Would you???
08-15-2008, 09:58 AM
#42
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
Only having the same diameter may not be enough if the wheel width and offset/backspacing is different.
Off the top of my head I don't know if a 20" tire with proper load capacity comes in at the same 27" diameter as all the OE tire sizes do.
Norm
Off the top of my head I don't know if a 20" tire with proper load capacity comes in at the same 27" diameter as all the OE tire sizes do.
Norm
08-15-2008, 01:39 PM
#43
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Douglasville, GA
Posts: 2,126
No fan of Sportlines or any of the other extreme lowering choices here.
They're good for showing the car and acceptable for daily driving as long as you can live with the compromises.
But there is plenty of room for argument about whether the cornering/handling is any better than OE. In two words, "it's not".
Looking like it should corner better does not always translate to actually doing so. When I installed stiffer springs in my autocross car, they dropped it too far. There was essentially the same amount of roll, and with less suspension travel left I was rubbing the outside tires severely in just about every maneuver, both ways, and with the adjustable struts set full stiff all around. And that's with tires that are slightly shorter than the OE size.
Norm
They're good for showing the car and acceptable for daily driving as long as you can live with the compromises.
But there is plenty of room for argument about whether the cornering/handling is any better than OE. In two words, "it's not".
Looking like it should corner better does not always translate to actually doing so. When I installed stiffer springs in my autocross car, they dropped it too far. There was essentially the same amount of roll, and with less suspension travel left I was rubbing the outside tires severely in just about every maneuver, both ways, and with the adjustable struts set full stiff all around. And that's with tires that are slightly shorter than the OE size.
Norm
08-15-2008, 02:37 PM
#44
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
Try to isolate the various effects involved here. The wheels, tire, and dampers normally represent improvement. So does a slightly higher spring rate, that is only one of the spring effects. These parts of the puzzle are separate from ride height and any lowering, so their contributions to handling/cornering improvements should not be associated with the lowered appearance at all.
Ride height-wise, ultimately, there is a little less lateral load transfer from being lower, which increases grip slightly. But the compromised geometry that comes from excessive lowering kits always works against you. I can't think of a single situation where losing camber at a faster rate on the outside front tire could possibly represent an improvement. At best, it means that you need some of that extra spring stiffness just to stay at OE performance (geometry-wise). Or where more rear axle steer would give you better real performance instead of just more understeer.
Yes, the sum total of all of the effects in your case could very well amount to an improvement over a fairly wide range of driving circumstances, and I am not disputing that point. My point is that it could have been made better, had it been done more conservatively.
A properly built road-race car is low and its suspension geometry is built to work at its best that way from the get-go. Most of the aftermarket kits are not, as they are primarily marketed on the basis of appearance (especially the extreme lowering versions), and do not correct for any geometry shortcomings. And they do work well enough for most people in the street driving that defines their use of the car that it does not matter much that it could be better.
Norm
Ride height-wise, ultimately, there is a little less lateral load transfer from being lower, which increases grip slightly. But the compromised geometry that comes from excessive lowering kits always works against you. I can't think of a single situation where losing camber at a faster rate on the outside front tire could possibly represent an improvement. At best, it means that you need some of that extra spring stiffness just to stay at OE performance (geometry-wise). Or where more rear axle steer would give you better real performance instead of just more understeer.
Yes, the sum total of all of the effects in your case could very well amount to an improvement over a fairly wide range of driving circumstances, and I am not disputing that point. My point is that it could have been made better, had it been done more conservatively.
A properly built road-race car is low and its suspension geometry is built to work at its best that way from the get-go. Most of the aftermarket kits are not, as they are primarily marketed on the basis of appearance (especially the extreme lowering versions), and do not correct for any geometry shortcomings. And they do work well enough for most people in the street driving that defines their use of the car that it does not matter much that it could be better.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 08-15-2008 at 02:43 PM.
08-15-2008, 06:38 PM
#45
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Douglasville, GA
Posts: 2,126
Having a lighter and wider wheel requires the need for a wider tire. A wider tire translates into more rubber to the road at all 4 four corners which means more traction. More traction means better handling/cornering. So I will have to disagree with you there.
As far as ride height, lowering springs do reduce the transfer of lateral load, and you said yourself that it increases grip.
Only installing springs and dampers is not what is only needed to properly lower a car. There are many more parts probably necessary...
1. Adjustable Upper or Lower Control Arm
2. Adjustable Panhard Bar
3. Camber Bolts
4. Bumpsteer Kit...etc.,etc.
All of which I have, so the geometry change on my car is probably minimal, and probably within manufactured tolerances. Of course having a less aggressive drop will reduce the changes in geometry, but effect handling/cornering also.
We are both right..it's like we both know the answer to the problem is 5, and you pick 1+4, and I pick 2+3.
As far as ride height, lowering springs do reduce the transfer of lateral load, and you said yourself that it increases grip.
Only installing springs and dampers is not what is only needed to properly lower a car. There are many more parts probably necessary...
1. Adjustable Upper or Lower Control Arm
2. Adjustable Panhard Bar
3. Camber Bolts
4. Bumpsteer Kit...etc.,etc.
All of which I have, so the geometry change on my car is probably minimal, and probably within manufactured tolerances. Of course having a less aggressive drop will reduce the changes in geometry, but effect handling/cornering also.
We are both right..it's like we both know the answer to the problem is 5, and you pick 1+4, and I pick 2+3.
08-16-2008, 07:13 AM
#46
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
BTW, what wider does for you where tires are concerned isn't particularly more rubber on the road (the actual contact area could be less). It's more a case of giving you a different shape contact patch where wider x shorter tends to favor handling/cornering.
Norm
08-16-2008, 09:09 PM
#47
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Douglasville, GA
Posts: 2,126
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Just because a tire is wider does not necessarily mean that it has more lateral grip. If this were not the case, and wider was the only thing that mattered, you wouldn't see Falken Azenis (or similar offerings from other tire mfrs) in SCCA Street Touring or R-compounds in Stock/Street Prepared/Street Mod. Maybe I wrote too quickly, but the point is that (say) a set of off-brand all-seasons in 255 width are not going to out-grip a set of 235 width Azenis. That's what I was getting at by "normally represent . . .", because it simply is not universally true.
BTW, what wider does for you where tires are concerned isn't particularly more rubber on the road (the actual contact area could be less). It's more a case of giving you a different shape contact patch where wider x shorter tends to favor handling/cornering.
Norm
BTW, what wider does for you where tires are concerned isn't particularly more rubber on the road (the actual contact area could be less). It's more a case of giving you a different shape contact patch where wider x shorter tends to favor handling/cornering.
Norm
My apologizes to the OPer (Allstar) for getting off topic, I did not purposefully jack the thread.
Last edited by degeze; 08-16-2008 at 09:11 PM.
08-17-2008, 08:07 AM
#48
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
By 'shorter' I am referring to the shape of the contact patch if you were to ink the tire and set it down on a piece of paper like you were doing a fingerprint of it. Since the direction of "wider" is clear, shorter is therefore the length of the contact patch, front to back from where the tire tread first starts to flatten out ahead of the axle centerline to where it goes clear of the pavement behind it.
Sidewall height is a different matter, and gets more involved with how well the tread in the contact patch zone is supported against lateral forces than in determining the shape of the contact patch itself. A shorter sidewall is generally better than a taller one, at least down to some point.
Sometimes the discussions that follow are as useful as the original question.
Norm
Sidewall height is a different matter, and gets more involved with how well the tread in the contact patch zone is supported against lateral forces than in determining the shape of the contact patch itself. A shorter sidewall is generally better than a taller one, at least down to some point.
Sometimes the discussions that follow are as useful as the original question.
Norm
08-17-2008, 09:20 AM
#49
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 186
I don't know if it has been said, but I would just hold out a little bit more for the wheels and tires depending on what you are going for.
If you do the springs, you are going to want/need to do the shocks/struts as others have said. So you are looking at around 750 for that in parts.
Plus an installation is going to run several hundred dollars.
Also personal opinion but I would go for a 1" front and 1.5-2" rear drop.
If you do the springs, you are going to want/need to do the shocks/struts as others have said. So you are looking at around 750 for that in parts.
Plus an installation is going to run several hundred dollars.
Also personal opinion but I would go for a 1" front and 1.5-2" rear drop.
So.. I don't have the money yet for the rims and tires that I want but I'm itching to do something and I kind of want to lower my car because the gap is very big in the wheel wells because I'm sitting on 17's. I do have the CDC classic chin spoiler on so the front is about 5-6 inches from the ground I guess.. Do you think it would be okay to lower it now before I get the rim/tire setup? (By the way the kit I want to lower it with will be the Eibach Sportlines(1.6 drop in front, 2.0 drop in back))
Let me know what you guys think about this, thanks!
Let me know what you guys think about this, thanks!
08-18-2008, 09:49 AM
#50
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loooong Island!
Posts: 2,195
yeah i might hold off untill i do the shocks/struts.. i think i might get my wheels and tires first.. but i do like the ride height of the sportlines.. i might just hold off on those till like christmas