Spring Rates on KW coilovers
03-12-2008, 12:12 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 31
Spring Rates on KW coilovers
I've searched everywhere i can think of...and i still can't find the spring rates on the KW spec 3 coilovers. I know tein makes SS and Flex coilovers for the S197's but the spring rates seem low to me. I'm new to suspension stuff, so if I'm blowin this out my *** lemme know lol
I don't want spring/strut kits....COILOVERS!
Help anyone?
I don't want spring/strut kits....COILOVERS!
Help anyone?
03-12-2008, 02:04 PM
#2
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,936
RE: Spring Rates on KW coilovers
The fronts are 400.... rears are simply listed as "progressive". That said, I'm trying to get the actually rate information from KW.
If you are inclined to head that way (when/if I can confirm the rates) I'd love to work with you on setting up the car. I also sell other setups as well, including the H&R's (which we know the rates on but do not have adjustable dampers), and Eibach's Multi-Pro system with remote resevior dampers but unknown rates and because of some past history I'm not entirely thrilled with Eibach stuff these days....
I'd be interested to hear why a good spring/damper combo has been ruled completely out.
I'm a Mustangforums sponsor, and I have a pretty good record making cars turn (and can provide results proving it if need be).
If you are inclined to head that way (when/if I can confirm the rates) I'd love to work with you on setting up the car. I also sell other setups as well, including the H&R's (which we know the rates on but do not have adjustable dampers), and Eibach's Multi-Pro system with remote resevior dampers but unknown rates and because of some past history I'm not entirely thrilled with Eibach stuff these days....
I'd be interested to hear why a good spring/damper combo has been ruled completely out.
I'm a Mustangforums sponsor, and I have a pretty good record making cars turn (and can provide results proving it if need be).
03-13-2008, 06:43 PM
#4
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,471
RE: Spring Rates on KW coilovers
ORIGINAL: Sam Strano
The fronts are 400.... rears are simply listed as "progressive". That said, I'm trying to get the actually rate information from KW.
If you are inclined to head that way (when/if I can confirm the rates) I'd love to work with you on setting up the car. I also sell other setups as well, including the H&R's (which we know the rates on but do not have adjustable dampers), and Eibach's Multi-Pro system with remote resevior dampers but unknown rates and because of some past history I'm not entirely thrilled with Eibach stuff these days....
I'd be interested to hear why a good spring/damper combo has been ruled completely out.
I'm a Mustangforums sponsor, and I have a pretty good record making cars turn (and can provide results proving it if need be).
The fronts are 400.... rears are simply listed as "progressive". That said, I'm trying to get the actually rate information from KW.
If you are inclined to head that way (when/if I can confirm the rates) I'd love to work with you on setting up the car. I also sell other setups as well, including the H&R's (which we know the rates on but do not have adjustable dampers), and Eibach's Multi-Pro system with remote resevior dampers but unknown rates and because of some past history I'm not entirely thrilled with Eibach stuff these days....
I'd be interested to hear why a good spring/damper combo has been ruled completely out.
I'm a Mustangforums sponsor, and I have a pretty good record making cars turn (and can provide results proving it if need be).
I have a question that has been bugging me for a long time that you may be able to give some insight on. Why do virtually all of the coilover kits for the S197 chassis have what seem (to me at least) to use such excessively high spring rates (and effectively wheel rates)for a 3,500lb. street car? Is it because they are giving up so much ride height and need to keep the dampers off the stops?If the KW V3 coilover kit'sstandard springs are 400lb. andProgressive is starting people out at about the same 400-450lb spring rate up front and 350-380lb. rate at the rearwhat are they thinking? I mean these cars must drive and ride likeshifter karts.
If you have a KW V3 kitsetup on the shelf and want to know the precise spring rate/lengthreadings send me onefrom eachend and I'll measure themon a nice custom madeGermanload cell testerfrom H&RI have access toand thenreturn them to you stat. I'm curious as the spring rates used should be the same as any of the typical O.E. style strut springs from the usual suspects like Eibach, H&R etc. for th S197 chassis. I've recently gone back and remeasured the stock Ford S197GT spings, Eibach Pro-Kit springs, Steeda's Competition springs, Steeda Ultralite, andthe Steeda sourced Hyper Coil (amazingly consistent, less than 0.3in/lbsprings both using one spring and from spring to springby the way) springs from the Steeda adjustable coilover suspension. I'm curious to see what they are actually selling as a 400lb. spring as Eibach tells people one thing yet the readings say someting else. All of the Steeda (linear rate)and H&R (progressive rate) springstested as expected.
Cheers!
03-13-2008, 07:00 PM
#5
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,936
RE: Spring Rates on KW coilovers
As far as I'm concerned, Eibach has some issues with their springs and dampers they need, have have needed to address for a while.
Why do the coilovers run high rates? Well to start with you have to realized that you lose a certain amount of preload that is there on the more standard springs, but isn't on most coil-over setups. Then realize that coil-overs can drop the car damn near 3", and stiff springs are better than soft springs that make your bumpstops the *only* spring.
Again, I was the one asking why coilovers were the only consideration and not a good set of lowering springs and shocks. Not that coilovers are all bad (they aren't), but they are overkill for most situations. I still don't have that answer and I'm dying to know.
And in the end remember that there are folks who think stiff as a brick is the only way to make a car work and won't buy anything less. There are engineers that feel that way too. I can't say why, exactly anyone does what they do except for me, I can only guess.
Why do the coilovers run high rates? Well to start with you have to realized that you lose a certain amount of preload that is there on the more standard springs, but isn't on most coil-over setups. Then realize that coil-overs can drop the car damn near 3", and stiff springs are better than soft springs that make your bumpstops the *only* spring.
Again, I was the one asking why coilovers were the only consideration and not a good set of lowering springs and shocks. Not that coilovers are all bad (they aren't), but they are overkill for most situations. I still don't have that answer and I'm dying to know.
And in the end remember that there are folks who think stiff as a brick is the only way to make a car work and won't buy anything less. There are engineers that feel that way too. I can't say why, exactly anyone does what they do except for me, I can only guess.
03-13-2008, 08:07 PM
#6
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,471
RE: Spring Rates on KW coilovers
ORIGINAL: Sam Strano
As far as I'm concerned, Eibach has some issues with their springs and dampers they need, have have needed to address for a while.
Why do the coilovers run high rates? Well to start with you have to realized that you lose a certain amount of preload that is there on the more standard springs, but isn't on most coil-over setups. Then realize that coil-overs can drop the car damn near 3", and stiff springs are better than soft springs that make your bumpstops the *only* spring.
Again, I was the one asking why coilovers were the only consideration and not a good set of lowering springs and shocks. Not that coilovers are all bad (they aren't), but they are overkill for most situations. I still don't have that answer and I'm dying to know.
And in the end remember that there are folks who think stiff as a brick is the only way to make a car work and won't buy anything less. There are engineers that feel that way too. I can't say why, exactly anyone does what they do except for me, I can only guess.
As far as I'm concerned, Eibach has some issues with their springs and dampers they need, have have needed to address for a while.
Why do the coilovers run high rates? Well to start with you have to realized that you lose a certain amount of preload that is there on the more standard springs, but isn't on most coil-over setups. Then realize that coil-overs can drop the car damn near 3", and stiff springs are better than soft springs that make your bumpstops the *only* spring.
Again, I was the one asking why coilovers were the only consideration and not a good set of lowering springs and shocks. Not that coilovers are all bad (they aren't), but they are overkill for most situations. I still don't have that answer and I'm dying to know.
And in the end remember that there are folks who think stiff as a brick is the only way to make a car work and won't buy anything less. There are engineers that feel that way too. I can't say why, exactly anyone does what they do except for me, I can only guess.
What I've foundwithEibach's Pro-Kitsport springs is that they'resort of soft for the amount of lowering they provide. Given the reduction in compression travel there is not much left before you are getting into the foam compression rubberspretty hard and there is not enough spring rate soon enough to slow downthe hit when bottoming.The shape of the spring rate curve is all wrong and the heel of the curve comes intoolittle too late. This seems to be the way they design them because this is the way these springs behave both front and rear. Eibach didn't used to make springs this way or maybe it's just this application and the desire to be able to tell people they can use the stock dampers and still have them work O.K.. I guess they are not that bad for normal street use but I've found them to be less than optimum not to mention the problems Ihave with progressive spring designs in general when trying to find that happy damping rate.
I disagree, stiffer is not better unless you are being forcedto use a higher rate to deal with the dynamic loads you are encountering on the track (or street) to prevent bottoming out. It is a compromise between staying off the pavement, balance and keeping the tires and driver alive and comfortable. On the S197 Mustang chassis generally speaking ifgiven a choice I thinkthese cars with minimalor no aero-aidsshould berun as soft aspossible (for a given ride height and ground clearance)to make the suspension work and to keep the tireson the ground, adjustroll center height to your advantage, adjustdamping to smooth transitional controland tune balance withbars keeping in mind the limitations of a strut suspension with respect to camber. This is my basic take on the S197 chassis using basically the stock type suspension.
I only went to the coilovers because I could not find a linear rate spring with the rate I was looking for and the ride height I wanted. I also wanted toput the caron the scales andcorner weight it like I did with my last 911. I suppose this is due to the packaging of the S197 chassis suspension as nobody produces aspring like I was interested in. Aset of 250#F/200#R linear springs with a 1.5" drop in ride heightall around. I suppose giventhe rate and drop I wanted thereis no way to make these springs fit between the normal spring seats without rattling around or going to a progressive spring design. Steeda has their Competition springs whichnot surprisingly (Hyper Coil makes their springs) measured225#F/185#R on the nose but the front ride heightwas too tall and the rear of the car was also a bit tall, thecar waslevel with no rake. I alsotried a set ofUltralite springs but they were also too tall and a bit too softwith no improvement in brake dive. But I have to agree with you generally speaking coilovers are (as I've posted extensively before)not really a cost effective choice given all of the options available on the market for these cars.
All The Best!
Edited for clarity
03-14-2008, 01:29 PM
#8
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,936
RE: Spring Rates on KW coilovers
I'm not sure I follow. Maybe you thought I meant "I can only guess" on setups that I do. That's not what I meant, I was talking about why someone else chooses specific rates on their products--I can only guess why they do it (because it's not something that's openly talked about in a competitive world).
03-14-2008, 01:34 PM
#9
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,936
RE: Spring Rates on KW coilovers
ORIGINAL: F1Fan
I disagree, stiffer is not better unless you are being forcedto use a higher rate to deal with the dynamic loads you are encountering on the track (or street) to prevent bottoming out. It is a compromise between staying off the pavement, balance and keeping the tires and driver alive and comfortable. On the S197 Mustang chassis generally speaking ifgiven a choice I thinkthese cars with minimalor no aero-aidsshould berun as soft aspossible (for a given ride height and ground clearance)to make the suspension work and to keep the tireson the ground, adjustroll center height to your advantage, adjustdamping to smooth transitional controland tune balance withbars keeping in mind the limitations of a strut suspension with respect to camber. This is my basic take on the S197 chassis using basically the stock type suspension.
I disagree, stiffer is not better unless you are being forcedto use a higher rate to deal with the dynamic loads you are encountering on the track (or street) to prevent bottoming out. It is a compromise between staying off the pavement, balance and keeping the tires and driver alive and comfortable. On the S197 Mustang chassis generally speaking ifgiven a choice I thinkthese cars with minimalor no aero-aidsshould berun as soft aspossible (for a given ride height and ground clearance)to make the suspension work and to keep the tireson the ground, adjustroll center height to your advantage, adjustdamping to smooth transitional controland tune balance withbars keeping in mind the limitations of a strut suspension with respect to camber. This is my basic take on the S197 chassis using basically the stock type suspension.
I also agree with yourassessment of whatEibach's are like, and again anyone who knows me or has spoken to me aboutthose springs on the S197 knows that I agree.But it's not just happening on this particular car.....
03-14-2008, 01:54 PM
#10
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,471
RE: Spring Rates on KW coilovers
ORIGINAL: Sam Strano
I'm not sure we disagree at all. I never said that stifferequals better in all cases. Hell, most whoknow me and race with me know that I'm more of a softer setup guy myself. The question was asked why coilovers seem to have suchstiff rates relative to the stock and other lowering springs, I was simply explaing why I think that is.
I also agree with yourassessment of whatEibach's are like, and again anyone who knows me or has spoken to me aboutthose springs on the S197 knows that I agree.But it's not just happening on this particular car.....
ORIGINAL: F1Fan
I disagree, stiffer is not better unless you are being forcedto use a higher rate to deal with the dynamic loads you are encountering on the track (or street) to prevent bottoming out. It is a compromise between staying off the pavement, balance and keeping the tires and driver alive and comfortable. On the S197 Mustang chassis generally speaking ifgiven a choice I thinkthese cars with minimalor no aero-aidsshould berun as soft aspossible (for a given ride height and ground clearance)to make the suspension work and to keep the tireson the ground, adjustroll center height to your advantage, adjustdamping to smooth transitional controland tune balance withbars keeping in mind the limitations of a strut suspension with respect to camber. This is my basic take on the S197 chassis using basically the stock type suspension.
I disagree, stiffer is not better unless you are being forcedto use a higher rate to deal with the dynamic loads you are encountering on the track (or street) to prevent bottoming out. It is a compromise between staying off the pavement, balance and keeping the tires and driver alive and comfortable. On the S197 Mustang chassis generally speaking ifgiven a choice I thinkthese cars with minimalor no aero-aidsshould berun as soft aspossible (for a given ride height and ground clearance)to make the suspension work and to keep the tireson the ground, adjustroll center height to your advantage, adjustdamping to smooth transitional controland tune balance withbars keeping in mind the limitations of a strut suspension with respect to camber. This is my basic take on the S197 chassis using basically the stock type suspension.
I also agree with yourassessment of whatEibach's are like, and again anyone who knows me or has spoken to me aboutthose springs on the S197 knows that I agree.But it's not just happening on this particular car.....
Hi Sam,
I went back and re-read your post and see where I may have gone wrong. In the second paragraph I think what you were saying is that short and stiff springs arebetter than soft 'nlow springs which effectively make the foam (controlled crash) stopsthe only spring you have left. I think I got it any way, you are 100% right if this is what you intended and I just misinturpreted.
Cheers!