home made coil over conversion
2nd Gear Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 286
From: PA
okay this is a dumb question for this thread but its the only coilover thread going on right now.
What are the advantages of a coilover setup compared to the stock set up? And why are you placing the coilovers on the lower control arm instead of the default place??
Just curious
What are the advantages of a coilover setup compared to the stock set up? And why are you placing the coilovers on the lower control arm instead of the default place??
Just curious
6th Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,635
From: state of confusion
With the usual coilover arrangement, you can adjust the ride height to suit a range of spring rates. With conventional springs, you're stuck with whatever height the spring gives you (unless you do some shopping over at the circle track supply houses for conventional spring height adjusters).
Really, the lower control arm is a better place to mount the spring anyway for at least a couple of reasons. One, the LCA is longer, so its inclination won't vary as much with suspension movement (translation: the overall motion ratio varies less, so the spring works more consistently). Two, you can get the spring's control arm attachment out relatively closer to the knuckle (better motion ratio, so you don't need as heavy of a spring to get a target wheel rate), this being possible with less likelihood of crowding the wheel and tire if you're running much wider than stock. A minor point is that the springs' weight is lower in the chassis. LCA-mounted springs can also allow you to open up the engine compartment a bit if you know what you're doing structurally.
Motion ratio relates the amount of vertical wheel movement to spring compression/extension, and is used to estimate how a given spring will act out at the wheel.
Revising the upper spring/shock attachment does require that attention be paid to the structural adequacy of the new attachment locations for the loads developed in the suspension.
Hmmmm . . . Chrysler ball joints . . . a bit neater and more compact solution than drilling a flat plate, I guess.
Norm
Really, the lower control arm is a better place to mount the spring anyway for at least a couple of reasons. One, the LCA is longer, so its inclination won't vary as much with suspension movement (translation: the overall motion ratio varies less, so the spring works more consistently). Two, you can get the spring's control arm attachment out relatively closer to the knuckle (better motion ratio, so you don't need as heavy of a spring to get a target wheel rate), this being possible with less likelihood of crowding the wheel and tire if you're running much wider than stock. A minor point is that the springs' weight is lower in the chassis. LCA-mounted springs can also allow you to open up the engine compartment a bit if you know what you're doing structurally.
Motion ratio relates the amount of vertical wheel movement to spring compression/extension, and is used to estimate how a given spring will act out at the wheel.
Revising the upper spring/shock attachment does require that attention be paid to the structural adequacy of the new attachment locations for the loads developed in the suspension.
Hmmmm . . . Chrysler ball joints . . . a bit neater and more compact solution than drilling a flat plate, I guess.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; Oct 28, 2009 at 08:43 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
67, camber, coil, coilover, conversion, fox, ii, kit, leaking, lower, mustang, overs, replacement, sound, variocentric
