Nitron "Comfort" kit?
Discussion
spitfire4v8 said:
McFlash-ah-ah said:
It’s not the adjustability factor of the damper that irks me.
It’s the fact that the nitron dampers are firmer than standard spec.
Don’t get me wrong, the car handles superbly and Dom has set it up correctly.
On the ‘smoother’ roads down south or for track use, I’m more than certain I would be happy with what I’ve got on the car.
However I’d welcome you to come up and drive some of the roads around near to me and I’m sure you’d end up seeing it from my perspective.
Whilst I appreciate that a T350 isn’t a SUV, I personally prefer a little comfort along with the ability for the car to be able to ‘handle’.
I’m not for compromising my vehicle either or assuming that a non adjustable damper will be just fine.
I don’t ‘hoon’ around enough to need such uprated suspension, nor do I track the car on the 99% of the time I’m with my mate in the car.
As I previously said, it depends on where and how you use your car, and you’re right…..
Your opinion is just that.
You probably need more tyre sidewall. I hate the fact that later tvrs came on 18 inch wheels / rubber band tyres, PW himself said it was vanity that pushed the move to 18inch wheels - the customers liked the look. They ride like a pile of poo, like most modern cars do to be honest. It’s the fact that the nitron dampers are firmer than standard spec.
Don’t get me wrong, the car handles superbly and Dom has set it up correctly.
On the ‘smoother’ roads down south or for track use, I’m more than certain I would be happy with what I’ve got on the car.
However I’d welcome you to come up and drive some of the roads around near to me and I’m sure you’d end up seeing it from my perspective.
Whilst I appreciate that a T350 isn’t a SUV, I personally prefer a little comfort along with the ability for the car to be able to ‘handle’.
I’m not for compromising my vehicle either or assuming that a non adjustable damper will be just fine.
I don’t ‘hoon’ around enough to need such uprated suspension, nor do I track the car on the 99% of the time I’m with my mate in the car.
As I previously said, it depends on where and how you use your car, and you’re right…..
Your opinion is just that.
It's a shame classicchim didn't get on with his protechs, I supplied them and it's my fault he had issues - with hindsight i went too soft on the springs and tried to recover the load ability with longer progressive bump stops. Had we re-visited the set up later on and gone stiffer on the springs I think his opinion would be more favourable.
I took nitrons off my tuscan and fitted double adjust protechs because the ride is so much better, I love a really supple compliant car, the older I get the softer I like it.
Many years ago I was the first person to have the old NTX nitron for a tvr, and worked in a somewhat limited way with Guy from nitron when he first introduced the NTR monotube. The Powers comfort valving might (or might not) be based on one of several valving styles I had back when I was selling Nitrons like hot cakes. Meteor Motorsport seem to be doing a similar thing these days.
This was due to damaging a wheel on a pothole and I thought the increased sidewall would give a little more compliance.
The steering and feel of the car has become better as a result of the increase, I believe to what the original spec diameter near as was…..??
However now reading some of the very informative threads posted, I might look at spring rates instead of a complete suspension swap.
Interesting that one poster said the standard Nitrons were stiffer than the original dampers.
This is very definitely Not my experience.
The original Harvey Bailey's were initially very stiff ( causing the jiggly ride),in their movement over short movements.However with larger suspension deflection ( and slower), like a dip in the road( where grounding of the rear would occur) they were underdamped and wallowy.They were therefore the worst type of damper ( like a pre war friction disc style) eg Andre Hartford.
I suspect,that any good damper,eg Nitron, Gaz gold or Bilstein; would be a huge improvement.
However ,it must be pretty obvious that 157 lbs rear springs ( sorry ,I said 175 lbs in error previously) are just far too soft,as shown by the Tuscan 2 improvements etc.
Powers appear to offer 3 set ups on the 41 mm Nitron dampers?
1) The " standard", Nitron with 400 lbs front and 350 lbs rear springs.
2) The " comfort", set up Nitrons,with presumably softer springs ( who can say about the 41 mm damper setting?).
3) A fast road / track day set up. I'm guessing,450 to 500 lbs front and 400 to 450 rear??, with the 41 mm dampers set harder?.
My own personal set up.uses the 1) " standard", Nitron 41 mm ( dampers set by Nitron) but with 500 front and 450 rear springs.So,I've gone for a stiffer spring ,with a relatively softer damper setting. Because the spring / damper unit is angled, this should produce a similar result to the Sagaris ( on 450F and 400R)?
On undulating roads,at speed I found the rear still just touched the ground with the 350 lbs springs ( even with an increased rear ride height), so went up to 450 lbs, leaving the dampers unchanged.
Going from original 157 lbs to 350 lbs rear springs,(and Harvey Bailey to Nitron 41 mm) with increased ride height,Did Not produce a harsher ride.Because the dampers are so much more sophisticated. The 450 lbs springs seriously reduce suspension movement however, and I still wonder whether 400 lbs rear is a better compromise?
At the front, the original 200 lbs never felt terribly soft,however 400 lbs front do make for significantly harsher " bump", on our bad roads.
Unfortunately,if you want to largely get rid of dive under braking,I found 400 lbs front still too soft.
The 500 lbs pretty much gets rid of significant dive under braking , but boy do you get big bumps on our uneven surfaces.
The 500 lbs front springs also massively reduce bump steer,as the suspension movement is much reduced over the original 200 lbs springs.
Again,I have a suspicion,that 450 lbs front is probably a better compromise.
If you have Harvey Bailey's, imho you should bin them.After that,it's more about spring rates,as you can observe from what TVR did on the Tuscan2 and Sagaris.
I would love to fit a set of 16 inch spiders ( with tyres of higher profile), to see what happens.But my guess would be ,they would work very well with the stiffer spring rates and sophisticated dampers.Can anybody point me in the right direction for new 16 inch spiders?
On a separate point, Powers also show the 46 mm Nitron dampers.These I believe,are very much Not suitable for a road set up, and have caused issues in the past when fellow T350 owners unwittingly fitted them.
This is very definitely Not my experience.
The original Harvey Bailey's were initially very stiff ( causing the jiggly ride),in their movement over short movements.However with larger suspension deflection ( and slower), like a dip in the road( where grounding of the rear would occur) they were underdamped and wallowy.They were therefore the worst type of damper ( like a pre war friction disc style) eg Andre Hartford.
I suspect,that any good damper,eg Nitron, Gaz gold or Bilstein; would be a huge improvement.
However ,it must be pretty obvious that 157 lbs rear springs ( sorry ,I said 175 lbs in error previously) are just far too soft,as shown by the Tuscan 2 improvements etc.
Powers appear to offer 3 set ups on the 41 mm Nitron dampers?
1) The " standard", Nitron with 400 lbs front and 350 lbs rear springs.
2) The " comfort", set up Nitrons,with presumably softer springs ( who can say about the 41 mm damper setting?).
3) A fast road / track day set up. I'm guessing,450 to 500 lbs front and 400 to 450 rear??, with the 41 mm dampers set harder?.
My own personal set up.uses the 1) " standard", Nitron 41 mm ( dampers set by Nitron) but with 500 front and 450 rear springs.So,I've gone for a stiffer spring ,with a relatively softer damper setting. Because the spring / damper unit is angled, this should produce a similar result to the Sagaris ( on 450F and 400R)?
On undulating roads,at speed I found the rear still just touched the ground with the 350 lbs springs ( even with an increased rear ride height), so went up to 450 lbs, leaving the dampers unchanged.
Going from original 157 lbs to 350 lbs rear springs,(and Harvey Bailey to Nitron 41 mm) with increased ride height,Did Not produce a harsher ride.Because the dampers are so much more sophisticated. The 450 lbs springs seriously reduce suspension movement however, and I still wonder whether 400 lbs rear is a better compromise?
At the front, the original 200 lbs never felt terribly soft,however 400 lbs front do make for significantly harsher " bump", on our bad roads.
Unfortunately,if you want to largely get rid of dive under braking,I found 400 lbs front still too soft.
The 500 lbs pretty much gets rid of significant dive under braking , but boy do you get big bumps on our uneven surfaces.
The 500 lbs front springs also massively reduce bump steer,as the suspension movement is much reduced over the original 200 lbs springs.
Again,I have a suspicion,that 450 lbs front is probably a better compromise.
If you have Harvey Bailey's, imho you should bin them.After that,it's more about spring rates,as you can observe from what TVR did on the Tuscan2 and Sagaris.
I would love to fit a set of 16 inch spiders ( with tyres of higher profile), to see what happens.But my guess would be ,they would work very well with the stiffer spring rates and sophisticated dampers.Can anybody point me in the right direction for new 16 inch spiders?
On a separate point, Powers also show the 46 mm Nitron dampers.These I believe,are very much Not suitable for a road set up, and have caused issues in the past when fellow T350 owners unwittingly fitted them.
Edited by astonman on Wednesday 29th March 19:11
McFlash-ah-ah said:
I actually have increased the front profiles to 40, keeping the rears at 35.
This was due to damaging a wheel on a pothole and I thought the increased sidewall would give a little more compliance.
The steering and feel of the car has become better as a result of the increase, I believe to what the original spec diameter near as was…..??
However now reading some of the very informative threads posted, I might look at spring rates instead of a complete suspension swap.
Interesting that your rears are 35 profile. Mine are 40 profile rear, 35 profile front, which I believe is factory standard. Any problems with fitting the 40 profile at the front? It's something I am considering.This was due to damaging a wheel on a pothole and I thought the increased sidewall would give a little more compliance.
The steering and feel of the car has become better as a result of the increase, I believe to what the original spec diameter near as was…..??
However now reading some of the very informative threads posted, I might look at spring rates instead of a complete suspension swap.
non_linear said:
McFlash-ah-ah said:
I actually have increased the front profiles to 40, keeping the rears at 35.
This was due to damaging a wheel on a pothole and I thought the increased sidewall would give a little more compliance.
The steering and feel of the car has become better as a result of the increase, I believe to what the original spec diameter near as was…..??
However now reading some of the very informative threads posted, I might look at spring rates instead of a complete suspension swap.
Interesting that your rears are 35 profile. Mine are 40 profile rear, 35 profile front, which I believe is factory standard. Any problems with fitting the 40 profile at the front? It's something I am considering.This was due to damaging a wheel on a pothole and I thought the increased sidewall would give a little more compliance.
The steering and feel of the car has become better as a result of the increase, I believe to what the original spec diameter near as was…..??
However now reading some of the very informative threads posted, I might look at spring rates instead of a complete suspension swap.
I’ve not had any issues at all with 40 series on the front.
Pilot sport 5’s fitted, no rubbing on full lock. The car feels a little more compliant (not as bone jarring) at the front over bad ruts and doesn’t seem to tramline as much as it did.
astonman said:
In my experience,spring rates are the fundamental issue with the standard T350.
.....................
I don't believe the Bilsteins have moveable bases, so you can't play with the ride height?
...................
I fitted Bilseins to my S and then fitted aftermarket adjustable spring platforms.....................
I don't believe the Bilsteins have moveable bases, so you can't play with the ride height?
...................
Edited by astonman on Wednesday 29th March 00:09
https://www.rallydesign.co.uk/product_info.php?pro...
Only needed 2 as they are quite long, so I cut them in half and fitted each half to a damper. They are held by the C spring in the groove and also cone end grub screws.
Work a treat.
I took the Harvey Bailey with 200 and 157 springs to be regenerated to Bilstein specifications. From an initial check, they resulted in very little braking and almost no gas. I was told that the cylinder and rod are excellent. Once mounted, I will see if they will be up to the Bilstein standard. I currently have Gaz Gold Pro 400/350 but I find the car full of creaks that make it seem like a cart on the road, maybe on the track it will be a completely different thing. The only doubt is the 157 springs. Maybe I will try the Eibach 0897 225.
Gassing Station | Tamora, T350 & Sagaris | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff