ian. That's what i meant to say. Too sleepy on Japan time and keeping up with the Vortex


----------



## rexxmann (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: (rexxmann)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rexxmann* »_Just curious if anyone knows how much a Shine Suspension raises the front & back end from a stock 337 suspension....

This was the question I was really hoping I could get an answer for...if anyone knows...
Or perhaps I can ask it another way...does a Shine Suspension put the car at a factory, regular-GTI ride height?


----------



## GTItraveler (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: (rexxmann)*

My best guess is that the Shine rear will be the same as stock 337. The front will be raised ~3/4". This is how I have my H&R DB c/o's set up to match Shine. Check out http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1308648 for measurements. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by GTItraveler at 12:11 AM 4-22-2004_


----------



## batzizmycatz (Jan 26, 2004)

so what everybody seems to be saying is that the proper drop for the best possible handling is to put it at parallel, how big is this drop? 
so then the "hardest" springs at that height are going to produce the best handling? 
just trying to sort through the crap.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (batzizmycatz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *batzizmycatz* »_so what everybody seems to be saying is that the proper drop for the best possible handling is to put it at parallel, how big is this drop? 
so then the "hardest" springs at that height are going to produce the best handling? 
just trying to sort through the crap. 

I don't think the consensus is that the front a-arms have to be exactly parallel to the ground. I think that is just a rule of thumb to go by to see if you are lowered too much. A lot of the experts including Dick Shine say that best performance, keeping all other variables constant, is stock height in front (+/- 0.5"), and 0.5"-1" lower in the rear.
The hardest/stiffest springs won't necessarily give you the best handling. The springs have to be well-matched to the shocks. The setup should be tuned to the type of driving you're doing for best handling. An auto-cross setup won't necessarily perform well on the track where the speeds are much higher and vice versa. If you're only driving on the street, then you probably don't want the "best" handling. You want "better" handling - which is what pretty much any spring/shock kit will give you when compared to stock. Some just perform better than others


----------



## feuerdog (Feb 11, 2002)

The stiffness of the spring relates to the weight of the chassis and the travel of the suspension for a given road surface. 
The dampers should be matched to the springs based on the travel and surface conditions as well.
Stiff is generally better because of the increased feedback, and faster responsiveness, however, too stiff can result in too much feedback, twitchy handling, and in general cause more chassis upset.
There is no perfect setup because there are alwyas different handling states,.....chassis tuning is a rolling compromise of constantly changing variables.
What complicates the tuning even further is the relationships of left/right/front/back tuning(corner weighting, dive/squat, roll center, CoB, weight bias, etc.). Especially when you start throwing in variable rate springs, adjustable dampers, different sizes and compounds of tires, sway/stabilizer bars, chassis stiffening, etc.
The best drop? ......well, it depends on too many things to just be simple answer.
But for me it's easy,....I am perfectly happy with a Neupeed 28mm rear sway bar, H+R sport springs and some Bilstein Sport dampers on my GTI.
It's not too low for the street, but it's stiff enough to reduce my roll/pitch for spirited driving. It also doesn't affect my camber/steering geometry in a negative way, and I don't have to worry about rubbing my 225/40/18x8 Bridgestone SO-3's on the wheel wells. The car is responsive, comfortable, predictable, stable, and tossable, with a nice throttle lift oversteer/throttle down understeer.
It's not a harsh ride, but it could be stiffer for the track, but since it's a daily driver I have no problem with it no matter where I drive,...even in the winter.
"For me",.....it's the best handling setup.










_Modified by feuerdog at 9:51 PM 5-10-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (white1.8t bora)*


_Quote, originally posted by *white1.8t bora* »_so if i have a 02 jetta 1.8T and you are all sayin that if i lower my car about 1.5 inchs i'll make that gap in the wheel well and i'll increase the handling, right? but what if i went to like 1.75 inchs? cause i was stiffer handeling and i wan to get the 4x4 look off my car especially sence i got newer rims. if so what would a kit be? would the cup kit be to much with the 2ich drop or what would some of you guys suggest? i'm lost









Oh boy!








What r u doing man, u have come to page 23 of this thread about too much lowering affect handling negatively and u still ask if 2" drop is good?!








I am not gonna get into lowering effects, since there's 23 pages of it, BUT, to me, the look can be fixed by 0.5" to 0.7" lowering and that's the best if you wanna go with lowering. The MOST lowering that anyone can honestly recommend in order to have decent handling is 1.5" and NOT ANY MORE. If you're only concerned about looks, then don't ask here and drop it as much as u want.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (white1.8t bora)*


_Quote, originally posted by *white1.8t bora* »_so if i have a 02 jetta 1.8T and you are all sayin that if i lower my car about 1.5 inchs i'll make that gap in the wheel well and i'll increase the handling, right? but what if i went to like 1.75 inchs? cause i was stiffer handeling and i wan to get the 4x4 look off my car especially sence i got newer rims. if so what would a kit be? would the cup kit be to much with the 2ich drop or what would some of you guys suggest? i'm lost










No.
We are not all saying that.
I am saying that any typical kit out there will give you better handling compared to stock regardless of the drop. This is due to improved spring rates and quality shocks. So go ahead and buy your 1.5" lowering kit if thats what you want.
A kit that has those quality components *and* does not drop the ride height will give you *better* handling compared to a kit that drops though. Wheel gap and looks don't enter into this discussion - hence "not looks" in the thread title.


----------



## Brodiekagstar (Apr 14, 2004)

ok ive read a bit of this post its alot to read but I had a quick? I see alot of cup kits out there and coilovers for vw(mk3 in particular for me). now are the cup kits ex. H&R, weitec, bilstein sports, can the inprove the handeling and cosmetics of the car. Im looking into getting a 60/40 kit on my car and was wondering if it was best for the handeling of my car if not any suggestions or direction would be great thanks


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (Brodiekagstar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Brodiekagstar* »_ok ive read a bit of this post its alot to read but I had a quick? I see alot of cup kits out there and coilovers for vw(mk3 in particular for me). now are the cup kits ex. H&R, weitec, bilstein sports, can the inprove the handeling and cosmetics of the car. Im looking into getting a 60/40 kit on my car and was wondering if it was best for the handeling of my car if not any suggestions or direction would be great thanks


Yeah it is a lot to read. But seriously dude, just look at the last page and you'll have your answer.
But to help you out, the answer is no. A kit that lowers will not give the best handling. Check out srsvw.com for best handling.


----------



## Brodiekagstar (Apr 14, 2004)

ok so its better to run stock springs on a hd ro koni strut then a wietec or H&R cup kit??? im new to this forum so if I say anything stupid dont go off on me 
so theres nothing out there that is like 500 or so cause the hs are like $8 something


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (Brodiekagstar)*

Honestly man, take a few hours, print out the pages of this thread, and then read them, or at least take your time while reading online. The basic idea in this thread is that because of the geometry of a MacPherson strut suspension, lowering the ride height is actually NOT good for handling and can hurt it. Low centre of gravity is NOT EVERYTHING. This is why even a "mild" drop of 1.5 inches as you might find in an H&R cup kit is not desirable.
In terms of Bilstein HD's, they are not supposed to be used with a lowered spring, which means that either a stock spring or a stock-HEIGHT spring needs to be used. If you go lower than stock, that's what the Sports are for.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_
In terms of Bilstein HD's, they are not supposed to be used with a lowered spring, which means that either a stock spring or a stock-HEIGHT spring needs to be used. If you go lower than stock, that's what the Sports are for. 

And if you've been following the MacPherson strut geometry thread, you'll learn that the HD and Sport 
struts both bottom out with pretty much the same amount of lowering. The Sport shaft is shorter, so it works
with shorter/stiffer springs at basically the same ride height as longer/softer springs (like stock), but 
with lowering, you'll find yourself riding on the damper's internal buffers (bumpstops) which are like
having 600-700 lb/in supplimental springs. Stock Mk4 suspension geometry pretty much sucks and lowering 
it *at all* makes it worse, quickly. 60mm isn't a "moderate" or "mild" drop, especially when folks
see noticeable degredation in handling with as little as 5-10mm drop. If you choose to lower your 
car, and that's perfectly fine as everyone has different priorities, just do so knowing that you're not improving 
performance by doing so. Also know that a lot of folks here in the Suspension Tuning forum aren't
going to have a lot of advice about how best to make your car slower. 
ian


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (Brodiekagstar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Brodiekagstar* »_ok so its better to run stock springs on a hd ro koni strut then a wietec or H&R cup kit??? im new to this forum so if I say anything stupid dont go off on me 
so theres nothing out there that is like 500 or so cause the hs are like $8 something

Kind of like what we've been trying to tell you in your other threads, no?


----------



## stl4310 (Oct 29, 2000)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

"If it's too low, you're too old."


----------



## theskippur (Jun 26, 2000)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

So am I getting this correct? Since lowered suspensions on MK4s hurt performance, does the stock suspension of an MK4 actually handle BETTER than the lowered sport suspension that VW uses on the new 2004.5 GLI 1.8T? Or does the stiffer springs that VW uses on the sport suspension compensate for the loewred suspension?
Also, would simply swapping out a larger diameter rear antiroll bar for the one on on the GLI be the best bet to improve handling?
Thanks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike 
Have: Blue Lagoon 2004.5 GLI
Had: 2000 Golf GL

_Modified by theskippur at 10:37 AM 7-18-2004_


_Modified by theskippur at 11:11 AM 7-18-2004_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (theskippur)*


_Quote, originally posted by *theskippur* »_So am I getting this correct? Since lowered suspensions on MK4s hurt performance, does the stock suspension of an MK4 actually handle BETTER than the lowered sport suspension that VW uses on the new 2004.5 GLI 1.8T? Or does the stiffer springs that VW uses on the sport suspension compensate for the loewred suspension?
Also, would simply swapping out a larger diameter rear antiroll bar for the one on on the GLI be the best bet to improve handling?
Thanks!


Yep you pretty much have it. Almost any lowering spring kit will handle better than stock because of quality dampers and higher spring rates. The lowered kits just don't have the highest performance potential compared to kits that are at stock height is all.
Swapping stock sawy bars won't be as effective as adding an aftermarket swaybar such as Shine or Neuspeed. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between the OEM swaybars.


----------



## troze1200 (Oct 12, 2000)

*Re: (phatvw)*

I drive a 2.0 mk3 jetta. I have the abt upper strut bar, neuspeed rear sway ion the tightest setting, H&R coilovers (the old school ones when they only made 1 model), and no front sway bar. 
We recently corner scaled my car again, and put it down even more. The car is down about 2.5". We just kept taking the car lower, and let g's kept getting better. We then added the 8mm front spacer, and 15mm rear spacer, and it corrected the oversteer. 
Whats the catch? My controll arms are up a bit, but hte car just kept handling better. wtf?










_Modified by troze1200 at 1:54 AM 7-19-2004_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (troze1200)*


_Quote, originally posted by *troze1200* »_I drive a 2.0 mk3 jetta. I have the abt upper strut bar, neuspeed rear sway ion the tightest setting, H&R coilovers (the old school ones when they only made 1 model), and no front sway bar. 
We recently corner scaled my car again, and put it down even more. The car is down about 2.5". We just kept taking the car lower, and let g's kept getting better. We then added the 8mm front spacer, and 15mm rear spacer, and it corrected the oversteer. 
Whats the catch? My controll arms are up a bit, but hte car just kept handling better. wtf?

_Modified by troze1200 at 1:54 AM 7-19-2004_


One explanation is that the lower you go, the more you are riding on the bumpstops. The bumpstops act as secondary springs with a very high spring rate. Do you notice any decrease in ride quality with the increased performance?
How does it handle when you are going fast around a corner and you suddenly hit a bump on one wheel? There are always going to be tradeoffs, you just have to test your setup in a bunch of different situations to find out what the best compromise is for you.


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (troze1200)*

I think the benefit to handling of a low center of gravity 
is grossly UNDER-rated in this forum.. Could be that you are experiencing the 
advantage of the low center of gravity, overcoming the losses to handling inevitable with incorrect a-arm geometry in measurable amounts! Bump stops will limit travel of the a-arms, and people are even tuning with bumpstops these days.
Imagine if you kept the low center of gravity, AND correct geometry? Wheeee.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AV_Dub* »_Imagine if you kept the low center of gravity, AND correct geometry? Wheeee. 
Just about everyone who has participated in this thread understands that this is the "ideal" when attempting to tune for ultimate handling capabilities. Unfortunately most of us will have to continue to "imagine" these possibilities, because drop spindles do not exist for our cars (as was noted in the last thread you raised this point in







).
Regarding the possibility of the lower CG overcoming the handling losses of incorrect suspension geometry (and the resulting ever lengthening front roll-couple). I disagree. I think the possibility raised by phatvw is more likely.


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

you could be right. It would be nice to have a skidpad comparison ( I know, not perfect but better than speculations) between a stock height vehicle with extra long bumpstops and a lowered vehicle with the same amount of travel available before bumpstops take over... this MIGHT be helpful, as it may take the geometry of the a-arms out of the equasion to an extent. The a-arms are only an issue when allowed to move? Also the posters nagative camber increase may be helping his G's if it hasn't been pulled back into streetable alignment?
It would have to be a very large skid pad to show any usable data I think though. A better comparison may be a high speed long sweeper










_Modified by AV_Dub at 1:52 PM 7-19-2004_


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_Just about everyone who has participated in this thread understands that this is the "ideal" when attempting to tune for ultimate handling capabilities. Unfortunately most of us will have to continue to "imagine" these possibilities, because drop spindles do not exist for our cars (as was noted in the last thread you raised this point in







).


The Mustang world is way ahead of us on this one. Steeda makes an "X2" extended balljoint for the Fox body's Mac Strut knuckles, and they claim that it's been tested above and beyond OEM strength/fatigue requirements. I wonder if they're too big for our knuckles, or if someone could so something similar? Waaaaay less engineering involved than casting a whole new knuckle/spindle.
http://www.steeda.com/store/-catalog/x2.htm


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (Mr Black)*

The ball joint would at least solve the a-arm issue, but with it comes a need for offset rack bushings / tie rod ends to fix bump steer.. Not really a big deal, but a good intermediate solution. We're still stuck with greatly reduced strut travel if we lower the ride height with springs.
Taller ball joints could be used in conjunction with cutting / raising the strut towers a couple inches to drop the ride height. Other than that, drop spindles would do all of these things without penalty in other areas.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AV_Dub* »_It would be nice to have a skidpad comparison ( I know, not perfect but better than speculations) between a stock height vehicle with extra long bumpstops and a lowered vehicle with the same amount of travel available before bumpstops take over... 
Kind of like installing shorter stiffer springs, no? Pretty much the only way to combat the increased roll tendencies when lowered with stock pickup points is to increase wheel rate with either springs or roll-bars ...
Camber actually goes positive when the angle between the control arms and the strut body becomes less than 90 degrees ... so as you lower, you are well on your way to the "bad" part of the camber curve. Camber can be dealt with with camber plates, but the roll-couple is a beast that just is ... it is either fought with higher wheel rates, or tamed by altering the suspension design.


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (troze1200)*

As addressed by f1forkvr6, Maybe I should rephrase-correct something. In the interest of "All other things being equal" Did you re-align the front suspension after each drop? And if so, what camber settings were you at before, and where are you at right now?
Just trying to narrow down the possibilities for the reason(s) you are experiencing increased handling capabilities when you lower your vdub.. The prospect that you are enjoying better handling (measurable) by lowering your car is at least interesting... Even if bumpstops are part of the equasion. 


_Modified by AV_Dub at 8:13 PM 7-19-2004_


----------



## troze1200 (Oct 12, 2000)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_
How does it handle when you are going fast around a corner and you suddenly hit a bump on one wheel? There are always going to be tradeoffs, you just have to test your setup in a bunch of different situations to find out what the best compromise is for you.


Very well actually. My bump stops are cut a bit, and its still not riding on them. I've spent alot of time with a porsche tuner on getting the suspension dialed in. I run 1" of camber, tune it up on the scales, then the skid pad, then the 1.7 mile road course...all with an accelerometer with data logging from the porsche shop. 
I also have stub axles in the rear, and its slightly dog tracking. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Oh ya, and no front sway bar on my 2.0.




_Modified by troze1200 at 12:31 AM 7-20-2004_


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (troze1200)*

Those H&R's have adjustable compression and rebound dampening don't they? Do you know the model#'s for front and rear, and spring poundage ? 


_Modified by AV_Dub at 12:14 AM 7-20-2004_


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*

I posted the srping poundage for SOME of the H&R "dune buggy" setup based on pictures in EC - the H&R springsa re marked on the spring in 
free lenght in mm
rate in newtons
I convered em and I recall numbers like #400 front and #250 rear ????
The high rates are made compfortable by lower compression damping on the shocks... as far as I can guess


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (ewongkaizen)*

400/250 sounds like a good setup (or a good starting point) for lowered vdubs... and like "troze1200" noted he was using no front swaybar makes sense.. those shocks must have some pretty extreme rebound dampening!
OK, here's one more possible setup without resorting to making drop spindles:
1) Cut strut towers and raise 2"-2.5" to lower the car, keeping ALL strut travel in tact.
2) Modify new ford taller ball joints (or making new ones) to work with vw, fixing a-arm geometry.
3) offset tie rod ends to deal with bumpsteer.
4) Coil overs for minor ride height adjustments.
5) 400X250 linear rate springs. (sinse we are now using long/stock height springs and a small front swaybar, we may need to go higher rate. But with softer springs a stiffer front bar, adjustable compression dampers, and really good bumpstops)
6) Dual adjustable dampers capable of handling 400+ pound springs.
7) 28mm rear adjustable bar, stock front bar for starters with adjustable drop links. (no front bar scares me)
8) R-compound tires
9) very light wheels.. like 16X7.5 Kosei's 14.5lb
10) cut oilpan and weld on a tray type sump with swinging trap doors to eliminate oil pan damage completely and increase available oil capacity, new pump pickup required. (milodon road racing style oil pan)
11)Bumpstops that positively stop suspension travel before the front crossmember or swaybar hits the ground. (after the oilpan, lowest point on my A2 is the swaybar)
12) Hit the track, or your favorite canyon







and embarrass some rich kids in their-> {insert your favorite nemesis car here} 
Funny though, a drop spindle would do all of the lowering improvements at the same time.. It would probably be far cheaper in parts and labor too.

Now, for the rear beam... 












_Modified by AV_Dub at 1:57 PM 7-20-2004_


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*

Go for it dude! 
You might need some kind of other adjustments to steering rack placement, tie rods etc to accomodate the changed bump-steer characteristics or whatever other technical steering terms may apply. I hate to sound like a blonde, but all I know is there's other properties in the suspension geometry that would probably have to be considered as well.


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (Mr Black)*

other than fine tuning, and maybe the rack mount, I think I pretty well covered it. Camber plates could be an option, but I wouldn't want to go much further than camber plates with the front. It will probably handle better than 99 percent of dubs at this level... (There has GOT to be someone else thinking the same way)
I have a buddy with a torch







an a couple machinist friends too. I told them what I want to do and they got this real big grin. Maybe it's time.
(as my Jetta trembles







in the driveway)



_Modified by AV_Dub at 8:45 PM 7-20-2004_


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*

Now for the rear.
1) lower the bottom strut mount points 1-1.5" this will lower the car, and move the bottom of the struts inboard a little. 
2) raise the upper strut mounts an equal amount, and move the mount points inboard an equal amount to match the inboard moved lower mount points. (This lowers car further and keeps strut angles correct)
*(or simply raise the rear upper strut mounts for the full drop 2-3", instead of splitting the difference between lower mount point and upper) this will save you from steps (1) and (3)
Just make sure you measure strut angles before cutting the upper towers so you can move the upper mount point stightly inboard to keep strut angles correct.
*(I think dropping the lower rear mount points 2-3" for the full drop might be a road hazzard clearance issue.) 
3) Moving the struts inboard like this increases leverage so a little bit higher spring rate and stiffer dampening will probably be needed, and possibly a stiffer rear sway bar setting.
4) Coilovers to fine tune the ride height.
5) Camber shims to taste
6) If you have a rear brake drum vdub, re-adjust the brake proportioning valve per the Bentley Manual.
In conclusion, we now have some great options:
Since we kept ALL of our suspension travel with these front and rear mods, we can run progressive rate springs for a nice daily driver, And simply change springs, damper settings, and camber adjustments for track days, and for a really nice corner burner.
But once again... Dropspindles for the rear would do the same thing, and be possibly cheaper in parts and labor. 
But untill they become available, I think this is about as close to ideal and affordable as we can get without a complete new design?



_Modified by AV_Dub at 5:29 PM 7-21-2004_


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*

Can you hear me now?


----------



## pdx grip (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*

i can.


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (pdx grip)*

thanx, I was getting worried...








Well, upon further inspection of the rear strut lower mounting points, it seems that moving them down and BACK rather than down and"inboard" might be a better option. This allows us to keep the sway bar mounted in it's original position. But moving them inboard and retaining stock swaybar mounting points is still doable. (just more work) 
Question... Moving the rear strut's lower mounting point a couple inches toward the rear of the beam will increase the castor. With the rear beam we have, it seems like this will not be detrimental.
However, it will increase the amount of travel required of the strut slightly, along with a little additional spring rate, and dampening. But the swaybar's twisting rate, or size should not need to be changed.
Any thoughts on this?



_Modified by AV_Dub at 1:12 AM 7-22-2004_


----------



## j0oftheworld (Apr 25, 2003)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*

AV_Dub will now be addressed as the "Mad Scientist"
You could sell quite a few before other companys join,,,
You'll be rich, muaw-hahahaaa
My favorite post of alltime, all 58 pages of it! 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*

With respect to AV_Dub's rear mod thoughts..
I agree witht he need to relocate the UPPER rear suspension pickup point higher in the chassis.
Im not sure I agree (off the cuff) that the rear "strut" (at least on the MK II) has anything to to with the suspension geometry - as far as I can tell most of the suspension geometry is due to the trailing beam "axle" and not the strut location. Yes there are spring rate effects by changing hte andles but no "wheel location" effects by changing the rear strut location.
Wouldnt it be easier to simply build up a new rear axle that was "drop spindled"... cut the bottom of the trailing "tube" and bend up and weld in a new section - violia - "dropped" spindles.....
Though it would seem to me if one was going though all that work to consider an entirely differnt rear axle design - such as dual A arms in back. Yeah - you'd loose the trunk.....


----------



## The Kilted Yaksman (Oct 31, 2000)

*Re: (ewongkaizen)*

For the rear couldn't you just machine plates out of 1/2" or 5/8" steel and use them to raise the spindle mounting points? This is what several of the A1 Caddy (Pickup) owners have done successfully.


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (The Kilted Yaksman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *The Kilted Yaksman* »_For the rear couldn't you just machine plates out of 1/2" or 5/8" steel and use them to raise the spindle mounting points? This is what several of the A1 Caddy (Pickup) owners have done successfully.

hmm - if you have access to a machine shop - you could add rear camber too








I wonder how strong that is








Ball milling some grooves in the back might stiffen the plates some.
Also increases track width a tad...


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (ewongkaizen)*

LOL! I'm feeling more like a sleepless scientist with dirty fingernails these days.. 
You guys all came up with the same ideas I had considered. But I wanted to pick the simplest way, hense the most economical solution that would still do the job. So i'm making adjustable lower strut mount bracket/hangers. (first draft registered







) We'll see how they perform first. 
Making complete new dropspindles was my first choice, adds no unsprung weight, but most expensive, and risky (liability-wise)
Raising the spindles with a plate was my second choice, much less expensive, but adds alot of unsprung weight.
Raising top mount was my third choice, but alot of work, and a pain in the butt. (I'm still doing it though) However it adds NO unsprung weight, so it's the ideal method without modifying the beam.
I came to the conculsion that Lower Strut hangers would be best. First they are not perminant, so there are no modifications to the cars original form. (except maybe drilling a hole or two) and you could transfer them between vehicles. Plus they will be the least expensive to make, and install. Trade off is addition of some unsprung weight.
My challenge is to make them light enough, and still be strong enough. 
Cutting the beam crossed my mind and would allow you to re-center the wheel in the wheelwell, this is probably the best of all (short of a whole new beam) but involves alot of fabrication. THat's not a bad thing, but most peeps can't do it.
I need more coffee... COFFEE !!!







close enough


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*

An engineer is someone who can do for $0.25 what any idiot can do for $10....


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AV_Dub* »_Raising top mount was my third choice, but alot of work, and a pain in the butt. (I'm still doing it though) However it adds NO unsprung weight, so it's the ideal method without modifying the beam.

is there a way to get the top of the strut to edntedn further (threaded extender?) allowing the rubber bushing to exist INSIDE the car?
This allows one to RAISE the top mount as a bolt on (assuming the strut shaft isnt under alot of stress)
Complicated and not cheap.
But not permanent and "bolt on" 
But *ugly* and cant be hidden under the "shelf" thingie


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (ewongkaizen)*

Yep, that's one of the ways. threaded sphericle rod ends screwed onto the strut rod ends, with an "in car" upper perch. or a rubber bushed rod end might be better for most people. I've come up with 2 ways to do that.


_Modified by AV_Dub at 9:44 AM 7-22-2004_


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*

The best part of all these mods are, Dick Shine already makes the perfect springs for the racing portion of this application! Because all of my calculations include using stock height springs of various rates, with stock strut housings.
Silver lining indeed.











_Modified by AV_Dub at 2:02 PM 7-22-2004_


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*

I just did a search of archived content here on the Vortex... Just about every item I lost sleep over to figure out was already sorted out by different people. And they work.
I can't believe that some of the old Vortex people didn't chime in and point that out! Although my designs are turning out a little different than everyone elses, It would have been nice to have a LITTLE help.
Or have all the old timers moved on?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AV_Dub* »_I just did a search of archived content here on the Vortex... Just about every item I lost sleep over to figure out was already sorted out by different people. And they work.
... or have all the old timers moved on?

Nah - most of us are still here. As you've figured out, the information is already out there for those curious enough to find it.


----------



## AV_Dub (Apr 7, 2004)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

Thank you for the merciful reply...








Well, that's me I guess. 
Allways







doing it







the hard way.
(for once i'd like to see that little wall







fall down)


_Modified by AV_Dub at 11:48 AM 7-23-2004_


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: (AV_Dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AV_Dub* »_I just did a search of archived content here on the Vortex... Just about every item I lost sleep over to figure out was already sorted out by different people. And they work.
I can't believe that some of the old Vortex people didn't chime in and point that out! Although my designs are turning out a little different than everyone elses, It would have been nice to have a LITTLE help.
Or have all the old timers moved on?
Moved on to threads that haven't been beaten to death long ago.


----------



## LOWERED (Jul 24, 2004)

*Re: (vuu16v)*

Oh my GOD! This thread has been going on for 2 years!


----------



## peters (Sep 8, 2004)

*So confused... please help.*

2000 Jetta 2.0
Make it simple. I've been reading this whole thread and I'm so confused as to how to lower my car. I obviously don't want to hurt my car by lowering it too low, but at the same time I want a good look with 18's and hopefully be able to corner better as well. Now from what I've read throughout VWVortex, I'm betting on getting lowerings spring and shocks. Yes? No? God help me.....


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: So confused... please help. (peters)*


_Quote, originally posted by *peters* »_2000 Jetta 2.0
Make it simple. I've been reading this whole thread and I'm so confused as to how to lower my car. I obviously don't want to hurt my car by lowering it too low, but at the same time I want a good look with 18's and hopefully be able to corner better as well. Now from what I've read throughout VWVortex, I'm betting on getting lowerings spring and shocks. Yes? No? God help me.....


Unfortunately this isn't really the thread to discuss looks (see title) If you haven't already figured it out, any lowering reduces your performance potential. If you get drop spindles like the Audi TT, then you won't lose that performance potential and folks here would be willing to discuss the performance side of the lowereing equation.
Otherwise if you're looking for a balance between looks and performance, just about any aftermarket spring+shock kit is better than stock because of improved spring rates and better dampers. The kits that don't lower tend to perform best, but many of the lowered ones are still better than stock. Best bet is to try a couple cars in your area to see what you like.



_Modified by phatvw at 1:36 PM 9-19-2004_


----------



## GoFaster (Jun 18, 1999)

*Re: So confused... please help. (peters)*


_Quote, originally posted by *peters* »_2000 Jetta 2.0
Make it simple. I've been reading this whole thread and I'm so confused as to how to lower my car. I obviously don't want to hurt my car by lowering it too low, but at the same time I want a good look with 18's and hopefully be able to corner better as well. Now from what I've read throughout VWVortex, I'm betting on getting lowerings spring and shocks. Yes? No? God help me.....

Simple answer: DON'T lower it, and if you insist, keep the lowering to the minimum. The Shine suspension kit, or something similar, seems to be the way to go. Higher spring rates, higher damping rates, stronger antiroll bars, minimal lowering.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: So confused... please help. (GoFaster)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GoFaster* »_ ...stronger antiroll bars ...

Only in the rear. Keep the front bar stock or softer.


----------



## bpkeen (Sep 23, 2004)

Ok, newbie here so don't bash! I am thinking about a wheel/suspension upgrade (2000 MKIV GLS) and I want to go with 19" rims, will the 19's fill up the wheel well or will I need to drop it some? I don't want to have to roll the fenders if I don't have to. Any suggestions? Now I am in Iraq so I really can't vision this too well, there are a lot of cars out there in Galleries and such but there aren't any specifics posted about lowering vs. wheel size.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (bpkeen)*

A bit off topic for this thread (which explores how suspension performance is affected by ride height). You'd get better and _more accurate_ information posting this question in the MKIV forum.


----------



## dragnfly23 (Jun 17, 2004)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (VWsuperhero)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWsuperhero* »_So what is the maximum that a *MK2* can be lowered before the handling becomes negatively affected?

Same question, The car is a Mk3 though


----------



## zero666cool (Apr 17, 2004)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (burdelli)*

ok my car ( pictured in car domain, link is below ) is lowered about an inch or so. but it handles like a mother F ! if the car goes any lower, i could feel that i lose some of the handling !


----------



## EVIL6 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (zero666cool)*

My car is lower than that (about 2") on koni coilovers, neuspeed sway, neuspeed upper and lower strut bars. Peloquin LSD. I've just recently corner weighted it. It corners so smooth with virtually no body roll.


----------



## maxcatK2 (Oct 31, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (EVIL6)*

I'm going to get shot for pissing on the fire, but here goes nothing:
I currently ride a 98 Jetta K2 OBDII 2.0L with stock suspension set up. Picked up some H&R sport springs with a slight drop to begin my ride transformation project. I am looking for nimble handling and stability without bruised kidneys... this is for a spirited daily drive. I obviously will not be dumping huge coin into my 2slow (saving for my S4 instead) ... but need some advice on the best struts to pick. Any takers?? I'm not opposed either to throwing out the H&R's because I don't care about ride height, just quality and solid control of the ride....especially after this 500 page thread....some awesome info here. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Edit: running stock 5 spoke rims with Yoko AVS ES100's, K&N cold air, GIAC. 
Edit #2: posed the question since this post is based more so on MKIV setup, platforms, geometry, etc etc etc etc etc.......in my defence of course!
Thanks!!

_Modified by maxcatK2 at 1:57 PM 11-2-2004_

_Modified by maxcatK2 at 2:04 PM 11-2-2004_


_Modified by maxcatK2 at 2:05 PM 11-2-2004_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (maxcatK2)*

You cannot go wrong with either of the two Vortex favorites: Bilstein Sport, or Koni Sport. Search around and you'll find various threads espousing the benefits/negative of both of these options. Personally, I'm in the Bilstein camp (I really don't need adjustability in my daily driver, and these things wear like iron).


----------



## maxcatK2 (Oct 31, 2003)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

I've been eying the Koni Yellow's because they are adjustable but also don't want to overkill on something that is impracticle. I'm open to any suggestions.


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

ive had koni yellows for a couple weeks. I havnt changed the adjustment ever. im 1/2 turn off soft. but i like the option to change them if i ever get tired of this setting.


----------



## MakinPonies (Aug 24, 2004)

Does anyone here have an opinion on the Sportlines/Bilstein sport shock combo? Would the pro-kits really out perform the sportlines in an mk4?


----------



## xrockdawgx (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: (MakinPonies)*

Just out of curiousity, how many other people have taken the ten or so hours required to read EVERY SINGLE post in this thread? And how many were dedicated to print all (1 page of posts= @15 pages on paper) 400 pages of it out so you could take it with you and read when the opportunity came up? And does anyone have some really weak(like 200 maybe) springs I can use in my tomato catapult project?


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (xrockdawgx)*

The length of this thread is just so wrong! 
Just adding my share to the heap!


----------



## Flavo Cadillac (May 7, 2003)

*Re: (xrockdawgx)*


_Quote, originally posted by *xrockdawgx* »_Just out of curiousity, how many other people have taken the ten or so hours required to read EVERY SINGLE post in this thread? And how many were dedicated to print all (1 page of posts= @15 pages on paper) 400 pages of it out so you could take it with you and read when the opportunity came up? 

lol








thats exactly what i was thinking as i wanted to post a question but was sure the answer was in here somewhere. ive been reading for 2 hours and my neck hurts now








anyway.. i dont really care about cornering a whole lot faster then my stock 99 mk3 vr does now. what i do want is to go lower and have the least loss of comfort possible with a 16" wheel. 
new springs and shocks?
coilovers?
cup kit?
please help a brother out


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (rockstarmjl)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rockstarmjl* »_.. i dont really care about cornering a whole lot faster then my stock 99 mk3 vr does now. what i do want is to go lower and have the least loss of comfort possible with a 16" wheel. 
new springs and shocks?
coilovers?
cup kit?

Help is on the way .... in the MKIII forums ...


----------



## Flavo Cadillac (May 7, 2003)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

ha ha, thats funny








actually it is, however your nazi idea of my way or the highway doesnt help me.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (rockstarmjl)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rockstarmjl* »_ha ha, thats funny








actually it is, however your nazi idea of my way or the highway doesnt help me.









Wha?














http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
When you posted:

_Quote, originally posted by *rockstarmjl* »_ i dont really care about cornering a whole lot faster then my stock 99 mk3 vr does now. what i do want is to go lower and have the least loss of comfort possible with a 16" wheel.

I was steering you (kind of tongue in cheek ... sorry if the humor was too obscure) to a forum that could help you out. You don't need to read more than the first page or two to realize that this thread IS about cornering faster, and not about how to lower with a comfortable ride.
Short answer: lower cars need to be stiffer (saves your oil-pan and struts/shocks) - stiffer tends to be more uncomfortable - plus sized wheels tend to be more uncomfortable. Do some digging - there are other threads that have covered this.


----------



## el_capitan (Jul 21, 2004)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

hey new to the suspension forum but hve been searching and the number of pages seems endless and couldnt really find what i was looking for...i used Search but wanted ask any how...i want to drop my 2.0 and was thinking of the H&R cup ki but it seems as if its too drastic of a drop for a daily driver...as wondering if you guys could make suggestions of best set up that is not too pricey, look sweet, and not handle like poo...Thanks


----------



## IndigoBlueWagon (Aug 9, 2004)

*Re: (el_capitan)*

The answer is in here, but you might have missed it because you won't like it. H&R Cup Kit has two major problems: (1) a 2" drop will cause the car to handle much worse, in part because (2) the springs are too soft. If you don't maintain stock ride height (for a stock A4, not a GLI or 337) put in firmer springs, and choose the right shocks your car will handle like poo.
Your choice.


----------



## IndigoBlueWagon (Aug 9, 2004)

*Re: (xrockdawgx)*


_Quote, originally posted by *xrockdawgx* »_Just out of curiousity, how many other people have taken the ten or so hours required to read EVERY SINGLE post in this thread? And how many were dedicated to print all (1 page of posts= @15 pages on paper) 400 pages of it out so you could take it with you and read when the opportunity came up? And does anyone have some really weak(like 200 maybe) springs I can use in my tomato catapult project?

I did, several months ago. It was well worth it. I now have about 25K on my SRS and I like it more every time I drive the car.


----------



## DubStyleVr6 (Mar 22, 2002)

*Re: (IndigoBlueWagon)*

I have an H&R cup kit (springs/shocks) on my Mk4 GTi VR6.....for about 4 years now..
I notice that when in reverse and turning mainly..I hear this bad cracking/popping sound....i know its not my wheel bearing or my axle joints
Could this have anything to do with the sway bar? Also, I went over a speed hump the other day, real real slow, and it sounded like the car was moaning like crazy while I was turning over the bump....i mean it was like a LOUD "moan"....i know the steering fluid is good too...
thanks people 


_Modified by DubStyleVr6 at 3:15 PM 5-4-2005_


----------



## 00jeta.gls2.0 (Jul 22, 2004)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

I bought the h&r cup kit before reading this tread, thinking that it will most deffinetly increase performance. They say the drop is 2 in front and 1.75 rear. How bad will this be on my 2.0 jetta 2000? I know it will look better but I am worried about handell







ing.


----------



## cravnpup (Dec 11, 2001)

*Re: (00jeta.gls2.0)*


_Quote, originally posted by *00jeta.gls2.0* »_I bought the h&r cup kit before reading this tread, thinking that it will most deffinetly increase performance. They say the drop is 2 in front and 1.75 rear. How bad will this be on my 2.0 jetta 2000? I know it will look better but I am worried about handell







ing.

No need to worry. You're handling will improve, just not the Maximum amount possible due to geometry.. I autox my car on the H&R kit, and it performs just fine thanks..


----------



## KharatosGTI (Feb 21, 2006)

*Re: (cravnpup)*

Does the "lowering is worse" concept apply to MKVs as well? Because the thread is a bit ...... old.


----------



## 7thGear (Sep 20, 2002)

*Re: (KharatosGTI)*

it pretty much applies to any mac-strut designed cars
even bimmers (praxis article, 4000 dollar suspension system, and laptimes decreased from STOCK suspension)


----------



## KharatosGTI (Feb 21, 2006)

*Re: (7thGear)*


_Quote, originally posted by *7thGear* »_it pretty much applies to any mac-strut designed cars
even bimmers (praxis article, 4000 dollar suspension system, and laptimes decreased from STOCK suspension)

Ouch, that really sucks. One of the reasons I bought this car was because of its handling, I don't want to mess it up. Guess OEM european springs are the only mod I can do to the suspensions then.


----------



## 7thGear (Sep 20, 2002)

*Re: (KharatosGTI)*

again keep in mind the two schools of thought "looks and feel" and "true performance"
you can have a car that feels better than stock and looks dope! but when you put it head to head vs a shine car it wont perform as well
but the difference is measured in SECONDS, do you really care if you get to work 10 seconds faster? i dont
but people like me care about those 10 seconds on a race track, and since i daily drive my car, i'm willing so sacrafice some looks for performance just so that i dont ahve to bother always changing my setups on and off the track.
some people dig way too deep into this and forget their own priorities.


----------



## traffic (Sep 23, 2003)

*Re: (KharatosGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KharatosGTI* »_Does the "lowering is worse" concept apply to MKVs as well? Because the thread is a bit ...... old.









When I saw the Mk5 at the dealership. I looked under the car.
LCA are parallel.
Any lowering will upset the geometry.


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: (KharatosGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KharatosGTI* »_Ouch, that really sucks. One of the reasons I bought this car was because of its handling, I don't want to mess it up. Guess OEM european springs are the only mod I can do to the suspensions then.
























Where did this conclusion come from? Did you read the threads? OEM european springs will degrade your handling.
Dick Shine


----------



## KharatosGTI (Feb 21, 2006)

*Re: (SRSVW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SRSVW* »_

Where did this conclusion come from? Did you read the threads? OEM european springs will degrade your handling.
Dick Shine

I did but I haven't finished every page. If that's the case then European MKV GTIs with their stock springs handle worse than US MKV GTIs with stock springs that ride 15mm higher than euro counterparts? Or is it because they not only raised the ride height on the US GTIs but also fiddled the entire suspension? I definitely do have a hard time understanding why using parts from the mechanically identical european version will worsen handling.


_Modified by KharatosGTI at 2:59 PM 3-17-2006_


----------



## 7thGear (Sep 20, 2002)

*Re: (KharatosGTI)*

what is "handling" to you??


----------



## KharatosGTI (Feb 21, 2006)

*Re: (7thGear)*


_Quote, originally posted by *7thGear* »_what is "handling" to you??

That's not the point, that wasn't what I was talking about.
What I want to know is: European GTIs aren't worse in handling than US GTIs, right? I can almost say that's a fact otherwise VW must be retarded. So, if Euro GTIs aren't worse in handling than US GTIs, how can the use of OEM Euro GTI springs decrease the handling capability on a US GTI?
VW raised the ride height on GTIs coming to US to meet 5-star crash safety, now I have no idea whether they simply used different springs or not. If they messed with suspension geometry along with using different springs, THEN I understand that using OEM Euro springs will decrease handling capability because the two cars aren't the same to begin with. But various sources have claimed (including vortex) that Euro MKV GTIs are identical to US MKV GTIs including the dampers except for the 15mm higher ride height. IF that's the case, then how can the use of OEM Euro springs decrease handling capability?
I'm not saying lowering will not decrease handling capability, I believe the experts here when they say lowering is not good. But I don't understand how the use of OEM parts from a car with identical structure and identical mechanical setup can decrease the handling capability.
Please, teach me.
Once again, this is completely not about center of gravity and things like that, I already understand HOW LOWERING A CAR IN GENERAL will affect handling in a negative way. I'm saying here that a STOCK euro GTI rides 15mm lower than a US GTI. Unless VW is stupid and gave their home market an inferior product how can the springs from that car worsen the handling on my car?



_Modified by KharatosGTI at 5:49 PM 3-17-2006_


----------



## KharatosGTI (Feb 21, 2006)

*Re: (KharatosGTI)*

Some specs about US vs. EURO when it comes to the MKV GTI: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2491460
I don't posess enough knowledge to understand the specs, maybe somebody else can contribute some info in laymen terms based on those specs.


----------



## Woj (Oct 23, 2000)

*Re: (KharatosGTI)*

What nobody is talking about is how adjustable the US spec cars really are...if one were to place the OEM euro springs and make the appropriate adjustments, then one would have a reasonable setup.
Morego tuning (UK) modifies the front wishbones to improve turn in and overall chuckability of their cars....am waiting for price quote in regards to their suspension mods. It is unclear to them whether installing their parts is easy or will be a major effort.


----------



## Dubious_Dubber (Oct 2, 2005)

*Re: (KharatosGTI)*

The Euro spec springs decrease handling in US spec vehicles because other suspension components are different. Could be the mounting points of various parts or lengths of parts are different the are changed, but they are changed to compensate for the different springs and higher ride height. I'm not positive this is the case, but I would think and assume it is.


----------



## dmiller9254 (Sep 8, 2004)

*Re: (Dubious_Dubber)*

It's probably been asked before but here it is. In the rear I'm having trouble figuring out the effects of lowering on suspension geometry with the MKIV torsion beam axle. What is an acceptable lowering amount for the rear without f*ing up roll center. An answer with a good explanation or simply a link to an answer with a good explanation would be much appreciated.
Note: The purpose of lowering the car for me is not to eliminate wheel gap, so if 0 lowering in the rear is best then so be it.


----------



## 7thGear (Sep 20, 2002)

*Re: (dmiller9254)*

the roll center in the rear stays constant at ground level
therefore lowering as much as possible is beneficial to the rear end
however the rear beam needs some range of motion and critical lowering is bad as well
lower the rear end so that the base of the car (not the fender lines), ie, the height, is equal rear and back.
or another good rule of thumb is lower so that your buffers are engaged and preloaded slightly for good perfromance
but a very harsh ride when going over bumps.


----------



## dmiller9254 (Sep 8, 2004)

*Re: (7thGear)*

thanks


----------



## crazy88 (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: (Dubious_Dubber)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Dubious_Dubber* »_The Euro spec springs decrease handling in US spec vehicles because other suspension components are different.


afaik, the only parts that are different are the springs themselves + the rear bump stops... i just had the euro springs installed on my gti, + the improvement is noticeable... much less dive, squat, + "floating"
while i'm by no means an expert driver, i'd be very surprised if anyone driving the 2 setups back-to-back would think the euro spec handles worse... this isn't a case where it's a 2.5 inch drop on coils just for looks


----------



## Bugg33 (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: (crazy88)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crazy88* »_

afaik, the only parts that are different are the springs themselves + the rear bump stops... i just had the euro springs installed on my gti, + the improvement is noticeable... much less dive, squat, + "floating"
while i'm by no means an expert driver, i'd be very surprised if anyone driving the 2 setups back-to-back would think the euro spec handles worse... this isn't a case where it's a 2.5 inch drop on coils just for looks

Not to mention the later 07 GTIs are coming with lower springs than the 06 and early 07 GTI's. Wouldn't that be great if they were degrading the handling of the stock GTI.


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Stay alive*

The stay alive bump.


----------



## velocipedio (Apr 26, 2006)

*Re: (Bugg33)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Bugg33* »_
Not to mention the later 07 GTIs are coming with lower springs than the 06 and early 07 GTI's. Wouldn't that be great if they were degrading the handling of the stock GTI.

That's the problem with this forum. No one ever really seems to know, even the suspension "gurus."
This was the same argument with the MK4 stock vs. 337 and 20th AE GTIs. The suspension forum is convinced the 337 handles worse than the stock model. Why would Volkswagen do this? And why would they make the European version of the MK5 "worse"? 
Would be nice to have a VW suspension engineer around.


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: (velocipedio)*

It is unlikely that in the real world anyone will really notice the 06 vs. 07 GTI supsension and handling differences on a daily basis. However the press that drove the Euro versions and the US versions of the 06 GTi thought the Euro handled better.
Unless the cars are on a race track and measured by the stopwatch the differences will come down to personal prefereces. 
As far as the 337 I can generalize based upon my GLi-1.8t (sorry no track times), I swapped the stock springs for H&R OE Sport Springs and Bilstein dampers that raised the front 3/8" and lowered the rear 1/4" from stock. The slightly stiffer springs and slightly higher ride height with better damping did improve the handling dynamics of the car.


----------



## QGMika (Jul 25, 2002)

*Re: (briang)*

I just wanted to add, is it possible the euro springs make the gti handle better because it lowers minimally with possibly higher spring rates?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (DSG604)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DSG604* »_I just wanted to add, is it possible the euro springs make the gti handle better because it lowers minimally with possibly higher spring rates?

Its possible. However, I reckon that many European models have different dampers than we do. U.S.A. customers (not talking enthusiast crowd) expect comfort while German and other European markets expect zippy handling which comes from stiffer springs AND stiffer dampers.
Maybe we could tell by looking in the ETKA?


----------



## mcaselli (Mar 9, 2004)

*Re: (phatvw)*

I would be more interested to see what the spec'd tires are for the euro car vs. the US car. In the northeast we got some terrible continentals as OE tires.


----------



## performula (Apr 10, 2003)

I take it the Eibach Pro Kit (-1.2" F and R) is too radical?


----------



## MK3_DE_VRT (Sep 26, 2006)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*

suspension,sway,strut,poly bushings,then a cage, and when u can't do anymore start stitch welding the seems on ur car


----------



## performula (Apr 10, 2003)

*Re: (performula)*


_Quote, originally posted by *performula* »_I take it the Eibach Pro Kit (-1.2" F and R) is too radical?

*?*


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (performula)*

For a MKIV - yes. Performance will be degraded. Some have noticed a difference with as little as 1/4" lower in the front.


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (SRSVW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SRSVW* »_

Where did this conclusion come from? Did you read the threads? OEM european springs will degrade your handling.
Dick Shine

So an American-spec GTI outhandles a Euro-spec car, purely because it has higher ride height?
Looking forward to hearing this one explained


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_Looking forward to hearing this one explained

It already has been ... many times over. The MKV has a McPherson strut front suspension .... just like the MK I, II, III, & IV. The same logic and laws of physics applies ... please - reread this thread.


----------



## jackmott (Aug 4, 2005)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

This doesn't necessarily imply that the US spec would outhandle the Euro spec as this guy asked.
First, I don't think we have real measurements of the stock geometry to know if the euro springs would put you into an undesireable camber curve or not. All I have seen is one guy who "looked under the car and saw the control arm was parallel to the ground".
secondly, depending on total body roll (a function of track, cg, and roll stiffness) and static camber settings, you can often have a car perform better by keeping it low, stiff, and with lots of static negative camber. 
You can't just focus on one parameter (dynamic camber) and assume that if you ever negatively affect this you will always be hurting handling overall.
If I were setting up a GTI for street prepared autocrossing im certain the ideal setup would be quite a bit lower than stock. the damn thing will probably tip over on kumho 710s at the stock ride height.










_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
It already has been ... many times over. The MKV has a McPherson strut front suspension .... just like the MK I, II, III, & IV. The same logic and laws of physics applies ... please - reread this thread.


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
The MKV has a McPherson strut front suspension .... just like the MK I, II, III, & IV. The same logic and laws of physics applies ... please - reread this thread.

Please don't treat me like one of the kids that keeps popping up and asking "so should I buy a Cup Kit?". I've been reading this thread from the start, I know the basic theory. 
I just think it's pretty presumptuous to come right out and claim that the Euro version handles worse than the US version purely because of this one variable. I know that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, increasing the roll couple through reduced ride height contributes to more body roll, but if the Euro springs are stiffer, then that must factor into the equation. 
Do you think VW AG would deliberately release a home-market version that handled worse than the US Spec car? Think about it for a minute..........


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_
Think about it for a minute..........

Remember the 20th AE?
How about the MKII GTi with wider tires (205/50-14 vs. 185/60-14)?
VW figured the NA market valued appearance over performance in both instances. The 20th AE has suspension geometry that is less optimal than the regular Golf/GTI, and the MKII with wider tires didn't produce faster laptimes when tested ... no worse, but no better.
VW does have a track record for compromising performance, for appearance - marketing and sales initiatives sometimes trump other factors.


----------



## Mr Black (Jan 20, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
VW figured the NA market valued appearance over performance in both instances. The 20th AE has suspension geometry that is less optimal than the regular Golf/GTI, and the MKII with wider tires didn't produce faster laptimes when tested ... no worse, but no better.


Again, the 20AE may have inferior geometry, but I'd be pretty damn surprised if a regular 1.8T GTI could stay with it. What's more, do you know for a fact that the European version, which I understand was also lower and stiffer, handles worse? 
And as for this wide tires thing..........we're switching gears now to say that tire width does not improve handling? Sounds like a totally different discussion to me. Were the two cars lapped back to back by the same driver, same day?


----------



## jackmott (Aug 4, 2005)

*Re: (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_
And as for this wide tires thing..........we're switching gears now to say that tire width does not improve handling? Sounds like a totally different discussion to me. Were the two cars lapped back to back by the same driver, same day?

lol.
Well wider tires almost always do, but you *can* get too wide


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (Mr Black)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mr Black* »_..........we're switching gears now to say that tire width does not improve handling?

A. That's not what I said - I mentioned laptimes, not handling.
B. Same gear - point being VW has and probably will continue to make design concessions to sell more cars - and those concessions may not be the ones YOU would make if it were your car to design.


----------



## jackmott (Aug 4, 2005)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

You don't really need to make a design concession to make the GTI low and have optimal camber curves, you just have to design the control arm properly in the first place.
But anyway, the idea of arguing this point based on "what VW shoulda coulda woulda done" is stupid.
We need real data









_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
B. Same gear - point being VW has and probably will continue to make design concessions to sell more cars - and those concessions may not be the ones YOU would make if it were your car to design.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (jackmott)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jackmott* »_
We need real data










Precisely








Edit ... and it's starting to come in:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2946168


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 10:19 AM 12-2-2006_


----------



## gtirevo33 (Jun 25, 2006)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

ok you guys might help i have done research on NEX coilovers i even have a post about it and no one says anything about them or know them and just rather bash them instead of knowing the facts. Yes, i understan you pay for what you get but i keep comparing te coilover system to H&R, Koni and Vogtland. i see that the NEX coilovers look stiffer and more progressive than all 3. I ask myself though is really stiff the way to go, reading post on how suspension should stay in contact with the ground at all times even if you take a corner in auto-x......So if you see my post or can inform me more on this coilover system here. it will be greatly appreciated http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

thanks


----------



## jettalvr41 (Oct 26, 2006)

*2F and 1.5R*

does anyone have pictures possibly of a jetta gls prefferably dark blue with a 2inch drop in front and a 1.5 inch in the rear because im a curious teenager and most of the pictures dont work and i just got my car and i want to get most of my work done now before i start driving it. also i have a question if you were to a drop like that and you had stock set up before that is it wise to just get springs and not replace everything right away or will that screw stuff up. see im a body man not suspension or mechanics soo this is like my favorite site because i can ask all my n00b ?'s. so yeah lemme know.


----------



## philiminilli (Feb 21, 2005)

*Re: 2F and 1.5R (jettalvr41)*

Sorry, i don't have the time to read all 25 pages to see if someone has brought this up already. 
I know that being low messes up the suspension geometry BUT, If you have really stiff springs, this would be for a race car of course, say 800lbs front and 650/700 rear, your wheel travel would be so little through corners, maybe 1/4 inch that I don't believe the camber would change that much. therefore, if this is true it would not matter how low you are, since your camber angle would only be changing a negligible amount. Just food for thought
discuss


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: 2F and 1.5R (philiminilli)*

already addressed ... read the full thread ...


----------



## philiminilli (Feb 21, 2005)

*Re: 2F and 1.5R (f1forkvr6)*

any idea what page its on? i dont have time to sit here for half an hour and read 25 pages of posts


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: 2F and 1.5R (philiminilli)*

Jeez .... 1st mention is on page TWO ... .


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 10:08 AM 3-6-2007_


----------



## nogomoto (Jan 21, 2007)

*Re: 2F and 1.5R (f1forkvr6)*

I might have missed it in the past 25 pages, but has anyone tried to develope a way to draw CoG closer to RC by altering the suspension in any way? I got an idea on a part I just started to develope and would like to know what is out there for roll center before I get too far.


----------



## V-DUBS ROCK!!!! (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tyrolkid)*

Would H&R cup kit w/ 2" drop be too low for handling the best on a golf mk3?


----------



## tstar (Mar 28, 2007)

Since the 20th/337 GTI rides an inch lower on the oem springs, does it have different spindles to accomodate the lowering and keep the camber in spec? I put these springs on my GLS and the camber is borderline.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (tstar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tstar* »_Since the 20th/337 GTI rides an inch lower on the oem springs, does it have different spindles to accomodate the lowering and keep the camber in spec? I put these springs on my GLS and the camber is borderline.

Nope - normal MKIV spindles - that's the problem. FWIW, camber isn't really the issue here - it's got more to do with the front roll center being dropped much faster than the CG.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (V-DUBS ROCK!!!!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *V-DUBS ROCK!!!!* »_Would H&R cup kit w/ 2" drop be too low for handling the best on a golf mk3?
Please - reread this thread, and others in the FAQ - ANY lowering moves you away from "best" handling.


----------



## DubbinGLI (Aug 4, 2007)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (MartijnGizmo)*

is that a cup kit on the jetta..someone show me some pics with around a 60/40 kit on a mk2 plz...
-15yr old..loving the dubbin


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vdubindahaus65)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vdubindahaus65* »_is that a cup kit on the jetta..someone show me some pics with around a 60/40 kit on a mk2 plz...
-15yr old..loving the dubbin









Not the right thread to be asking this question ... this thread discusses the functional ramifications of lowering your car - NOT how it looks, and NOT for posting pictures of slammed rides. As recommended in another of your threads, go to the MK2 forums


----------



## zak (Aug 27, 2004)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

But let's remember, the roll center to center of gravity is NOT a valid moment arm, as previously believed. Look here: http://www.neohio-scca.org/com...7.pdf for details.
As soon as the car starts to roll, the roll center changes. I wish someone with CAD skillz could draw it for us. And then that person could diagram the Force Applied Points for a MkIV so we could know what really is going on.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (zak)*

All of these discussions are based on the instantaneous roll center, but are simplified to a static roll center for explanation purposes. Most folks that want to lower their car and "prove" that it handles great have a hard enough time picturing a static roll couple - can you imagine these folks trying to comprehend a roll center that changes as their chassis attitude changes pitch, yaw and roll







?


----------



## macosxuser (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (f1forkvr6)*

<--- Read all the FAQ's, now trying to make a decision. Is there a significant benefit to going with Shine, over H2Sport spindles and some mild (1-1.5" range) lowering springs with Koni FSD shocks? I could pickup the shine street bar still. I don't like the fender gap at all, but would live with it if there is no other way to improve handling. 
I also realise that ideally i'd do something like the sofsport and new spindles... but I'd prefer to cut the gap a LITTLE while i'm spending the money...
I was planning on Eibach springs, but can't find and spring rate info for them.


----------



## vwconvert (Apr 18, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (macosxuser)*

So there seems to be a consensus on this forum that lowering away from OEM height will likely not improve handling. What about cases where there are different OEM options? For example, the Passat offers a sports package which is almost one inch lower than the standard suspension. So if I were to get DriverGear springs for example that lowers my standard suspension to close to the sports package level, how would that affect handling?


----------



## dieselsteev (May 10, 2007)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (vwconvert)*

its pretty apparent that dumping your car on its balls isn't going to do much for improved handing. but say on a mk5 gti, would 1-1.5 inches improve handling? especially with an rsb? that seems like a good median between dumped and stock


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (dieselsteev)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dieselsteev* »_its pretty apparent that dumping your car on its balls isn't going to do much for improved handing. but say on a mk5 gti, would 1-1.5 inches improve handling? especially with an rsb? that seems like a good median between dumped and stock

Dropping even 1/4 inch on the Golf/Jetta makes handling worse with all other variables held constant. If anyone thinks otherwise, go do a double-blind test on a racetrack and come back with laptimes as your proof.
Remember there is a difference between handling "feel" and REAL handling aka road-holding. lowering makes it *feel* faster, but you're actually going slower.
Passat is a different story since it has multi-link front suspension. Would lowering help? Who knows. Not too many laptimes from Passats around.
Without laptimes, its all guesswork.


_Modified by phatvw at 11:29 AM 11-30-2007_


----------



## GoFaster (Jun 18, 1999)

With regards to factory lowering springs, keep in mind that factory "sport" packages are often more show than go. (How many minivans have been built with "Sport" in their name ...) Cars are built for the mass market and they realize that there is a big market for something that looks sporty, even if it isn't.
Also, keep in mind that it is a matter of degree. There is no solid black line in the sand that says "go no further or else". It's a continuous but varying shade of grey. Can you tell the change in that shade of grey if you only went one-tenth of the way from black to white?


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

ok gusy ive read almost EVERY page of this..and ima NUBE..ive done almost all the stock turbo mods and now im workin into suspension.. almost EVERYONE can agree the stock ride height is not that sexy? right
ive read over and over but no one has 100% answered this one question.. 
how low can this acr be lowered before your handeling is hindered?...i wanted to drop the car 1 inch this spring and throw OZ rally 18" superleggerras on it.. would my car not handel aswell as it does now with stock 16" wheels and stock ride height? 
also whats other good mods to increase cornering with out the back end kicking out?


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

also..say i decide to keep the stock ride height ..is there any point in me buying springs and shocks.. will they help me handel better?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_also..say i decide to keep the stock ride height ..is there any point in me buying springs and shocks.. will they help me handel better? 

Your questions are not unique.

Lower at all and your road-holding potential is already compromised. That means any lowering.
Start:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2486228
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1707424
Sometimes I think I should give up on this forum. You can only write so many articles: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2357867 with folks either ignoring them or misunderstanding them...



_Modified by phatvw at 1:14 PM 12-27-2007_


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_ edited...
Sometimes I think I should give up on this forum. You can only write so many articles: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2357867 with folks either ignoring them or misunderstanding them...
_Modified by phatvw at 1:14 PM 12-27-2007_


*I HEARD THAT !!! *









I suspect part of the problem is most people suffer from:
*Not knowing what they don't know.*

That isn't a slam on anyone as we all suffer from this syndrome at one time or another. What this means is people are not aware that they don't understand the technical subject matter well enough to comprehend the issues that are essential for the desired outcome.
Altering the performance of a vehicle requires a certain level of technical expertise, i.e. knowledge so that one is able to understand the interaction of all aspects of the proposed changes. Changing the handling of a vehicle means managing compromise. Engineering by it's very nature is the management of compromise. So to properly re-engineer your car to handle better, you need to understand how a suspension functions.
As an example most people don't know that by lowering a VW beyond it's designed operating height that the suspension geometry goes out of whack causing all kinds of problems such as a bad camber curve, bump steer, a lower CG, possibly a lower roll center, etc. By not knowing all of these aspects of a vehicles suspension design and their interaction to one another and the impact they have on the tire contact patch, spring rates, shock dampening, etc. leaves most car enthusiasts with a slammed VW that rides and looks like a POS. Even if you can tolerate the ridiculous esthetics, the suspension geometry is so screwed up that the car is not even fun to drive.
So in the case of mods, *IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS*. 
*KNOWLEDGE is BLISS !!!*
If folks spent a little time READING books like:
*Chassis Engineering* by Herb Adams - a former GM chassis engineer
*Hot to make your car handle* by Fred Puhn
or any of probably a hundred other good books on vehicle dynamics, then they'd understand why we tell them to NOT lower their car and that with the proper choice of components they could improve the handling of their car and get more enjoyment from it, instead of ending up with empty pockets, a slammed foolish looking POS for a vehicle and something that is painful just to drive to the store, let alone commute in or have fun driving.
My advice EDUCATE YOURSELF and ignore the wannabe a racer B.S. that many espouse on here as gospel. The FAQs here that PhatVW has posted are VALUABLE INFORMATION that people should read and heed. Then read a good book on making you car handle properly, and you'll be able to ask the right questions - if you still need to, and get the right answers.
For example asking "How do I make my car handle better"? is NOT the right question. You would be better off to state you objectives and ask how you can achieve them. For instances:
I would like to reduce the body roll on my car and perhaps improve lateral cornering ability. I was considering an XYZ shock and ABC spring set-up. I would also consider upgrading to a Z rated tire that fits my existing wheels. I can tolerate a little rougher ride, but not too much as this is my daily driver and the roads around here are rough in the Winter time. My budget for this project is $$$$. I would appreciate feedback on this approach to achieving my primary objectives of less body roll and more lateral cornering force. 
Thanks for your help. Mr. car enthusiasts.

THAT is a clear indication of what your objectives are and some reasonable means to achieve them. If none of this makes sense to you then you're likely to ask the same misguided questions most enthusiasts ask as any number of threads here can demonstrate.
*Hope this helps the newbies because no one can really help you if:*
1. You don't understand the information provided
2. You ignore the good info. and listen to the B.S. advice
3. You can't differentiate the good advice from the B.S.
4. You want someone to tell you what you want to hear
5. You have your mind made up and no facts or knowledge is going to change your mind!

BTW, for those who don't already know, lowering your car is not cool at the expense of a compromised suspension. It's just a foolish fad. Don't be a sucker. Mod you car properly and you'll have a lot more fun than looking dumb like the slammed crowd.









_Modified by raceware at 2:46 PM 12-27-2007_


_Modified by raceware at 6:21 PM 12-27-2007_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_ok gusy ive read almost EVERY page of this..and...
ive read over and over but no one has 100% answered this one question.. 
how low can this acr be lowered before your handeling is hindered?...

I don't think you read a single post - either that, or you didn't comprehend one single word. Did you happen to read phatvw's post - UP ONLY TWO from your post? Jeez .. don't claim to have read anything if you cannot even make the effort to read the posts on the same page as yours.
Go - run along and buy everything in the back of every tuner mag you have - it's in a glossy ad, so it has to work, right?


----------



## VWn00b (Mar 4, 2005)

Quick question regarding camber:
Mk3 Jetta with GC camber plates.
Static camber set at 1.5 neg, toe 1/8 out
How much does toe change when moving to say 2.5 degrees, or even 3.5 degrees?


----------



## gehr (Jan 28, 2004)

*Re: (raceware)*


_Quote, originally posted by *raceware* »_If folks spent a little time READING books like:
*Chassis Engineering* by Herb Adams - a former GM chassis engineer


An excellent book! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## rex_racer (May 19, 2001)

*Re: (VWn00b)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWn00b* »_Quick question regarding camber:
Mk3 Jetta with GC camber plates.
Static camber set at 1.5 neg, toe 1/8 out
How much does toe change when moving to say 2.5 degrees, or even 3.5 degrees?

In my MKIV app, adding in an additional 2 degrees of camber at the strut mount led to over a half in toe in total change. I would suspect that the MKIII app would have a similar toe in effect when adding so much more negative camber.


----------



## VWn00b (Mar 4, 2005)

*Re: (rex_racer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rex_racer* »_
In my MKIV app, adding in an additional 2 degrees of camber at the strut mount led to over a half in toe in total change. I would suspect that the MKIII app would have a similar toe in effect when adding so much more negative camber.

Is there a balance between running "track" camber and "street" camber? As long as toe isn't too crazy there shouldn't be any accelerated wear on the tires?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (VWn00b)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWn00b* »_
Is there a balance between running "track" camber and "street" camber? As long as toe isn't too crazy there shouldn't be any accelerated wear on the tires?

I found 1.5°-2.0° is a good balance. Any more than 2.0° and you'll probably wear the inside edge a little faster. Just make sure to rotate your tires at least every 5000 miles. Front toe will contribute to tire wear more. Instead of 1/8th toe out, maybe try 1/16th for street. Should still give you good turn-in, etc.


_Modified by phatvw at 1:05 PM 12-28-2007_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_ ... try 1/16th for street. Should still give you good turn-in, etc.

Pressed zero, or even an "honest" zero toe is fine for the street - you may run a slightly higher slip-angle, but damn ... if you are slipping on dry pavement - on your way to work/school - you're probably pushing it a bit too hard (it is fun though







)


----------



## VWn00b (Mar 4, 2005)

I'm still waiting for my GC/Koni setup to come in plus my camber plates as well.
Theres an alignment shop here in Dallas I'm in good with, so I'm probably gonna get the car on the rack, and mess with the camber plates to see exactly how much toe is changed with camber. Once I get them in, I'll post up some sheets.


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: (raceware)*

ok racewear you asked my question for me and in a better way. im new to VWs and not that good at suspension so im here to learn. coming from an AWD drive car before this lowering my oldcar madeit handel awsome thats why this is a difficult thing for me to understand a little bit lol. butbased on your experience and since search options are endless
" I would like to reduce the body roll on my car and perhaps improve lateral cornering ability. I was considering an XYZ shock and ABC spring set-up.(but dont know a good shock and spring set up to pick from can you recommend one to me??" I would also consider upgrading to a Z rated tire that fits my existing wheels.(but i think i will buy the Superlegerras this coming spring with a highperformance low pro tire, is this a good idea on your part? will an 18" wheel help me handel better or should i just go for a 17". I can tolerate a little rougher ride, but not too much as this is my daily driver and the roads around here are rough in the Winter time.(i live in NYC they are VERY ROUGH) My budget for this project is a few hundred dollars id say around 500. I would appreciate feedback on this approach to achieving my primary objectives of less body roll and more lateral cornering force. <-------------------- Thank you guys..happy new year!


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_ok racewear you asked my question for me and in a better way. im new to VWs and not that good at suspension so im here to learn. coming from an AWD drive car before this lowering my oldcar madeit handel awsome thats why this is a difficult thing for me to understand a little bit lol. butbased on your experience and since search options are endless
" edited... My budget for this project is a few hundred dollars id say around 500. I would appreciate feedback on this approach to achieving my primary objectives of less body roll and more lateral cornering force. <-------------------- Thank you guys..happy new year!









OK so lets start with your budget of $500. You could buy several vehicle dynamics books and read them. Then you'd have some money left over and a valuable knowledge base to start from.
I can't take much of the rest of what you posted seriously when one wheel or a set of shocks cost more than $500, but I'll play along.







The Superlegerras are light wheels and expensive. With NYC roads you could easily bend one or more - if you can actually afford to purchase them. Worth thinking about before you spend your $500. 
Using 18" wheels and tires in and of itself will not necessarily make you car "handle" better than 17". It all boils down to your definition of "handling". A lower profile tire generally gives faster response when you turn the wheel. Different brands and models of tires have different tire construction and while instant response is easier to drive on for quick maneuvers, it doesn't always result in the highest cornering force. A lighter wheel/tire combo is easier for the shocks to control and *may* produce a slight improvement in acceleration if the effective flywheel mass is lower. You can't tell without real world engineering data if a 17" tire/wheel combo has a lower effective flywheel mass than an 18" wheel.
Being that you live where the roads are horrible, you may find the Koni FSD shock system ideal as it provides roll stiffness but has an excellent ride quality, especially on bad roads. Unfortunately you can't buy the kit for $500. And before you ask... I would NOT lower your car especially with bad roads. You can use the Koni FSD shocks with your existing springs for better roll stiffness and good ride quality. If you can find the appropriate spring that keeps you car at the stock ride height or drop no more than 1" lower, you could up the spring rates 10-15% for more roll stiffness but the ride won't be as supple as with the stock springs.
http://www.tirerack.com/suspen...rings
You could also install a stiffer rear swaybar to reduce body roll which is what most people believe is "improved handling". Reduced body roll may or may not help ultimate lateral cornering force depending on the camber curves and tire characteristics. A stiffer rear swaybar will tend to reduce understeer or plowing but it will increase oversteer which is where the back of the car passes the front of the car as you spin out of control...








Of course you can't really do any of the above except buy the books or the rear swaybar, for $500 but I thought I'd share what might be useful options for your situation if you did have the funds to purchase the proper hardware.
Have you purchased and read those vehicle dynamics books yet ????



_Modified by raceware at 2:26 PM 12-29-2007_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (raceware)*

I agree with most of what raceware said. Except that you *can* make $500 go a long way.
First off, start with Amazon and Google "read inside the book" You can actually read about 30 pages of the aforementioned books for free. Also your local library may have them. Worth a check.
Next, check through the classifieds on the forums here for used parts. Koni's last a long time and frequently come up for sale when folks trade in their lease cars and whatnot! Koni FSD is great, but for far less money, you can get a used set of Koni Yellows and use them with OEM springs. You may have enough money left over for a rear swaybar as well. Depends if you do the install work yourself or if you go to a shop.
I discourage you from getting 18" wheels. They will surely slow your car down and will reduce ride comfort. Stick with 16" or 17" and spend the money on quality tires - either an ultra high performance all-season if you only have one set of rims, or a UHP/max performance summer and a dedicated winter snow/slush tire if you have two sets of rims.


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (phatvw)*

The problem is the roads he has to drive on... or as I refer to the ones here locally - cattle trails. 
Koni yellow shocks will likely beat him to death on bad roads because the bump dampening is not adjustable. The other problem with used shocks is you don't know what you're buying. The FSD's are the way to go for him IMNHO and it would be worth saving his money to get them. Then he'd have the best of both worlds, good roll control which to him means "handling" and good ride on the horrible NYC roadways. He doesn't really need springs or a rear swaybar if all he is looking for is "better handling" = roll control for most people.
The books are probably less than $40 new and he will likely refer to them often if he decides to improve the handling of this or any other car or he could buy used versions for probably less than $20 if they aren't available in a library.
There are all kinds of options and I was offering advice based on what I would do. I didn't suggest the rear swaybar as the first option because he indicated he didn't want the back to "kick out". Depending on how he drives on rough roads, that's a very likely possibility with a H.D. rear bar.
There really is a method to my madness...


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (raceware)*

Another alternative is a Koni yellow/Koni Red combo: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2806213
I've found most of the comfort feel comes from the rear-end of the car i.e. your butt and pitching sensitivity is affected by changes to the rear of the car, more than the front. So putting on the Koni reds in the rear does quite a bit for comfort. Saves money too.
My wife loves them - makes her Jetta drive like a Mercedes. Everybody thinks their roads are the worst, but Seattle has a unique problem of almost constant moisture/rainfall for 8 months out of the year. What that does is create sinkholes and very uneven pavement as the water seeps into the layers of the road. Its worse than snow heaves in Colorado, etc. When adjusted properly, the Koni's are actually more comfortable over these conditions than the OEM setup. My Bilstein's on the other hand can make you sick to your stomach, but man are they fun on the racetrack!
Buying a used suspension isn't really such a gamble. Thousands of people do it every day when they buy used cars. Koni and Bilstein both have lifetime guarantees for the original owner and very reasonable rebuild fees.



_Modified by phatvw at 9:31 PM 12-29-2007_


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

thank you guys.. I appreciate it, Now im sorry I dont want to get it confused i live in what NY likes tocall the "lower Hudson Valley area" which means Im right around NYC and its Boros. and Dead on with NJ and the Garden state parkway, RT80, Turnpike Ect.. its mostly Highway driving for me. and in NYC to see the Girlfriend 2-3X a week but i live in A urban/ Surburban area. the roads where ilive are nto so bad a lott of hills and twisties though. Im not lookin to AutoX my car..just be able to take a sharper turn more comfortably( not doing 90 obv) but faster then normally and glide right through it ive got 500-700 on just suspension not counting my rims $ im saving, sorry for not being clear on that one. so Koni? illlook into it unlessyou guys change your mind and tell mesomethign else thansk guys


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: (raceware)*

ok the kit looks awsome but it says the Eibach pro kit lowers 1.0-1.5 inches depending on the car..im gunna listen to raceware and try to NOT lower the lit at all.. is my car gunnalower with the eibach pro kit? i dont want it to and can i prevent it from lowering? can i just purchase the Koni kit alone if needed?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_ok the kit looks awsome but it says the Eibach pro kit lowers 1.0-1.5 inches depending on the car..im gunna listen to raceware and try to NOT lower the lit at all.. is my car gunnalower with the eibach pro kit? i dont want it to and can i prevent it from lowering? can i just purchase the Koni kit alone if needed?

Honestly, I'd just do the struts shocks and drive that for a bit. The increase in handling will be quite noticeable, and may be all you need given the condition of the roads you drive on. You can always add springs and sway bars later.
Cheers and Happy New Year to you too


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_ok the kit looks awsome but it says the Eibach pro kit lowers 1.0-1.5 inches depending on the car..im gunna listen to raceware and try to NOT lower the lit at all.. is my car gunnalower with the eibach pro kit? i dont want it to and can i prevent it from lowering? can i just purchase the Koni kit alone if needed?

That was just a reference on the FSD shocks. You don't need to buy the suspension kit with the Eibach springs. Yes you can buy just the FSD shocks. If you buy springs I wouldn't lower your car below the height of the Euro version - which may be .75"-1" lower than a U.S. spec car depending on model and year.


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

2004.5 GTI....Does that mean the EuroVersion doesnt handel as well as the US version since you guys say lower is not better? im confused..why would the euro version be almost 1 inch lower if you gusy PROOVED lower is not better..they would hate to know american modelhandels better then there "sophisticated" euro car lol


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_2004.5 GTI....Does that mean the EuroVersion doesnt handel as well as the US version since you guys say lower is not better? im confused..why would the euro version be almost 1 inch lower if you gusy PROOVED lower is not better..they would hate to know american modelhandels better then there "sophisticated" euro car lol

Confusing indeed. VW doesn't publish track times do they so how would anyone know better? German roads are better than US roads, so perhaps the ride comfort differences even out? Why is the Audi TT so impractical, yet so popular? Ahhh mysteries...


_Modified by phatvw at 10:32 AM 12-31-2007_


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*

When we say do not lower your car, we are saying do not lower it beyond it's ideal operating height for the suspension geometry. The Euro models are usually at the lowest height where the suspension geometry functions properly. Going lower is where the problems all start. In addition Euro models use different struts, springs, and shock dampening calibrations compared to U.S. spec cars in 99% of the models.


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

I gotta say 1 inch lower with 17Inch rims would look SOOO nice in addition to handeling better we can all [pretty much agree on that 1...soo im approaching 56kmiles on the GTI soon now anyway now whan u say shocks and struts..what struts do u mean ? not the strut bar right? im alil lost.. what lowering springs can i buy what lower at max 1 inch?orr i guess VERY stiff springs? front strut bar make a difference? rear sway bar as well? hmmmmm learning


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_I gotta say 1 inch lower with 17Inch rims would look SOOO nice in addition to handeling better we can all [pretty much agree on that 1...soo im approaching 56kmiles on the GTI soon now anyway now whan u say shocks and struts..what struts do u mean ? not the strut bar right? im alil lost.. what lowering springs can i buy what lower at max 1 inch?orr i guess VERY stiff springs? front strut bar make a difference? rear sway bar as well? hmmmmm learning 


OK, let's see if you've done your homework before we go making any changes.
What is the factory specified ride height for your U.S. spec GTI and what is the factory spec for the Euro GTI? How is this height measured?
Hint: Think Service and Maintenance


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

110-175 lb/inch depending on color code
The stock Ride height is around 1 inch depending on the model VR6..337


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

the EUro specs are:.75"-1" lower than a U.S. spec car depending on model and year.


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_110-175 lb/inch depending on color code
The stock Ride height is around 1 inch depending on the model VR6..337

Hi Steve,
If you're responding to my questions you flunked the test...








I didn't ask what the spring rate was, I asked what the vehicle height was on the U.S. vs. Euro version of your car and how the height is measured. Is the front and rear height "about 1" lower on the Euro GTI vs. the U.S. GTI or is the front and rear different than 1" lower???
I'll help you with how it's measured. The factory manual shows that you measure from the centerline of the wheel to the top of the fender arch. This eliminates any variables associated with tire diameter, tire type and air pressures -- which impact a measurement taken from the ground surface to the upper wheel arch.
I don't have access to the 2004 Bentley service manual but the standing height measurement specs should be there in the repair section for wheel alignment. As an example the 2006-2007 GTI shows a front height measured from the wheel centerline of 382mm for the U.S. and 360mm for the Euro model. The rear height is shown as 380mm for the U.S. and 365mm for the Euro. About .75"-1" would not be accurate on the 2006-2007 models as the front and rear are different , especially the rear. The 2004 model may be completely different however. Perhaps someone who has access to the 2004 Bentley service manual will lend a helping hand?










_Modified by raceware at 11:13 AM 1-3-2008_


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

whoops sorry ! LOL ok but will it be safe for meto lower it .75 to 1 inch ?with a good set of shocks and springs? im looking for good street handeling capabilities not AutoX (not now at least)..i just bought a front strut and installed it and im gunna picvk up a 25mmrear sway from a guy i know who had one on his 03 GTI


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

whats the difference between the 2004.5 GTi i have? and the "sport" suspension>? wouldnt all GTI come with a "sport" suspension'? it is a GTI


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_whats the difference between the 2004.5 GTi i have? and the "sport" suspension>? wouldnt all GTI come with a "sport" suspension'? it is a GTI

Some GTI's which came with 15" wheels had the "non-sport" suspension. If you got 16" or 17" wheels you surely have "sport" suspension.


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_whoops sorry ! LOL ok but will it be safe for meto lower it .75 to 1 inch ?with a good set of shocks and springs? im looking for good street handeling capabilities not AutoX (not now at least)..i just bought a front strut and installed it and im gunna picvk up a 25mmrear sway from a guy i know who had one on his 03 GTI 


If you're asking what I would do, I would set it at exactly the ride height front and rear of the Euro GTI, do a proper alignment and see how the struts/shocks work out. I would not go more than a 1/2" below the Euro heights, if it were me. The best handling comes from operating the suspension in the range it was engineered for. Be advised that the rear swaybar is gonna make the back kick out (oversteer), more easily, particularly on rough roads. You will need to adjust to this change in handling, particularly on slippery surfaces like rain and snow, so you don't get surprised by unexpected lift throttle or snap oversteer.


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

so is there even gunna be a benefit of the rear sway? i feel like the back already kics out and i hate it i have 16inch wheels on my car idk what there called tire size 205-55 16...the rinms are these..idk,,5spoke..avarus? im not sure if sum 1 knows stock wheel names that wuld help.but so this is a sport suspension already..hmmm how much bvetter is the sport suspension from VW then the nonsport? andis it worth it to keep the suspension i have now?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_so is there even gunna be a benefit of the rear sway? i feel like the back already kics out and i hate it i have 16inch wheels on my car idk what there called tire size 205-55 16...the rinms are these..idk,,5spoke..avarus? im not sure if sum 1 knows stock wheel names that wuld help.but so this is a sport suspension already..hmmm how much bvetter is the sport suspension from VW then the nonsport? andis it worth it to keep the suspension i have now? 


stevec, I think our discussion is getting beyond the topic title. Might be better to discuss in a different thread.
If you feel your rear-end is stepping out, then you should get your alignment checked. Also check your tire pressures and make sure they meet factory spec. Sometimes adjusting the rear tire pressure up or down 2PSI will dramatically change the comfort and handling characteristics. It depends on the brand of tire though - some respond to pressure changes more than others. You'll just have to experiment.
Sport vs non-sport? Not really much difference. The Sport has slightly thicker swaybars and supposedly 5-10% stiffer springs and MAY be up to 1/2" lower. The dampers are the same. Your best bet is to just upgrade the dampers to one of the units mentioned earlier Koni FSD or Koni Red - something like that.


----------



## anubisdjinn (Dec 7, 2007)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (SRSVW)*

so lowering your car doesn't improve your handling at all?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (anubisdjinn)*


_Quote, originally posted by *anubisdjinn* »_so lowering your car doesn't improve your handling at all?


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

bump LOL


----------



## Super 180s (Nov 14, 2007)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_and think in the real world how this low rider will be bump steering all over the place. Low can't take bumps and turns together. Find an autoX with some railroad tracks and potholes, then lets see slammed cars take a turn. I'd put a pole on the outer edge for some "fun".

Exactly!! Suspension travel rocks.


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (anubisdjinn)*


_Quote, originally posted by *anubisdjinn* »_so lowering your car doesn't improve your handling at all? 


Correct - lowering below the VW Euro ride height will change the suspension geometry and negatively impact handling - particularly on MK IV and MK V vehicles due to a change in roll center height disproportionate to the change in CG height - resulting in *more body roll *for the same lateral cornering force. In addition the MK IV and MK V VWs front MacPherson suspension designs have higher camber gain with roll - which is useful in keeping the tire flat on the road surface during cornering and body roll.
So in summary lowering below the VW Euro ride height for your car - which is the operating range where the suspension was designed to function properly, does NOT improve handling.
Let's move on.


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (raceware)*

hey raceware..i was comparing my car to a 20th anniv. the car looks great with the 18s on it.. but how different is that suspension? i know the bodykit onthe 20this lower and what not but im wondering how much better it handles? and ive been told koni shocks over and over but i wana know the BEST spring to buy that lowers the least? im not to skilled at searching for stuff like that. best ive found was H&R lowers 1.2-1.5 inches but thats still to low.i dont wana go lower then 1 inch..i just dont know and im killin my self tryint to fgure it out..also the addition of a rear sway bar? is it beter ot go 25mm? or 28mm? i dont know how to adjust a sway bar but i want it to work well so whatta ya think?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (stevec1.8t)*

You should probably start a new thread with these questions - it really isn't suited for FAQ purposes, with a focus on the technical ramifications of lowering your car. Not trying to pick a nit, but these FAQ threads have been kept pretty clean of superfluous posts until recently.
Thanks.


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (stevec1.8t)*

A new thread may be appropriate as suggested but I'll make this brief.
I don't have first hand info. on the 20th anniv. model but there are threads here where Dick Shine and "Pyce" tested and posted a lot of spring info. That may or may not answer your questions? 
A rear swaybar should be chosen based on the overall suspension package and your objectives. The diameter is only comparable if you're talking the same design and /or mfg. Adding a rear bar will tend to reduce understeer while increasing oversteer. If you are going to make a rear bar change you should error on the safe side and go with the 25mm bar. Too stiff a rear swaybar will make the back of the car twitchy and easy to skate on rough roads.


----------



## 20aeman (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_hey raceware..i was comparing my car to a 20th anniv. the car looks great with the 18s on it.. but how different is that suspension? i know the bodykit onthe 20this lower and what not but im wondering how much better it handles? and ive been told koni shocks over and over but i wana know the BEST spring to buy that lowers the least? im not to skilled at searching for stuff like that. best ive found was H&R lowers 1.2-1.5 inches but thats still to low.i dont wana go lower then 1 inch..i just dont know and im killin my self tryint to fgure it out..also the addition of a rear sway bar? is it beter ot go 25mm? or 28mm? i dont know how to adjust a sway bar but i want it to work well so whatta ya think?

FWIW, I have a 20th as well. I purchased a set of ground control coilovers/koni yellows and installed them a day back. I came to the realization that at the STOCK 20th ride height, I'm ON the bump stop. Whether this is brought about by the koni yellows or the shine camber plates I'm not entirely sure, but really on a spring/shock combo, 0 lowering would be best.


----------



## traffic (Sep 23, 2003)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_ok the kit looks awsome but it says the Eibach pro kit lowers 1.0-1.5 inches depending on the car..im gunna listen to raceware and try to NOT lower the lit at all.. is my car gunnalower with the eibach pro kit? i dont want it to and can i prevent it from lowering? can i just purchase the Koni kit alone if needed?

stevec1.8t, 
Just a couple responses to some questions I saw:
1. Eibach pro-kit (unless they changed their design) have lower spring rates than OEM. They really rely on their matched dampers (fairly high compression damping and not enough rebound damping) for it to "work". Also stiff bumpstops.
However, mated with Bilstein sport or KONI yellow can do some damage control to the negative impact of lowering with softer springs.
2. The 20ae, '04.5GLI, 337 have slightly lower ride heights than the VW sport suspension (like on my '03 GTI VR6) BUT, they run shorter and stiffer bumpstops. Also, they have an illusion of looking even lower with the extra body kit. PLUS they come stock with stickier tires.
So the combination may actually yield a faster handling car. But it's the combination of little extras like the stiffer bumpstops and stickier tires that counteract the lower ride height.
3. Great handling and especially compliant ride can be felt every mile you drive. It'll transform your car and your love affair with your car. A great handling street car is also very fun on the track.


----------



## error404 (Apr 14, 2002)

My 03 GLI w/24v VR6 rides way too high on the stock sport suspension and 17" Monte Carlos. It boggles my mind with how high it rides!
Last year I blew out my strut mounts and will also need to get new struts, so I've decided to get it lowered as well and get new springs and struts/shocks. The kit I'm looking at is the Neuspeed/Koni combo that will lower the car 1.5"-2". I'm looking at the 1.5" range since 2" seems to be pushing things a little much.


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (error404)*

Euro ride height for your car would be best.


----------



## grammaticus (Aug 1, 2006)

*Re: (raceware)*

raceware,
I can ignore what may simply have been a moment of indiscretion on your part when you _blasted_ me the other day (see Recommended Drop??); however, for the sake of those who come to this forum in search of information, without much prior knowledge, can you please justify having advised as much as 1.5" of drop below stock US ride height in _this_ thread (i.e. Lowering: discussion on handling, not looks), while having blasted me in the other... e.g.:
_*raceware to grammaticus:* Telling people it's OK to screw the handling of their car for esthetics is VERY BAD ADVICE and unsafe... You need to remember this is the Suspension TUNING forum not the slam you sh*t forum where foolish advice is the rule of the day_ (Recommended Drop??).
...when I suggested that--although this forum generally recommends that any drop is detrimental to handling--an approximate 1" drop below stock US ride height wouldn't be the end of the world for someone concerned more with aesthetics than performance?


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (grammaticus)*

You've misunderstood what I've posted. I've never advised anyone to lower their car 1.5" below U.S. spec. I have always stated that the Euro ride height is the optimum ride height for a MK IV and MK V, and it is. 
You appear to *still* be very confused.








There is a reason why each forum has FAQs - to educate people.


----------



## grammaticus (Aug 1, 2006)

*Re: (raceware)*


_Quote, originally posted by *raceware* »_...the Euro version - which may be .75"-1" lower than a U.S. spec car depending on model and year.


_Quote, originally posted by *raceware* »_I would not go more than a 1/2" below the Euro heights, if it were me.

Stock - .75" - .5" = Stock - 1.25".
Stock - 1" - .5" = Stock - 1.5".
The FAQ advises against lowering for optimal roadholding. You say that (a) Euro height is optimal, and that (b) Euro height may be .75" to 1" lower than a U.S. spec car (depending on model and year). Thus, you contradict what the FAQ says--the very FAQ which you subsequently claim is there to educate people.
So, you're right--I am confused... and, because I want _understanding_ more than I want to be able to say "I was right," I'd be perfectly happy if you or anyone else here can show me where I've misunderstood what you've said. But you'll probably just post up more sarcasm instead of (a) explaining how I have misunderstood you, or (b) admitting that you've been mistaken somewhere here.


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (grammaticus)*

O.K. here I go...I may have posted something along the lines of "there are no stupid questions" but that was before I saw just how stupid the questions on this forum got. I must admit that I am trying to make sense of it all, I am not trying to gang up or get revenge for other threads. Here is a strange thing, though. My car is a mkv rabbit and the wheel center to wheel well bottom measures to 350 in front and 360 in rear. If you add up the things that were said, I am both "too low" and "too stiff" but I cannot find a published spring rate for these springs. Although I am 10mm low in front (less that one half inch) and 5mm low in rear (less than 1/4") below euro ride height. This is where the H&R sport springs put the car. The stock dampers are clearly insufficient.
Is the mkv below parallel at euro ride height? 360mm front 365 rear.
Are euro dampers different? Springs for euro have been discussed, but I have not seen damper comparisons.
If this thread gets moved I am afraid these questions will not be answered. 
My friend has a gti with 18" wheels I think he has "sport" suspension and it handles great on the 3-d roads we can have here.


_Modified by Stutz at 11:46 AM 2-3-2008_


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (Stutz)*

To add a bump, the gti that I was referring to was also a gen v like mine.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (Stutz)*

Guys guys guys... didn't Eurotuner do a test with a US spec MkV GTI vs a Euro spec MkV GTI??? Anybody got a copy of that with the published stats?
Until we all see the results of the comparison, a discussion on Euro vs US ride height with respect to performance is utterly useless.

Some good info here, but not exactly what I was looking for: http://www.mkv-gti.net/wiki/in...nsion


_Modified by phatvw at 11:34 PM 2-2-2008_


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

Thanks for the link! Can I depend on the accuracy of this info? I edited the measurments on my earlier post, I put 150 and 160 when I meant to put 350 and 360, with the +/- this puts the car inside euro ride height, but spring rate and damping are a different matter.


_Modified by Stutz at 11:50 AM 2-3-2008_


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

hey suspension gurus what do you guys think about the SRS kit for my MK4 GTI? ive heard good things..racewar? any one


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*

This is designed for performance only - not an appearance kit. In fact, some folks think it makes their MKIV look goofy (reverse rake). Very good bang for the buck in performance terms. It would be my first recommendation for simple way to increase the performance level of your suspension (plus - it's guaranteed for as long as you own your car - through Bilstiein for the dampers, and by Shine for the pieces they manufacture.


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

ok well i definetly DONT want my car to look goofy.. and F1 i do understand that this is a page about the erformance aspect not cosmetic BUT from your expert opinion tell me what you think about me possibly getting some 337 springs?? and then maybe Koni reds or koni yellows (you tell me which you think are better) and then a 17inch wheel ?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*

Yellows are more sporting, Reds are more comfortable. 337 springs may give you the look you are going for, but are lower than optimal, and a bit to soft for the ride height.
Again - it's all a compromise .... you need to determine how far, and in which direction you are willing to compromise the most.


----------



## traffic (Sep 23, 2003)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

stevec1.8t,
Think of handling, comfort, looks as forming a triangle. As you get closer to one, you move farther from the other two. Be honest and prioritize which is the most important to you.
As far as goofy goes, unless you drive around next to a mirror truck all the time, who cares.
But I do understand that people do care, so I'll leave it at that.
The 337, 20ae, '04.5 GLI all rely on shorter and stiffer bumpstops. It is NOT the springs that add performance. The bumpstops basically are making the springs stiffer. Also they come with grippier tires from the factory.
If all you do is buy the 20ae springs, then you have downgraded your suspension in terms of handling. You need the bumpstops as well. And again, it is more of a band-aid to fix the degradation in the geometry.
BUT, if that is acceptable and it puts a smile on your face to see a smaller fender gap, then go for it. Just be educated about the decision you are making rather than how many just feel that dumping their ride and having it super stiff and bouncy is somehow sportier or better handling.


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: (traffic)*

so i understand that the most of our weight in our cars is in the front (duhhhhhhhhhhh) idk how much in % sowould it be wise to put Koni Reds in the front? and yellows in the back? can u do that? and traffic ..performance is most important right now given ride comfort is a plus as we can ALL agree..
SO its a NOT as far as the OE 337 springs are concerned..what springs can i buy that DONT! lower more then 1inch? 1.2 the MOST!


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*

Is Shine working on the MKV at all, I saw a post on another thread, but it has not gone anything past "I'll take a look". Also, When "stock" ride height is spoken about, what is being referred to? The sport suspension ride height, euro, or no-option stock. I would prefer wheel center to fender well, because it is more absolute.


----------



## crazy88 (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: (Stutz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Stutz* »_Also, When "stock" ride height is spoken about, what is being referred to?


shine tested an 06 gti w/ the taller us-spec springs (also on the 07 models)


----------



## traffic (Sep 23, 2003)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_so i understand that the most of our weight in our cars is in the front (duhhhhhhhhhhh) idk how much in % sowould it be wise to put Koni Reds in the front? and yellows in the back? can u do that? and traffic ..performance is most important right now given ride comfort is a plus as we can ALL agree..
SO its a NOT as far as the OE 337 springs are concerned..what springs can i buy that DONT! lower more then 1inch? 1.2 the MOST!










No. Run KONI yellows up front. The REAR actually accounts for like 70% of the comfort. The fronts need to be stiff to support the extra weight. Also, most of the performance comes from improving the fronts. The rears are just along for the ride by comparison.
Also, the KONI yellows are adjustable on the car through the top of the shaft which is accessible through the strut top. The reds are not. They have to be removed from the car to adjust. This is a pain on the front suspension. The rears are just a 30min inconvenience. You won't be dialing it back and forth very often. You'll run through a couple settings initially and then you'll set it and forget it.
Again, the H&R OE sport is supposed to only lower like 0.75"-1".


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (traffic)*

Can I assume that koni yellows have no effect on ride height? 
Also, I would like to relace the front first and buy the rears when I can afford them.


----------



## zak (Aug 27, 2004)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_
SO its a NOT as far as the OE 337 springs are concerned..what springs can i buy that DONT! lower more then 1inch? 1.2 the MOST!









The 337/20thAE springs lower you 1" from the base Golf height--that's 1/2" lower than the sport suspension on a garden-variety GTi. 
I have the 20th springs and bumpstops and am happy with the suspension on my 02 GTi (1.8T). I also have a 25mm Neuspeed RSB on stiff, which I had with the stock sport suspension before.
I'm not saying it's the absolute best set-up, but the car looks and handles well-enough for my daily driver. I will be getting Koni Yellows all around when I can afford them, though, as the OE shocks/struts (off the 20th the springs came from) are pushing 40k miles.


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (Stutz)*

Depends if they are high pressure gas or not. It looks like the MK V uses low pressure twin tube shocks for the Koni yellows, so there should be no change in ride height based on the shocks. It's OK to change just the front shocks first.


_Modified by raceware at 7:37 PM 2-7-2008_


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (raceware)*

I am still a bit curious about ride height, I have a rabbit and with h&r sport springs it it at 350 in front and 360 in the rear, with the euro gti springs I would be going up about 10mm in front and 5mm rear. If this would vastly improve roadholding I could see doing it, but it seems like such a small amount, and I feel my money would be better spent on dampers. Thoughts?
Also, does the gti and the rabbit/golf mkv have the same ride height?


----------



## soapiece (Jan 8, 2003)

*Re: (Stutz)*

roll center adjuster?
http://www.zerosports.co.jp/ht....html
what do you guys think about this product?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (soapiece)*


_Quote, originally posted by *soapiece* »_roll center adjuster?
http://www.zerosports.co.jp/ht....html
what do you guys think about this product? 

I can't tell from the pictures if they actually move the pivot point by incorporating a whole new balljoint or if it is just an extender for bumpsteer correction or something. If they moved the pivot point then its all good!
The diagrams with all the criss-cross lines are a little confusing.


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: (soapiece)*

how bout a site in ENGLISH LOL


----------



## soapiece (Jan 8, 2003)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*

i kinda translated,
Subaru's suspension geometry is rapidly changed by lowering the car. When lower arm's angle is raised, distance between the center of gravity and roll center is increased. which results the lower cg with increased rolling. also the lower arm's original position is not kept resulting in bad alignment and poor tire performance(camber). by installing roll center adjuster, you will have little to no change of the roll center while you can still lower your car resulting better stroking of suspension. Advantages are faster turn in, reduced understeer, and increase of front tire traction.








Stock suspension. Because lower arm is positioned as its original design, appropriate camber is shown.








Lowered suspension. Because lower arm is positioned poorly, resulting change in camber. also CG and RC are distanced.








with Adjuster. Appropriate camber from original design of CG and RC.
and below it's basically saying it's been proved on time attack at Tsukuba racetrack and some stuff..


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: (soapiece)*

HOLY S**T Lol that's cool as hell but how did u translate it haha? So is this for MKV only? Or will it work on the MK4? Or are u saying this is for a subaru? Why don't VW gurus who created this LOWERING DISCUSSION forum make something BETTER? To increase our handeling capeabilities while lowering the car..I know they know how..its gotta be possible..I wish I were smart enough to do it..


----------



## Shinex1 (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_HOLY S**T Lol that's cool as hell but how did u translate it haha? So is this for MKV only? Or will it work on the MK4? Or are u saying this is for a subaru? Why don't VW gurus who created this LOWERING DISCUSSION forum make something BETTER? To increase our handeling capeabilities while lowering the car..I know they know how..its gotta be possible..I wish I were smart enough to do it..















 I share your frustration!


----------



## soapiece (Jan 8, 2003)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*

I believe this is for general mac-pherson suspension,.. but this adjuster is solely for subaru. I think this is not too difficult to make,. just have to be precise about the geometry change and fit in correctly.
ps. i translated into korean and into english,


----------



## macosxuser (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: (soapiece)*

Read this whole damn thread and you'll get it! I spent DAYS going through this and it's totally doable. If you want to lower the car then you need to change the spindles to change pickup point of the lower control arm. TT or H2Sport spindles accomplish this. Once thats done the only issue is less strut travel, on a car already short on travel. 
The short story is you can ALWAYS get better performance out of stock suspension height than lowering. 
I plan to lower my car anyway, but not much. My plan:
TT Rubber bushings (Harder rubber)
Stiffened Subframe (Welded Tube)
1.2" lowered Vogtland springs (The stiffest 1.2" lowering ones I know of)
Koni FSD or Sport (Because they have more travel than Bilsteins... yeah)
H2sport Spindles (to correct geometry)
This is based on reading this forum for a long time... I came up with my compromises, and thus my plan. You should get one


----------



## zak (Aug 27, 2004)

*Re: (stevec1.8t)*

They do make a ball-joint spacer for VWs http://www.pmwltd.com/products.php.


----------



## 20aeman (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: (macosxuser)*


_Quote, originally posted by *macosxuser* »_Read this whole damn thread and you'll get it! I spent DAYS going through this and it's totally doable. If you want to lower the car then you need to change the spindles to change pickup point of the lower control arm. TT or H2Sport spindles accomplish this. Once thats done the only issue is less strut travel, on a car already short on travel. 
The short story is you can ALWAYS get better performance out of stock suspension height than lowering. 
I plan to lower my car anyway, but not much. My plan:
TT Rubber bushings (Harder rubber)
Stiffened Subframe (Welded Tube)
1.2" lowered Vogtland springs (The stiffest 1.2" lowering ones I know of)
Koni FSD or Sport (Because they have more travel than Bilsteins... yeah)
H2sport Spindles (to correct geometry)
This is based on reading this forum for a long time... I came up with my compromises, and thus my plan. You should get one









Your gonna need stiffer springs than the vogtlands. The FSDs just aren't enough shock. If your not going with coilovers, I suggest you look into ground control. I have 400lb springs, and I still find it too soft in the front.


----------



## Shinex1 (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: (zak)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zak* »_They do make a ball-joint spacer for VWs http://www.pmwltd.com/products.php.
 Haven't seen this before ... does it also add in some camber? From their site, I couldn't determine if works for Mark 4


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: (macosxuser)*

why create my own ur plan sounds pretty good to me LOL


----------



## zak (Aug 27, 2004)

*Re: (Shinex1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Shinex1* »_ Haven't seen this before ... does it also add in some camber? From their site, I couldn't determine if works for Mark 4
From what I can remember, this is for A1-A4. I seem to remember the website having more info on it before. 
As for camber, no. It just extends the ball joint 1.5" waaaaay more easily and cheaply than TT/H2sport spindles. Reliability/durability on the street may be different, though. I am very tempted to try them.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (zak)*

A pic of the part on a MkI:








Does this move the pivot point or just change the angle of the LCA? Looks to me that the pivot moves which is good. But this won't work on MkIV.

For comparison check out the Ingalls LCA extenders for MkIV. See how the balljoint has a threaded end for a nut?











_Modified by phatvw at 5:38 PM 2-12-2008_


----------



## VWn00b (Mar 4, 2005)

So its just a set of clamps that doesn't even replace the ball joint?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (VWn00b)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWn00b* »_So its just a set of clamps that doesn't even replace the ball joint?

Looks that way.
To do something similar on MkIV you need a whole new balljoint with basically a longer threaded portion so you can attatch it to the spindle. The problem is how do you make it strong enough to survive the load when its so long? I reckon that using conventional materials it just won't hold up. You need the strength of the beefy cast spindle.


_Modified by phatvw at 5:41 PM 2-12-2008_


----------



## VWn00b (Mar 4, 2005)

*Re: (phatvw)*

Well I don't have a mk4, but a mk3.
I've been talking with Jarod lately about the drop pins he makes. For liability reasons he has to specify them as an "off-road" part, but I assume they should be good for regular street driving. I'm really interested in getting them. Need to order my GC suspension first.


----------



## zak (Aug 27, 2004)

*Re: (phatvw)*

I emailed them to see if they have an application for the A4 chassis. I'll let ya'll know what I find out.


----------



## rex_racer (May 19, 2001)

*Re: (phatvw)*

Just an FYI. The ball joint spacer/geometry correction pictured below, also has an MKIV fitment. The information is not listed online, you have to contact them directly. This is from email correspondence with them directly.


----------



## macosxuser (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: (20aeman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *20aeman* »_
Your gonna need stiffer springs than the vogtlands. The FSDs just aren't enough shock. If your not going with coilovers, I suggest you look into ground control. I have 400lb springs, and I still find it too soft in the front. 

Not quite following you... You say the FSD's aren't enough shock, but I've heard people rave about them with the Nuespeed Sofsport springs and the H&R OEM height. Then you say the springs aren't stiff enough, when they are the stiffest 30mm lowering springs I've found.
However, if the springs are less stiff, they'd match up with the "not enough" FSD's fine... My plan is not to get the stiffest suspension out there, I want a little comfort, but to tighten up everything pretty well, stiffening the subframe, and the harder rubber just makes sense. Spindles are a must since I'm lowering, and the softer springs and FSD's should maintain some level of comfort.


----------



## 20aeman (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: (macosxuser)*


_Quote, originally posted by *macosxuser* »_
Not quite following you... You say the FSD's aren't enough shock, but I've heard people rave about them with the Nuespeed Sofsport springs and the H&R OEM height. Then you say the springs aren't stiff enough, when they are the stiffest 30mm lowering springs I've found.
However, if the springs are less stiff, they'd match up with the "not enough" FSD's fine... My plan is not to get the stiffest suspension out there, I want a little comfort, but to tighten up everything pretty well, stiffening the subframe, and the harder rubber just makes sense. Spindles are a must since I'm lowering, and the softer springs and FSD's should maintain some level of comfort. 

Well, the vogtlands are progressive rate springs, and they'll be lowering you a bit more than an inch. At an inch, you'll have at best .5 inches of suspension travel until you hit the bump stop. You will be a bit lower than that, so, I'd say you have a solid .3 inches of travel before hitting the bump stop. Now, the vogtlands may eventually get stiff with further suspension travel, but the initial rates are soft. So soft in fact that you won't really get into the "meat" of the spring, you'll always have a really soft ride until your suspension travels that half an inch where the bumpstops take over and you get a nice kick in the pants. If you had a shorter shock, maybe a case could be made for the springs, but without that further suspension travel to take advantage of the progressive rate, you might as well cut your stock springs, you'll be riding on your bumpstops all the same. Progressive springs might work in applications where there is plenty of shock travel, but he MKIV isn't one of them. 
I have a buddy who has bilstein hds and vogtlands. It's extremely bouncy thanks to the constant and harsher interference of the bumpstop. And soft, like buick soft...for that half an inch prior.



_Modified by 20aeman at 12:44 AM 2-13-2008_


----------



## zak (Aug 27, 2004)

*Re: (rex_racer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rex_racer* »_Just an FYI. The ball joint spacer/geometry correction pictured below, also has an MKIV fitment. The information is not listed online, you have to contact them directly. This is from email correspondence with them directly.









I also remember hearing that these are available for A4 cars, but I received an email from PMW that said the extenders are A1 and A2. They are looking to develop extenders for the later platforms, though.


----------



## RoccHead (Dec 22, 2003)

*Re: (zak)*

You can buy spindles for the A4, that have the correct adjustments for bump steer and the lower ball joint. Why do this?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (RoccHead)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RoccHead* »_You can buy spindles for the A4, that have the correct adjustments for bump steer and the lower ball joint. Why do this?

Cost? This kit is $265 and 100% reversible. The H2Sport spindles are ~$700 and costly to reverse.
I reckon these folks could make new tie-rod ends that correct the bumpsteer as well.



_Modified by phatvw at 2:05 PM 2-13-2008_


----------



## RoccHead (Dec 22, 2003)

*Re: (phatvw)*

Fair enough,


----------



## VWn00b (Mar 4, 2005)

Any idea on A3 fitment?
For All Models Using The 17mm Or 19mm Ball Joint










_Modified by VWn00b at 3:07 PM 2-13-2008_


----------



## zak (Aug 27, 2004)

*Re: (VWn00b)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWn00b* »_Any idea on A3 fitment?
For All Models Using The 17mm Or 19mm Ball Joint









_Modified by VWn00b at 3:07 PM 2-13-2008_

The A4 version of this would have the top, smaller-diameter part threaded on top for the nut that keeps the ball joint connected to the steering knuckle.
How hard would it be to fabricate something like this, but adapted for the A4? I am thinking the lower part has a threaded hole in it to screw on to the ball joint connected to the lca, and the top is threaded to go through the bottom of the knuckle and take the nut? If I am being clear.....


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (zak)*

Does anybody make something for the mkv? Also, is this considered the a5 chassis?


----------



## zak (Aug 27, 2004)

*Re: (Stutz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Stutz* »_Does anybody make something for the mkv? Also, is this considered the a5 chassis?

The confusion brought on by using the generic "mark" designation








A chassis cars are golfs and jettas. B chassis cars are dashers/quantums/passats. Sciroccos are also A chassis cars (all A1 chassis). 
First golfs/jettas are A1, second design are A2, etc. so yes the 5th golf/jetta design are A5 cars. *But MkI and MkII Sciroccos are both A1.* MkI Jetta is A1; MkII Jetta is A2.
Mark denotes a design change. It could apply to a toaster.


----------



## rex_racer (May 19, 2001)

*Re: (zak)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zak* »_
I also remember hearing that these are available for A4 cars, but I received an email from PMW that said the extenders are A1 and A2. They are looking to develop extenders for the later platforms, though.

In my email correspondence with them, they said that they had a peice developed. When did you contact them, recently? Maybe they stopped production on it since I emailed with them. In any event, the SCCH peice looks very promising for the MKIV platform as it isn't much different from what they have right now, to get it to fit properly. Their particular piece looks like it has greater geometry correction than the H2 piece as well as being completely reversible.


----------



## zak (Aug 27, 2004)

*Re: (rex_racer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rex_racer* »_
In my email correspondence with them, they said that they had a peice developed. When did you contact them, recently? Maybe they stopped production on it since I emailed with them. In any event, the SCCH peice looks very promising for the MKIV platform as it isn't much different from what they have right now, to get it to fit properly. Their particular piece looks like it has greater geometry correction than the H2 piece as well as being completely reversible.
They emailed me yesterday. But didn't mention having had made one, just that they were considering/planning one for the A4.


----------



## frag85 (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (zak)*

damn, i hope PMW can pull something through. i really want to get rid of the 4x4 rideheight but don't want to FUBAR geometry. been looking at the H2Sport and TT spindle option for a while now, but its too $$ for me.


----------



## TechMeister (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: (frag85)*


_Quote, originally posted by *frag85* »_damn, i hope PMW can pull something through. i really want to get rid of the 4x4 rideheight but don't want to FUBAR geometry. been looking at the H2Sport and TT spindle option for a while now, but its too $$ for me.


Do people who buy VWs *really* believe that they have a 4x4 look? I mean come on folks, get a grip. Yeah, it may sit an inch higher than ideal, but that ain't a 4x4 look. Obviously lowering below the proper ride height does FUBAR the suspension geometry, unless you re-engineer the entire suspension.


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (TechMeister)*

I have a couple of questions here.
When "proper" or "stock" ride height is referred to, what is it from wheel center to wheel well bottom? Stock '07 and earlier is different for '08 on both rabbit/golf and GTI. After measuring a few cars at the dealership I found the '08 to be about an inch lower(20-25mm).
And "suspension travel" is this wheel travel or shock travel?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (Stutz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Stutz* »_I have a couple of questions here.
When "proper" or "stock" ride height is referred to, what is it from wheel center to wheel well bottom? Stock '07 and earlier is different for '08 on both rabbit/golf and GTI. After measuring a few cars at the dealership I found the '08 to be about an inch lower(20-25mm).
And "suspension travel" is this wheel travel or shock travel? 


Usually what VW ships from the factory for their non-sport/ non-special-edition models is the best height. Anybody want to race a 2007 against a 2008 with the same tires to test this theory?

For suspension travel, I think most people are talking about the *available damper travel before hitting the bumpstop*. In theory you can increase travel by elminating the bumpstop alltogether and drastically increase comfort, but then if you hit a really big bump, your damper might fail.


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (phatvw)*

What I am getting at is, which of the two is stock height? '07 or '08? Did VW compromise the handling of the car for '08, or are there component changes to compensated?
This is not meant to sound like a "lower is better" comment, I really want to know, and find it interesting.


_Modified by Stutz at 11:36 PM 3-2-2008_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (Stutz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Stutz* »_What I am getting at is, which of the two is stock height? '07 or '08? Did VW compromise the handling of the car for '08, or are there component changes to compensated?

We'll have to have a head-to-head battle to find out.
But I suspect that VW compromised handling potential by lowering the car to achieve a sportier look and compensated by including upgraded tires. If anything, I would expect them to change the door structure to achieve a higher side-impact crash rating at the lower ride height. The rumour was that the USA car was raised because it didn't get a 4-star safety rating on the Euro height. But I have never seen proof of this anywhere.
I believe Dick Shine tested both spring heights and found the higher setup to work better on the racetrack. But that is just one race shop. We need a real independent test to convince everybody.


_Modified by phatvw at 11:40 PM 3-2-2008_


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (phatvw)*

If the camber is corrected, and the control arm angle changed so that it is not sagging, is there much else that needs to be done? 

B.T.W. Sorry, I meant to say compensate, not compensated.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (Stutz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Stutz* »_If the camber is corrected, and the control arm angle changed so that it is not sagging, is there much else that needs to be done? 

B.T.W. Sorry, I meant to say compensate, not compensated.

Camber, LCA/balljoint pivot, and tie rod pivot. If all 3 are corrected, then you're good to go.


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (phatvw)*

Does anybody make camber plates for mkV chassis, or will the mkIV work? Also, I am still wondering if the taller gti springs will give more grip to the golfrabbit.








I guess the swaybars as well.


_Modified by Stutz at 12:29 AM 3-3-2008_


----------



## crazy88 (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_We need a real independent test to convince everybody.


that would be very interesting... 2 cars w/ the same options + wheels/tires, but different susp setups... same driver, same track, multiple runs


----------



## dummy (Apr 14, 2003)

having spent a lot of time reading this thread and the others in this forum, i am left with questions about setups like the CROSS coilover setups which include a camber plate as well as a shock body that is adjustable so that when you lower the car, you can adjust where the dampener body sits and are able to maintain the full travel of the dampener in the shock...
i know you would also have to adjust for the ball joint and tie rod pivots, but if this were the case, would many of the problems associated with lowering the car become less of an issue?
i am far from expert on this subject, but am more worried about performance than looks when it comes to my car and am wondering of some of you suspension gurus may be able to shed a bit more light on this for me...


_Modified by dummy at 5:42 AM 3-3-2008_


----------



## TechMeister (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: (dummy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dummy* »_having spent a lot of time reading this thread and the others in this forum, i am left with questions about setups like the CROSS coilover setups which include a camber plate as well as a shock body that is adjustable so that when you lower the car, you can adjust where the dampener body sits and are able to maintain the full travel of the dampener in the shock...
i know you would also have to adjust for the ball joint and tie rod pivots, but if this were the case, would many of the problems associated with lowering the car become less of an issue?
i am far from expert on this subject, but am more worried about performance than looks when it comes to my car and am wondering of some of you suspension gurus may be able to shed a bit more light on this for me...

_Modified by dummy at 5:42 AM 3-3-2008_

The Cross and similar adjustable height coilovers have nothing to do with the suspension geometry other than they raise or lower the vehicle. Obviously you don't want the shocks to be bottoming when you lower a vehicle but that isn't the issue with suspension geometry.
The main issue is with MK IV and MK V VWs where when you lower the car below the VW designed optimum ride height you end up lowering the roll center disproportionate to the amount the CG height is lowered. This means for the same lateral acceleration the vehicle now has *more body roll than before it was lowered, which causes all kinds of issues.* To counter these issues you need heavier springs, shocks, and or swaybars, just to get back even to the factory roll for a given cornering force, which is not a good thing. In addition you skew the control arms so that bumpsteer is introduced, the camber curve is negatively modified and proper alignment isn't possible. All of these static and dynamic changes make for an evil handling car and one where the tire tread can not be kept flat on the road surface.


----------



## dummy (Apr 14, 2003)

ah. okay...now i am understanding more of what was said about the roll center vs CG ratio that was talked about earlier...
now if i was to get a setup like the cross soils and keep them running at euro stock height rather than lowering them further (and getting outside of the optimal design range for the car), would this be beneficial or would i be better off just sticking with a stock euro height spring with a slightly stiffer spring rate and a better strut like the konis?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (dummy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dummy* »_ah. okay...now i am understanding more of what was said about the roll center vs CG ratio that was talked about earlier...
now if i was to get a setup like the cross soils and keep them running at euro stock height rather than lowering them further (and getting outside of the optimal design range for the car), would this be beneficial or would i be better off just sticking with a stock euro height spring with a slightly stiffer spring rate and a better strut like the konis? 

To answer that you'd have to test it out. Nobody can give a definitive answer because there hasn't been any testing. Somebody has to be brave enough to spend some money on parts and track time and not be afraid to say "I just wasted $1000 on coilovers" Or "You suspension guru's are full of **** with your roll centres - my coilovers dropped 2 seconds off my laptimes".
What usually ends up happening is folks discover their mods don't help and they never speak of it again because they are embarrassed or something. Or they say their mods do help, but never back it up with real data. Either way it doesn't help the community one bit.
I have made many mistakes in tuning my car and openly admit I've wasted money on mods that I thought would make my car better. I'm only embarrassed about not listening to the folks that are smarter than me. 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



_Modified by phatvw at 11:07 AM 3-3-2008_


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (phatvw)*

I am still not convinced that the euro height is not going to handle as good as the higher stock height, if "sport" suspensions are going too low, then why would VW put them on the r32? I could not find an r32 at the dealership over 360mm (wheel center to wheel well bottom)


----------



## dummy (Apr 14, 2003)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_
To answer that you'd have to test it out. Nobody can give a definitive answer because there hasn't been any testing. Somebody has to be brave enough to spend some money on parts and track time and not be afraid to say "I just wasted $1000 on coilovers" Or "You suspension guru's are full of **** with your roll centres - my coilovers dropped 2 seconds off my laptimes".
What usually ends up happening is folks discover their mods don't help and they never speak of it again because they are embarrassed or something. Or they say their mods do help, but never back it up with real data. Either way it doesn't help the community one bit.
I have made many mistakes in tuning my car and openly admit I've wasted money on mods that I thought would make my car better. I'm only embarrassed about not listening to the folks that are smarter than me. 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
_Modified by phatvw at 11:07 AM 3-3-2008_

well i guess i may have to spring for the setup and see what happens. probably going to take a bit, but i'll have to try it and see...
also seeing that you are local to seattle, when i get them, maybe we can meet up and see what your opinion is on how they perform....


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (Stutz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Stutz* »_I am still not convinced that the euro height is not going to handle as good as the higher stock height, if "sport" suspensions are going too low, then why would VW put them on the r32? I could not find an r32 at the dealership over 360mm (wheel center to wheel well bottom)









Hmmm? Do you think they will sell more R32 because of the suspension or the wing on the hatch? Or the AWD which adds 300 pounds? Now thats a head banger...

Would love to do some MkV test driving around Seattle











_Modified by phatvw at 11:26 PM 3-3-2008_


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: (phatvw)*

sup guys.. any one know if the H&R OE springs are good? i hear they lower AROUNF 1 inch? any one know BETTER springs? LIKE the HandR OE? i know i dont wana lower the MKIV to much.. (because ive spent hours reading this thread) lol..


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_
Hmmm? Do you think they will sell more R32 because of the suspension or the wing on the hatch? Or the AWD which adds 300 pounds? Now thats a head banger...

I think it's the grill...
As for the H&R sport springs, they ride fine and dropped my car to 350mm f and 355mm rear, a little bit lower than recommended, but not what I would consider "slammed" there is still about an inch of wheelwell gap.


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (Stutz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Stutz* »_
I think it's the grill...
As for the H&R sport springs, they ride fine and dropped my car to 350mm f and 355mm rear, a little bit lower than recommended, but not what I would consider "slammed" there is still about an inch of wheelwell gap. 



Man 355mm is a BIG drop ! Your car must be sitting on the ground???


----------



## raceware (Sep 28, 1999)

*Re: (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_
Hmmm? Do you think they will sell more R32 because of the suspension or the wing on the hatch? Or the AWD which adds 300 pounds? Now thats a head banger...

Would love to do some MkV test driving around Seattle








_Modified by phatvw at 11:26 PM 3-3-2008_

Actually the AWD and 3.2L VR6 are the big draw on the R32. Weight penalty aside, the MK V R32 handles pretty well and will run circles around any MK IV/V FWD VW in the wet or in snow and usually in the dry too. I've tested the R32 in all of these conditions and was quite impressed with just how good the MK V R32 really is. Maybe some carbon fiber and titanium to drop 500 lbs. and it could be a real mean machine.


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (raceware)*

The r32 at the local dealership is at 360mm measured the same way, wheel center to wheelwell bottom.


----------



## Stutz (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: (Stutz)*

The post was not meant to bash the r32, I would have bought one if I could. I said that my car was dropped TO a certain ride height, not that my car was dropped a certain amount. I hate it when people say that their car was dropped a certain amount, because the starting point is uncertain.


----------



## MGMVR6 (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (tyrolkid)*

Question! Im pretty new to the forums. Im not exactaly sure how to post a question, so im doing it like this. But I recently bought a 01 gti vr6 I would love to lower it 1.5 to 1.7 inches for looks and handling. However I was told that lowering more than 1.4 inches is dangerouse because it risk the drive shaft scraping. Ive heard the only solution is a new front sway? Any insight would help thanks!


----------



## porn8069 (Feb 12, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (MGMVR6)*

read this:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2486228
and this:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1448594
then come back and ask more questions









_Quote, originally posted by *MGMVR6* »_ Question! Im pretty new to the forums. Im not exactaly sure how to post a question, so im doing it like this. But I recently bought a 01 gti vr6 I would love to lower it 1.5 to 1.7 inches for looks and handling. However I was told that lowering more than 1.4 inches is dangerouse because it risk the drive shaft scraping. Ive heard the only solution is a new front sway? Any insight would help thanks!


----------



## MGMVR6 (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (porn8069)*

Thanks, bro. That pretty much answers my question. There was an eibach thread in the second link you left me and it sounds like there 1.2" kit is a pretty safe bet. Quality info in those links. Much appreciation! Ill stay posted thanks. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## snailpusher (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: (rex_racer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rex_racer* »_In my email correspondence with them, they said that they had a peice developed. When did you contact them, recently? Maybe they stopped production on it since I emailed with them...

how long ago was this? i'll likely shoot PMW an email myself, shortly... but i'm just wondering if anyone has heard anything new. $265 for a pair of ball joint extenders would beat the living hell out of pricing on any currently available spindle option. well... would need new tie-rod ends, too.
also: anyone know what the actual extension is on the H2sport spindles? TT spindles? i'm still in my planning stages for this suspension... at my pace, it could be next summer before i actually get around to it.


----------



## VWn00b (Mar 4, 2005)

*Re: (snailpusher)*


_Quote, originally posted by *snailpusher* »_how long ago was this? i'll likely shoot PMW an email myself, shortly... but i'm just wondering if anyone has heard anything new. $265 for a pair of ball joint extenders would beat the living hell out of pricing on any currently available spindle option. well... would need new tie-rod ends, too 

I recently purchased 2 products from Dave @ PMW.
the 19mm balljoint extenders and the 3/4" tierod bushings.
My thread:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3770238
$265 pretty good, but to match the new geometry you need to flip the tierod ends to the bottom of the spindle.
So far they have been doing great. I need to work on the car soon to fix some supension noises, but I plan on updating the thread at that time with some better pictures.


_Modified by VWn00b at 2:42 PM 7-26-2008_


----------



## rex_racer (May 19, 2001)

*Re: (snailpusher)*


_Quote, originally posted by *snailpusher* »_
how long ago was this? i'll likely shoot PMW an email myself, shortly... but i'm just wondering if anyone has heard anything new. $265 for a pair of ball joint extenders would beat the living hell out of pricing on any currently available spindle option. well... would need new tie-rod ends, too.
also: anyone know what the actual extension is on the H2sport spindles? TT spindles? i'm still in my planning stages for this suspension... at my pace, it could be next summer before i actually get around to it. 

I believe I contacted them more towards the beginning of the year, but in more recent months some individuals on here have contacted them and been told that they are not available as of yet. It would be best to just contact them for more information, the spindle extensions aren't rocket science to build. You might also try scch-heads.com as they are also making geometry correction items.


----------



## VR6_VDUB (Sep 16, 2008)

*lowering q's*

so i'm planning on getting some FK coilover. is there anything i should service/upgrade before i lower to avoid any problems


----------



## brandon0808 (Mar 19, 2009)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (porn8069)*

i bought some vmaxx coilovers and put them in a few weeks ago. obviously its gonna ride way worse. and i had it down pretty much all the way and couldnt stand bottoming out on driveways and stuff so i raised it up the other day but now my wheels are really loud going down the road from like 30 mph up? is that from my allignment being off?


----------



## n8burnz (Jan 15, 2009)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Egz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Egz* »_I perfer my cars to be able to handle corners. I feel only go as low as a normal suspension would dictate. I believe a McPhearson strut setup (most cars nowdays)can only go a couple of inches before the roll-center gets messed up.


My Mk3 is lowered about 3 inches and it handles really well. perfectly neutral in right corners and just a touch of understeer in left corners


----------



## DIAF (Sep 17, 2005)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (n8burnz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *n8burnz* »_

My Mk3 is lowered about 3 inches and it handles really well.

No, it doesn't. If you lift it up you will see that it will handle properly. At 17 I'll guess that you don't really know what "handling really well" means.

_Quote »_
perfectly neutral in right corners and just a touch of understeer in left corners

Sounds like you need a corner balancing so the car will turn well in both directions, unless you like reverse NASCAR


----------



## n8burnz (Jan 15, 2009)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (DIAF)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DIAF* »_
No, it doesn't. If you lift it up you will see that it will handle properly. At 17 I'll guess that you don't really know what "handling really well" means.

well also at 17, i care about the look of my car, so i am willing to make the compromise, i have another 2 inches of adjustment to make it lower


----------



## audi9701 (Mar 24, 2009)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (Son of a B...5er!)*









Cheapest way to Lower this?..need help please!! i want a meaner stance im going to be putting 10mm spacers on the front and 20mm on the back i was looking at fk suspension kit that drops about 2 inches in the front and 1.7 in the back? i think this would look good but what does this mean do i need to get a sway bars front and back?also will i need bushing or do kits come with them? PLEASE HELP! i want to get this done ASAP


_Modified by audi9701 at 3:00 PM 5-4-2009_


----------



## GT17V (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: Lowering: What are your thoughts? (audi9701)*


_Quote, originally posted by *audi9701* »_
Cheapest way to Lower this?..need help please!! i want a meaner stance im going to be putting 10mm spacers on the front and 20mm on the back i was looking at fk suspension kit that drops about 2 inches in the front and 1.7 in the back? i think this would look good but what does this mean do i need to get a sway bars front and back?also will i need bushing or do kits come with them? PLEASE HELP! i want to get this done ASAP

_Modified by audi9701 at 3:00 PM 5-4-2009_

Cheapest way to ruin the handling? That's a separate thread. Surf the classifieds


----------



## ljlopz_99 (Feb 20, 2009)

*FINALLY & What I got out of this.*

WOW.... 29pages (forum) or about 400 + pages on paper & 3 weeks + later I have finally read this full forum + many others that our fellow forum writers provided links to. My eyes are pretty wide now








SOOOOOO.... 
This is what I got out of it and hope people stop asking dumb questions showing they read not one word off of this forum or listened to the tips given.















I amit I did ask a few dumb questions (not here though) but that was B4 this informative yet long thread badly in need of cleaning up.









*1) *IF you dont care about handling and just looks... DO NOT POST HERE!!! _NOTE: Lowering the car will make you "feel" as if handling is better but it is not! Also when getting lowering springs the feel can come from better dampers than OEM_
*1A)* Go here first before posting: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...82260 & http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1448594 if you can not read this then dont post here since you do not know about suspension.
*2)* If you care about both, choose which one you like more because as you move to one you worsen the other. _Note: Expect to pay at least $1K or more._
*3)* If you MUST lower it then about 1.2" is the most before it is just plain stupid!!! You will worsen handling though. _NOTE: Parellel LCA is not always the best determination but just the best ending point parsey._ 
*4)* Some items you can get to improve the geometry if you do lower it: *a* - H&R sport spindle ( http://www.h2sport.com/product...mance )or something similar like bolt joint extenders ( http://www.pmwltd.com/products.php forum about this info here: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3770238 ) *b* - stiffer springs *c* - camber kit *d* - FSB and/or RSB *e* - low profile tires w/ stiffer side walls & lighter wheels * f* - Engineering team







_NOTE: The more you lower your car the more items you need to get mentioned above and in that order IMO and what I have learned _
*5)* Dont ask which suspension sets are comfortable.... we can not give you an answer since we do not know your comfort level. _NOTE: if you want to get a more comfortable ride, try lowering the tire pressure on your car or get one w/ bigger side walls (flexible) which will then degrade handling._
*5A)* The stiffer you go the more you will hurt your kidneys
*5B) *The stiffer you go on the back the more you will feel it compared to the front.
*6)* If you want to lower the car + improve handling expect to easily pay at least $1K + UMMMM YAH I did mention this already but thought I do it again to make sure you are not wasting anyones time if you are not serious about spending the money to improve your stock performance.








*7)* Tires w/ higher pressure will improve handling rather than tires w/ low pressure. 
*8)* If you are a daily driver, mostly everything above will not matter as much since you wont be driving the car hard enough to even notice most if not all the changes. _NOTE: The car will howver experience more wear and tear the lower you go w/o correcting the geometry of the car thus costing you expensive repairs._
*9)* If you do autoX or track it then dont ask about lowering it and if you do, you are not that serious.
*10)* Driving on the track is nothing compared to real life roads

*11)* I am not an expert on suspension however the information from above comes from many who knows suspension and if I combined their knowledge and expertise I would say it is over 30+ years worth of knowledge.

HOPE the repetative questions stop coming in. 





































_Modified by ljlopz_99 at 8:48 AM 5-19-2009_


_Modified by ljlopz_99 at 1:13 PM 5-19-2009_


----------



## jjgli02 (Jun 7, 2007)

*Re: FINALLY & What I got out of this. (ljlopz_99)*

Remember: an online forum is typically one of the worst sources from which to gather information.
If this thread was derived from the mk4 forum and had the opposite point of view, would you believe all of the "information", just the same?

Yes, technically, you're on the right track, but go out and find the answers for yourself. If you drop your chassis by 2in and you feel like your car can handle 10x better than stock (a typical experience for most members), why care to know otherwise?
If you're serious about track times and suspension design, you'll do more research and not have to worry about online forum hearsay. Otherwise, I wouldn’t worry about all the technical jargon and mumbo-jumbo. You’re not racing your car against the clock (or other racers, for that matter), so do what is important to your particular interests. From what I’ve read (in other threads), you want a better handling feel and a good look. Buying a stiffer suspension with a moderate drop will do just that.
- J


----------



## ljlopz_99 (Feb 20, 2009)

*Re: FINALLY & What I got out of this. (jjgli02)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jjgli02* »_Remember: an online forum is typically one of the worst sources from which to gather information. 

Not true and it depends greatly on who writes the forum. It is only bad if the person writing it has no experience and according to this forum there are many experienced drivers.


_Quote, originally posted by *jjgli02* »_ If this thread was derived from the mk4 forum and had the opposite point of view, would you believe all of the "information", just the same?

No because I was looking for suspension and I do more research on top of just the forum. 

_Quote, originally posted by *jjgli02* »_ Yes, technically, you're on the right track, but go out and find the answers for yourself. 

Have done this but I use this forum as a guide.

_Quote, originally posted by *jjgli02* »_ If you drop your chassis by 2in and you feel like your car can handle 10x better than stock (a typical experience for most members), why care to know otherwise? 

Because I dont want to spend $$$ on unneccessary parts that will break because it was lowered and I do want the car to handle better not just because I feel like it.

_Quote, originally posted by *jjgli02* »_ If you're serious about track times and suspension design, you'll do more research and not have to worry about online forum hearsay. Otherwise, I wouldn’t worry about all the technical jargon and mumbo-jumbo. 

I have my reasons why I am asking about handling otherwise I would not be wasting my time on here









_Quote, originally posted by *jjgli02* »_ You’re not racing your car against the clock (or other racers, for that matter), so do what is important to your particular interests. From what I’ve read (in other threads), you want a better handling feel and a good look. Buying a stiffer suspension with a moderate drop will do just that.- J

I am doing what is important to me. 
This last forum was not only meant for me but for anyone trying to look for more info & do not have the time or want to read this long thread.








SO unless you have a question or some other info other than what I mentioned do not make it longer.


----------



## jjgli02 (Jun 7, 2007)

*Re: FINALLY & What I got out of this. (ljlopz_99)*

I once read that, an insecure man is a man who is quick to defend his words, rather than first allowing words to be spoken unto him.
Please lose the unnecessary attitude.
R&D through trial and error (i.e. hands-on testing) is often the most beneficial approach to understanding suspension design.
I say a forum is typically a poor source of information because the people who know what they're talking about tend to be outnumbered by the people who don't know what they're talking about.
I appreciate your summary of the theory contained in this thread and I hope others feel the same.
Now, if you really want me to pick apart the technically incorrect pieces of your post for the benefit of this thread, I can.
I feel that my post was informative and very relative to this thread, I'm sorry you feel differently.
- J

_Modified by jjgli02 at 8:37 AM 5-20-2009_


_Modified by jjgli02 at 3:13 PM 5-22-2009_


----------



## ljlopz_99 (Feb 20, 2009)

*Re: FINALLY & What I got out of this. (jjgli02)*

Wasnt mad really... i just like using the different smily expressions







and also that day I was pissed w/ a customer so i wanted to use that experssion on them








But yes please pick out the wrong and correct it so everyone can benefit, but as you know make it informative http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



_Modified by ljlopz_99 at 10:00 AM 5-22-2009_


----------



## GingerH8r (Aug 16, 2010)

*my 2 Cents on mk4's*

i had a mk4 Jetta 1.8t for about 5 months, i hated the stock donk looking suspension so i bought some cheap Raceland Coilovers for it, at first, i thought it handled better being slammed all the way down so that the stock VR6 wheel/tire combo were tucking just a little bit. it FELT like that because it was going to handle better because it was stiffer, but after hitting some corners on the freeways it was obviously worse. before i sold the car i took off the coilovers and drove it for a while, and i can honestly admit that the stock suspension, although feels quite spongy, handles far better than the cheap coilovers. 

It LOOKED good, but daily driving sucked! i must have smashed the craddle a dozen times, almost ripped off the exhaust a few times, and smashed an axle into the sway bar. it was fun, but not very practical. going back to the stock set up was the best thing i could have done.


----------



## VAGaddict (Feb 16, 2002)

I'm asking a serious question. Does ANYONE have a clue what they are talking about? Not being a dick at all. Keeping the tire flat on the road? Links to BMW? Did I miss the post about 4 link suspension?


----------



## MDVDuber (Nov 20, 2002)

VAGaddict said:


> I'm asking a serious question. Does ANYONE have a clue what they are talking about? Not being a dick at all. Keeping the tire flat on the road? Links to BMW? Did I miss the post about 4 link suspension?


 The majority of the posts in this thread and elsewhere in the forum are regarding the MK4 or older cars - so McPherson Strut fronts (which I think the the newer cars still have so the discussion on lowering still applies to the fronts) and a torsion-type rear axle beam with trailing arms 

I agree with the poster who said hands on testing is the best way to decide which suspension is best for you - but - that can get awfully expensive unless you have a very active local Dub scene where you can try other setups before buying. 

That said threads like these are useful to get a grounding in suspension theory - I grant you I haven't read all 29 pages of this one - I remember when it was only a handful of pages long.... but the work that Pyce and Ceilidh etc. did a few years back is very valuable reference material. Naturally you need to read carefully since an internet forum isn't the end all of information. Clearly though suspension design dictates that lowering a McPherson Strut suspension will change the suspension geometry - usually for the worst. Not just on VW's but on BMW's , Subies, etc. ad nauseum. Not Internet hearsay - engineering fact.


----------



## VAGaddict (Feb 16, 2002)

well... wiseass. if you are looking for an internet battle look elsewhere. otherwise make sure you have a large cash reserve. What I am looking for is an understanding as to who REALLY knows what they are talking about. THEY are the people I want to learn from. Historically most of the posts are a bunch of chumps that post some **** they read somewhere. Few are from people that have done the deeds of of trial and error and found what really works. I started my career with Porsche. Have experienced Volkswagen and Now Audi. The four link suspension is truly awesome. I've owned 2 BMWs from new. They are totally different from VAG. Once again... Who truly knows what they are talking about? I'd like to learn more. I have no interest in theory. Some of you have battled through many autocrosses and leaned what works and what does not. Experience tells much more than print.


----------



## rex_racer (May 19, 2001)

gehr said:


> Pretty much any posts from: f1forkvr6, KG18t, Nightrider, phatvw (he left because he was sick of ignorant a-holes), rex_racer, chois and a few others that aren't around too much anymore like phatvw.


Its an honor to be considered in that exquisite lineup and to even be mentioned by yourself, ::: thumbup ::: and :beer: to you. Happy Holidays.


----------



## KG18t (Aug 9, 2006)

rex_racer said:


> Its an honor to be considered in that exquisite lineup and to even be mentioned by yourself, ::: thumbup ::: and :beer: to you. Happy Holidays.


x2 on that. :beer:


----------



## Vee-Dubber-GLI (Nov 27, 2006)

Finally finished all 29 pages of this thread! Gehr, KG18t, rex_racer, Shinex: you guys have been a big help in getting everything sorted in both this thread and the others I have read/posted in. Getting ready for a suspension refresh and the insight and tips from you have really helped me in finding what I need to achieve what I want. :thumbup::thumbup::beer:


----------



## rex_racer (May 19, 2001)

Glad to be of service even after all these yrs ::: thumbup :::.


----------



## AEGTI3913 (May 13, 2010)

*"WOW" 29 pages. 8.5 years later.*

Ok, I've been reading so much the last 3 days that
- I forgot what time was several times
- My GF left to the other coast (she was going anyway, but may have regardless.. I was so locked to trying to "sponge" suspension info)
- I'm left slightly cross eyed
- I now have a much lower tolerance for the "what's the best setup" posts, including the ones I first posted before doing all this reading... :laugh:

All I can say to oldmanTDI, f1forkvr6, SRSVW, pyce, phatvw, Daemon42, GTItraveler and others who have contributed factual hands-on inspired knowledge to this thread is *THANK YOU*. I now know a little bit about what I don't know. 

I hope in the weeks to come I'll be able to actually drive some of the setups mentioned in this thread in order to make an informed decision when upgrading my original 20th AE suspension.

If anyone is in New England and has an MK4 Golf/GTI with a setup recommended in these pages (roughly stock height, Shine, H&R DB, etc) PLEASE PM ME. :beer:


----------



## Nightrider (May 10, 2002)

> If anyone is in New England and has an MK4 Golf/GTI with a setup recommended in these pages (roughly stock height, Shine, H&R DB, etc) PLEASE PM ME.


I wish more people would take this route. You could always try to seek people out at local Auto-X events. Typically, most people there would be more than willing to take you for a spin and maybe even let you drive their car/setup. Driving a setup recommended here vs. some cheap coliovers or something lowered 2" (for example) back to back, you will really really see what an amazing difference there is in between the two.


----------



## AEGTI3913 (May 13, 2010)

Nightrider said:


> I wish more people would take this route. You could always try to seek people out at local Auto-X events. Typically, most people there would be more than willing to take you for a spin and maybe even let you drive their car/setup. Driving a setup recommended here vs. some cheap coliovers or something lowered 2" (for example) back to back, you will really really see what an amazing difference there is in between the two.


Yep, now I just need to get some of those PMs.  I'm going to check the events threads and see what I can find. :thumbup:


----------



## GTIschmuck (Feb 9, 2015)

AEGTI3913 said:


> _"I hope in the weeks to come I'll be able to actually drive some of the setups mentioned in this thread in order to make an informed decision when upgrading my original 20th AE suspension."_
> 
> I realize it's been 4 years since you posted this, but I'm curious to know what setup you ultimately selected. I'm still driving a rather clean '02 VR6 with low(ish) miles and have always hated the ride quality (but love the sound of a VR6). With stock springs, the car didn't feel "sporty". I swapped them for H&R OE Sport springs a while back (with Bilstein HD dampers) and the ride quality still rots. That said, the handling on nice roads feels much better. Unfortunately, I live and drive in a city with terrible roads and desire some comfort. Oddly though, I have several friends with serious cars (M5, 911, etc) and their vehicles soak-up the bumps just fine...despite being lower and firmer than my mine. I suppose that's what money buys...5-link suspension, front & rear. I'm half-tempted to reinstall the stock springs and buy some mushy shocks.
> 
> ...


----------



## clarkma5 (Mar 2, 2002)

You find the stock & OE sport setups on your car to be uncomfortable, but M3s are comfortable? Raises a red flag to me. Check all your suspension mounts and bushings, your subframe bushings, bump stops, ball joints, engine mounts and transmission mounts. With all those tightened up, the OE Sport with a new/well-matched shock is not uncomfortable for a sporty car (and you can always go back to stock springs too). But if you have mounts and bushings that are tired, the secondary and tertiary movements, slop, and interactions between things that are supposed to not be interacting will make your ride quality miserable regardless of your spring choice. And when you say lowish miles, all those things were pretty tired on my '04 by 70-80k miles. Which is low for a 2002. Address those things first.


----------



## AEGTI3913 (May 13, 2010)

GTIschmuck said:


> AEGTI3913 said:
> 
> 
> > _"I hope in the weeks to come I'll be able to actually drive some of the setups mentioned in this thread in order to make an informed decision when upgrading my original 20th AE suspension."_
> ...


----------



## GTIschmuck (Feb 9, 2015)

Thank you for the quick replies, everyone.

Clark: you are correct that I likely need a full bushing refresh...something else MUST be going on down there. FWIW, I drive this car on the streets of San Francisco. We have notoriously horrible roads. I've spent time in various friends cars on the same routes through the city (E60 M5, 997, you name it) and their ride quality is better.

AEGTI: appreciate the report on your setup. Thank you. I finally have a garage space, so I can tear into this myself in the coming months. I'll reach out if I have any questions.


Cheers, all.


----------



## clarkma5 (Mar 2, 2002)

I'm in San Jose and have done the SF thing before, stock GTI and post-suspension refresh, so yeah you're right, the roads are horrible, and the OE Sports are definitely FIRM, but with everything sorted out in the chassis they really shouldn't be bad.

One more thing to check is the wheel bearings. Basically every single thing that can introduce play or slop or weird (non-shock-controlled) motions between the tire on the road and your butt in the seat.


----------



## GTIschmuck (Feb 9, 2015)

clarkma5 said:


> I'm in San Jose and have done the SF thing before, stock GTI and post-suspension refresh, so yeah you're right, the roads are horrible, and the OE Sports are definitely FIRM, but with everything sorted out in the chassis they really shouldn't be bad.
> 
> One more thing to check is the wheel bearings. Basically every single thing that can introduce play or slop or weird (non-shock-controlled) motions between the tire on the road and your butt in the seat.


****************
Thanks, Clark. I'll add them to the list of suspects. Cheers!


----------



## Sumo337 (Aug 27, 2012)

On my beetle:

Front:
Topline lowered kit w/ sway bar
Topline sport+ springs
Topline sway bar clamps
Topline bushings kit
1 ring left on versa-strut
Topline stress bar

Rear:
2 clicks on the torsion bar
Airkewld lowered shocks
On the bumpstops

It's too low, and is handing awesome. On a little upside-downside turn, the right front wheel off the ground.


----------



## GERMAN CONCEPT (Jun 5, 2012)

So I have a MK3 VR6 on 17" Wheels, and am looking for a strut/spring set up and not coilovers. Also needs to be around give or take an 1" gap from the tire to the fender well. Any advice please PM me. Thank you.


----------



## o2bad455 (Aug 22, 2003)

Would anyone know (or where to look up) the vertical heights from ball-joint center to hub center for front uprights/knuckles/spindles from A) Mk1, B) Mk2/3, C) Mk3 Plus (VR6), D) Mk4, E) Mk4 R32/TT, and/or later MacStrut V-dubs?



Daemon42 said:


> So yes, it's the mounting point of the top of the strut that's the other relevent factor.
> The more inboard it is relative to the ball joint, the greater the angle from vertical
> and thus the greater the angle of the A-arm can be before it goes perpendicular.
> The length of the lower arm also controls how fast the camber changes.
> ...


----------

