shocks coilovers lowering kits? whaaaat
Discussion
Firstly. Hello
So. Just bought my first car. Celica 190
Great little car for me.
But after watching to much 'smoking tire' on YouTube. I feel a little suspension upgrade maybe required. Especially as the car is approx 11years old
So. Question.
What are my options.
I used to ride motorbikes. Suspension upgrade seemed easy. Take out a rear shock, either refurb. Slightly better, or all out aftermarket
On cars, there are coilovers (seem expensive?) Shocks, lowering kits (not keen om lowering it?
So. Do I just buy some new shocks? Confused....
:-)
So. Just bought my first car. Celica 190
Great little car for me.
But after watching to much 'smoking tire' on YouTube. I feel a little suspension upgrade maybe required. Especially as the car is approx 11years old
So. Question.
What are my options.
I used to ride motorbikes. Suspension upgrade seemed easy. Take out a rear shock, either refurb. Slightly better, or all out aftermarket
On cars, there are coilovers (seem expensive?) Shocks, lowering kits (not keen om lowering it?
So. Do I just buy some new shocks? Confused....
:-)
I own a Celica 190, I have just installed a set of BC coilovers a couple of weeks ago. So far they seem great (more responsive handling, less bodyroll , gets rid of huge arch gap celicas have) Next job is to get full alignment.
Another option many owners get are lowering springs Eibach (£200 + ) or Apex (£100 +) Both have very good reviews about the handling and feedback about them. You could use these on the standard shockers, or get a suspension refresh and use some KYB shocks or other adjustable shockers.
Owners also swear by Uprated (whiteline) Anti roll bars making the biggest difference to handling. Especially a rear one to improve turn in etc.
So far I don't regret getting my BC coilovers (wish I got them sooner). Other coilovers are Tein, Meister R , KW coilovers etc.
Another option many owners get are lowering springs Eibach (£200 + ) or Apex (£100 +) Both have very good reviews about the handling and feedback about them. You could use these on the standard shockers, or get a suspension refresh and use some KYB shocks or other adjustable shockers.
Owners also swear by Uprated (whiteline) Anti roll bars making the biggest difference to handling. Especially a rear one to improve turn in etc.
So far I don't regret getting my BC coilovers (wish I got them sooner). Other coilovers are Tein, Meister R , KW coilovers etc.
190bhp said:
I own a Celica 190, I have just installed a set of BC coilovers a couple of weeks ago. So far they seem great (more responsive handling, less bodyroll , gets rid of huge arch gap celicas have) Next job is to get full alignment.
Another option many owners get are lowering springs Eibach (£200 + ) or Apex (£100 +) Both have very good reviews about the handling and feedback about them. You could use these on the standard shockers, or get a suspension refresh and use some KYB shocks or other adjustable shockers.
Owners also swear by Uprated (whiteline) Anti roll bars making the biggest difference to handling. Especially a rear one to improve turn in etc.
So far I don't regret getting my BC coilovers (wish I got them sooner). Other coilovers are Tein, Meister R , KW coilovers etc.
I'm not too bothered about lowering the car. Actually, I'd like to keep as stock as possibleAnother option many owners get are lowering springs Eibach (£200 + ) or Apex (£100 +) Both have very good reviews about the handling and feedback about them. You could use these on the standard shockers, or get a suspension refresh and use some KYB shocks or other adjustable shockers.
Owners also swear by Uprated (whiteline) Anti roll bars making the biggest difference to handling. Especially a rear one to improve turn in etc.
So far I don't regret getting my BC coilovers (wish I got them sooner). Other coilovers are Tein, Meister R , KW coilovers etc.
The car is my first car.
So I feel like coilovers maybe a little ott for road driving. I just think. As the car is 12/13 just some replacement shocks and springs, are going to make an improvement over what I currently have
And as ever, there is a cost element. As I'll have to be getting someone to do the work for me also
I'll have a look at am apex/kyb set up? Other there is another option.
I may give fitting a short shifter myself though :-)
You'll find more response over on Celica Club UK you can post in the newbies forum after joining for free.
A lot of info on handling upgrades etc.
Short shifters are good and easy to fit .
I have brass gear linkage bushs and a weighted gear knob. It makes a huge difference to shifting.
A lot of info on handling upgrades etc.
Short shifters are good and easy to fit .
I have brass gear linkage bushs and a weighted gear knob. It makes a huge difference to shifting.
Lowering requires softer springs to improve the ride and handling characteristics. Also the pivot points changes so you'll need different control arms length to maintain the geometry throughout the suspension travel - i.e. dynamic geometry as well as static geometry when you align them on a Hunter machine. A lot of people made their cars worse ( my experience with SW20 MR2 anyway).
The car is 11 years old and you want to improve the handling but keep it as close to stock as possible.
This suggests to me that you should consider simply going over the suspension front and rear and replacing anything that is wearing out with new factory or factory equivalent parts to restore your suspension to as-new.
Shock absorbers will be past their best and the springs too won't be as good as new. There are a great many rubber bushings and ball joints which can wear and deteriorate. There are also other parts which you should consider replacing while you have the car in bits such as the strut top mounts.
Once you have the suspension as per factory you can decide whether to tweak the handling by changing the roll bars which influence the handling quite heavily but will not ruin the ride comfort or alter the look of the car if upgraded.
If you were feeling a bit more adventurous and wanted a more noticeable improvement in handling you could look at some good quality aftermarket springs such as Eibach and couple them with whichever shock absorbers come recommended. These springs normally reduce the ride height by somewhere between 20mm and 45mm though. Doing this would make the car feel stiffer and more responsive, usually at the cost of a little ride comfort.
There are a great many companies out there who sell cheaper aftermarket springs, shock absorbers and coilover kits, they often have many satisfied customers who wanted their car to feel stiffer still or ride much much lower than standard... but these cheaper products rarely curry favour with people like yourself who want to maintain stock appearance and near-stock ride comfort.
This suggests to me that you should consider simply going over the suspension front and rear and replacing anything that is wearing out with new factory or factory equivalent parts to restore your suspension to as-new.
Shock absorbers will be past their best and the springs too won't be as good as new. There are a great many rubber bushings and ball joints which can wear and deteriorate. There are also other parts which you should consider replacing while you have the car in bits such as the strut top mounts.
Once you have the suspension as per factory you can decide whether to tweak the handling by changing the roll bars which influence the handling quite heavily but will not ruin the ride comfort or alter the look of the car if upgraded.
If you were feeling a bit more adventurous and wanted a more noticeable improvement in handling you could look at some good quality aftermarket springs such as Eibach and couple them with whichever shock absorbers come recommended. These springs normally reduce the ride height by somewhere between 20mm and 45mm though. Doing this would make the car feel stiffer and more responsive, usually at the cost of a little ride comfort.
There are a great many companies out there who sell cheaper aftermarket springs, shock absorbers and coilover kits, they often have many satisfied customers who wanted their car to feel stiffer still or ride much much lower than standard... but these cheaper products rarely curry favour with people like yourself who want to maintain stock appearance and near-stock ride comfort.
hygt2 said:
Lowering requires softer springs to improve the ride and handling characteristics.
Lowering springs effectively reduce the amount of available suspension travel so they actually need to be harder, with higher spring rates (requiring a greater load to deflect by a given amount). This is why springs which lower the suspension by any appreciable amount will inevitably impact ride comfort negatively. The reduced spring height and increased spring rate also takes the standard shock absorbers out of their comfort zone. HustleRussell said:
hygt2 said:
Lowering requires softer springs to improve the ride and handling characteristics.
Lowering springs effectively reduce the amount of available suspension travel so they actually need to be harder, with higher spring rates (requiring a greater load to deflect by a given amount). This is why springs which lower the suspension by any appreciable amount will inevitably impact ride comfort negatively. The reduced spring height and increased spring rate also takes the standard shock absorbers out of their comfort zone. Lowering the car also lowers the Centre of Mass (CoM). A car has both longitudinal and lateral forces when in motion. During cornering, car with CoM closer to the ground will generate lower lateral forces. This will result in less lean in the body. Hence you no longer need as strong a spring rate as the original stock ride height car to support the body lean. Basic O-level Maths and Physics.
Of course, a car may ride on a bumpy road in a straight line. You would therefore need to consider the longitudinal force acting on individual wheel, say over a speed bump. So let say you would not travel at more than 20 mph over a 200mm deflection, you can corner weight the car to measure the downward force on each wheel. You can then calculate rate of change on the combined spring rate and damper rate you need at each wheel by differential equations for you to clear the defection. Be aware of un-sprung weight in the equation.
However, you can also reduce the longitudinal force by reducing sprung weight (i.e. Lightening the car). This is typical Lotus philosophy
Overall, my experience in properly designed lowered SW20 MR2 or NA / NB MX-5 ride better than a stock height car and without grounding out. The guy I know is a PhD engineer by trade and have designed all things from F1 / race cars to MoD tanks for travelling at 70 mph over rough grounds and his design for the road cars are very, very good. Drop me a PM and I can refer you.
Edited by hygt2 on Friday 15th May 10:15
hygt2 said:
Mathematically and Newton physically incorrect that reduced suspension travel from lowering requires harder springs.
What does "Newton physically incorrect" even mean?You have missed the rather obvious point that significantly reducing suspension travel but keeping the same spring rate means you will be hitting the bump stops regularly.
You've also overlooked the fact that lowering a car changes the suspension geometry, so as well as the COM being lowered the roll centre may also be lowered, so depending on the suspension design the roll couple may be more, less or about the same.
Mr2Mike said:
What does "Newton physically incorrect" even mean?
Newton physics on how forces act and react. You look at the longitudinal forces on how the weight acts down on each wheel. You then overlay the lateral forces acts on during cornering. All when static and in motion up to the limit of grip on cornering and how quickly you are willing to travel over rough grounds. Mr2Mike said:
You have missed the rather obvious point that significantly reducing suspension travel but keeping the same spring rate means you will be hitting the bump stops regularly.
Yes and no. Yes, you have to compromise on speed over rough grounds but if you are willing to back the car off, you shouldn't ground out or hit bump stops. For example, on North Cambridgeshire fens roads, I cannot drive a Porsche GT3 beyond c. 80 mph due to the undulations whereas a BMW 330d or 530d can cover ground faster. Mr2Mike said:
You've also overlooked the fact that lowering a car changes the suspension geometry, so as well as the COM being lowered the roll centre may also be lowered, so depending on the suspension design the roll couple may be more, less or about the same.
I covered this topic in my post further up regarding dynamic geometry. I.e., how the geometry changes over the full length of the suspension travel. I must also stress that what is your priority. Do you want the car to look aesthetically pleasing in your eyes or do you want the car to drive well? Or both?
I always want loads of suspension travel. I once could not understand why a particular Skoda Octavia estate can handle so well until we measured it on a rig and found that even a 1.6 diesel Skoda Octavia Estate has 300mm of suspension travel. This allows a significant scope for suspension tuning.
Also, have a look at a Lancia Delta Intergrale EVO 2. The top of the front suspension turrets were artificially raised so despite the car "looked" to have a lower stance, the car in fact has more suspension travel than earlier Intergrale. Of course they also had to raised the bonnet to fit - what an interesting way to homologise a car.
Now obviously I am not saying that you want to modify suspension turrets, bonnet, all control arms to keep the dynamic geometry and roll centres in check, bespoke springs and shock absorbers, etc. I just want to say that there is a lot of analysis involved to modify a suspension set up properly.
I always want loads of suspension travel. I once could not understand why a particular Skoda Octavia estate can handle so well until we measured it on a rig and found that even a 1.6 diesel Skoda Octavia Estate has 300mm of suspension travel. This allows a significant scope for suspension tuning.
Also, have a look at a Lancia Delta Intergrale EVO 2. The top of the front suspension turrets were artificially raised so despite the car "looked" to have a lower stance, the car in fact has more suspension travel than earlier Intergrale. Of course they also had to raised the bonnet to fit - what an interesting way to homologise a car.
Now obviously I am not saying that you want to modify suspension turrets, bonnet, all control arms to keep the dynamic geometry and roll centres in check, bespoke springs and shock absorbers, etc. I just want to say that there is a lot of analysis involved to modify a suspension set up properly.
hygt2 said:
Mr2Mike said:
What does "Newton physically incorrect" even mean?
Newton physics on how forces act and react. You look at the longitudinal forces on how the weight acts down on each wheel. You then overlay the lateral forces acts on during cornering. All when static and in motion up to the limit of grip on cornering and how quickly you are willing to travel over rough groundsPhillipM said:
It's very nonsensical, I bet he loves bouncing off the bumpstops with softer springs AND less travel.
Funny I had that experience in my stock 996T and 996GT3 on Cambridgeshire fens roads. My 996T went beyond the bump stop and grounded its front cross member/ sub-frame. Porsche said tough luck. At least the 997s and 991s have air suspension raise system for going over rough grounds / speed bumps.
My lightly modified MR2 actually rode better and would not ground out on the same road at the same speed but it had adjustable toe, camber and caster and adjustable links with lower spring rates, higher B16 damper rates - similar to a PSS10, all poly bushings and custom geometry.
Softer springs or less travel are not the problem, it is the fact that people don't change the damper rate in conjunction which causes the bouncing off bump stop and grounding out.
Why can't you all see that suspension design is a package and not just the springs? Everything is interlinked.
hygt2 said:
Softer springs or less travel are not the problem, it is the fact that people don't change the damper rate in conjunction which causes the bouncing off bump stop and grounding out.
Why can't you all see that suspension design is a package and not just the springs? Everything is interlinked.
The optimum spring rate for both ride quality and handling is actually the lowest possible. Of course this value will depend on factors such as bottoming out, ride height changes with heavy load in the car, excessive roll and pitch etc. Without knowing how the standard car performs in these areas, you can't say whether the springs should be softer when lowered or not. And has also been said, this is also affected by other factors such as CoG height which is a large component of weight transfer. You will also change the natural frequency of the suspension (Body mode) which can also introduce unwanted resonance at a certain speed and amplitude of input.
The optimum damper rate for handling is that that provides the smallest standard deviation of contact patch force over a suitable range of input frequencies and amplitudes. The optimum damper rate for ride quality is that that provides the lowest route mean square of vertical body acceleration, although this is subjective. This is often measured on a 4 post rig using a sinusoidal sweep profile increasing in frequency and reducing in amplitude. (In the real world you don't tend to travel over large amplitude inputs at high frequencies.)
However, when all is said and done, it depends on what you want from the car. In my experience, a hard ride on a road car can be frustrating, especially when driving quickly on roads with more undulations. I would personally refresh the standard suspension so that it is operating how Toyota optimised it for European roads, and then fit adjustable anti roll bars and use them to tune the handling balance. (As a rule of thumb, increasing the stiffness increases the weight transfer at that end, reducing the grip of that axle.) You can also experiment with wheel alignment. Someone like Wheels in Motion would be good to talk to as they may have a 'Fast Road' set up for a Celica 190.
The optimum damper rate for handling is that that provides the smallest standard deviation of contact patch force over a suitable range of input frequencies and amplitudes. The optimum damper rate for ride quality is that that provides the lowest route mean square of vertical body acceleration, although this is subjective. This is often measured on a 4 post rig using a sinusoidal sweep profile increasing in frequency and reducing in amplitude. (In the real world you don't tend to travel over large amplitude inputs at high frequencies.)
However, when all is said and done, it depends on what you want from the car. In my experience, a hard ride on a road car can be frustrating, especially when driving quickly on roads with more undulations. I would personally refresh the standard suspension so that it is operating how Toyota optimised it for European roads, and then fit adjustable anti roll bars and use them to tune the handling balance. (As a rule of thumb, increasing the stiffness increases the weight transfer at that end, reducing the grip of that axle.) You can also experiment with wheel alignment. Someone like Wheels in Motion would be good to talk to as they may have a 'Fast Road' set up for a Celica 190.
PhillipM said:
hygt2 said:
Softer springs or less travel are not the problem, it is the fact that people don't change the damper rate in conjunction which causes the bouncing off bump stop and grounding out.
Why can't you all see that suspension design is a package and not just the springs? Everything is interlinked.
Let say the track is 1.5m wide, the centre of mass is 0.5m off the ground and the car can achieve 1g of cornering acceleration. At cornering of 1g, the inside/outside wheel will have N = 167g/833g of force acting down to the ground. As such, set the spring rate is set to support 833g.
Now reduce the ride height by 0.1m (excessive but to make it mathematically easier to work without a calculator). Centre of mass drop to 0.4m with the track and cornering acceleration unchanged at 1.5m and 1g respectively. At cornering of 1g, the inside/outside wheel will have N = 233g/766g of force acting down to the ground.
Therefore you can reduce the spring rate as you only have to support a maximum of 766kg instead of 833kg. If you keep the same spring rate, you will have less deflect in the spring, i.e. less travel for 766kg vs. 833kg.
So why suffer the harshness if you can reduce the spring rate to achieve the same deflection for N = 766g as it would (before lowering) for N = 833g pulling 1g in corners?
Of course, bumps will increase forces acting on each wheel. However, would the loading on the wheel be adding as much as 67% over a bump on the a public road (not rally course) from 500g to 833g? I do not think it would but please correct me if I'm wrong. If it wouldn't, then you can reduce the spring rate.
Regarding why higher shock absorber rate, please teach me if I am wrong as I am not good when studying fluid dynamics . This is what I read
"In general, stiffer springs require softer shock absorbers, while softer springs require stiffer shock absorbers to maintain rebound control. The same goes for sway bars. - See more at: http://www.knowyourparts.com/technical-articles/sp...
What's your thoughts?
Edited by hygt2 on Saturday 23 May 17:04
Gassing Station | Suspension, Brakes & Tyres | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff