Which coilovers to go for?

[maynard]

The info I got before investing in coilovers (choose from H&R, KW V2 and Bilstein B14) was that H&R are the softest one and B14 the firmest.

And the B14's are 75N/mm (front) if you have something to compare with.

Well I was always under the impression that the firmer it is the better. I just don't want to spend all that money and then be dissapointed that they're too soft.

The H&R's have worked very well on track. I'm sure Fred said he can drive a clio faster when its on H&R than on AST's

I've only driven a clio on apex springs then H&R coilovers so for me the coilovers made a huge difference to the roll, got less inside wheel spin out of the corners too.

Lol I'll ask him see what he I speak to him next then!

 

[Phil @ P5]

Interesting thread....and I'll dip my toes in the water as we've been approached by a member to design a suspension set-up for his Ph1.

Looking around the various 'shops' there seems to be a real lack of information, crucial information IMO, about the various kits. Seldom do you have any information about spring rates, so you can work out increase over OE or front/rear bias amongst some other considerations.

I see names like H&R/KW/AST etc, but is there any actual data out there, rather than the punter saying they are fantastic and feel great? That's not meant to be disrepectful, but without proper testing (and we haven't done ours yet) how does one quantify there is an improvement over OE? I suspect that the OE is actually very good and it's likely a lot of kits, in true performance terms, don't make much of a difference.

Anyone got any data to share?

Cheers
Phil

 

[Carlos Fandango]

First of all, welcome to the forum Phil. Two things I think you can virtually guarantee on all the after market coilovers is that they're going to be lower and stiffer and that obviously equates to a better handling car(?)....plus it looks good. I'm sure that R&D has been done by some extent by all the manufacturers, what that means who knows and from what I read it seams that even major car manufacturers get their suspension wrong?

 

[Bazzon]

Our ASTs are great now we have got the set up sorted, ours are the FMP set which have been revalved and run harder springs.
They are terrible on the road though.

Personally i think you will struggle to get a set up that your happy with both on the road and track, you will always want them to do slightly more.

The only way you will know what is right for you is driving a car that is running them, but saying that you will find you may want to set them up diffeent any how. I prefer to have the car sliding alot more at the back than carl, he is more precise than me where as i like to be on the limit alot more, its more fun

 

[Jonny1*2]

First of all, welcome to the forum Phil. Two things I think you can virtually guarantee on all the after market coilovers is that they're going to be lower and stiffer and that obviously equates to a better handling car(?)....plus it looks good. I'm sure that R&D has been done by some extent by all the manufacturers, what that means who knows and from what I read it seams that even major car manufacturers get their suspension wrong?

Don't think that's what he's saying mate. He want so know facts and figures. Which in fareness is something that you might like to know when spending (for some) more than a grand. Sure the lower ride hight and stiffness makes a difference, but damper adjustable kits also have benefits over the none adjustable versions. If you know the figures you can make a better educated adjustment to suit your requirements.

You could contact the manufactures I guess mate? If you do lots of reading on here about coilovers, you'll find that as a rule H&R are slightly stiffer than standard, and AST are much stiffer. You get what you pay for I think. Depends what you want them for obviously.

 

[Phil @ P5]

First of all, welcome to the forum Phil.

Thanks!

Two things I think you can virtually guarantee on all the after market coilovers is that they're going to be lower and stiffer and that obviously equates to a better handling car(?)....plus it looks good.

Now, where's my can of worms...lol

The 'looks good' is a given if the car is up on stilts to begin with, and we've become accustomed to thinking that by watch BTCC et al. There's factors that OEs will consider when setting ride heights, such as crash regulations and ride comfort, that we don't have to deal with. Generally speaking you need a decent amount bump travel for decent ride and traction, but if you lower the car you obviously loose that travel so fitting stiffer springs will give you a shorter bump transfer.

Stiffer does not guarantee a better handling car. IMO, there's 2 elements to tuning: the car and the driver. It's easy to 'tickle' a driver by seeming to have the car respond better, roll less and again no disrespect intended, the cheaper end of the market will add in stiffer springs to do just that. The dampers are probably the same valving that's seen on a host of other cars rather than bespoke to the Clio, but the result for the driver is 'better'. But look what manufacturers are now doing....the Evora is described as soft against some of its revivals and yet it won evo's Car of the Year. And did anyone read the Sunday Times article when JC took his Merc to Lotus who made it 2sec a lap quicker....by softening the suspension!

I'm sure that R&D has been done by some extent by all the manufacturers, what that means who knows and from what I read it seams that even major car manufacturers get their suspension wrong?

I don't think they get it wrong per se, they design to what they think we expect. If it's a track car it should be stiff, right? Depends, but then we're not driving track cars trying to get heat into slicks in a 20 minute race. We're driving road cars that we take on track and in that case the suspension should move. Let it move but control those movements properly.

Phil

 

[Phil @ P5]

Our ASTs are great now we have got the set up sorted, ours are the FMP set which have been revalved and run harder springs.
They are terrible on the road though.

That says to me there's very little compliance. The combination of stiff springs and probably stiff damping is stopping the suspension from working. With a smooth track, it's easy to loose the importance of that.

Personally i think you will struggle to get a set up that your happy with both on the road and track, you will always want them to do slightly more.

I think that's a common view. What are we really trying to do though?....use the maximum amount of grip available as that determines how fast we can go in a corner. As I said in the post above, half the battle is the nut behind the wheel, and to a degree it's what we've been taught or not taught that can make the difference.

Phil

 

[GodSpeed]

Well I was always under the impression that the firmer it is the better. I just don't want to spend all that money and then be dissapointed that they're too soft.

Yes that kind of depends of what you are after. That’s why I wrote as I did before. For what I use my car for the B14's are way to soft. So don’t be fooled none of these kits come close to being a race kit. They are fast street kits nothing else.

One of the biggest problem I see is the difficulty to go harder on kits that don’t use coilovers in the rear. You can make them harder in the front but not (not easy anyway) in the rear = you loose the balance. They all use progressive springs in the rear as well, not the best thing.

If are one a budget I would say save money and go for AST Type II or what ever they are called with the hardest spring setting. At least then you have potential to make changes in spring rates front AND rear and even re-shim them. Like described in the Burpspeed V2 Thread:

"The problem we then faced was that the dampers were valved to suit softer road spec spring rates. Using stiffer springs (460lbs front; 450lbs rear) meant it was quite under damped. They had to be set near max to get anything near what was needed. Although we could use them as they are on the race car, we’ve decided to take the opportunity to get them rebuilt and re-valved to suit the stiffer springs and also with and eye on future changes. Taking them into to Curtis at AST UK this week to be done."

Where im at with my own B14's I’m stuck, cant get sh*t more from them. Just have to sell them of and get a proper setup that suit my needs. Please just don’t make the same mistake.

Good luck with your purchase!

 

[ForceIndia]

Interesting read Phil. I was running AST's but got rid as they felt too stiff for me, understeer and traction were a bit of an issue imo. But AFAIK the AST road setup was developed and tested by 1 guy, so obviously his preferences will be different to others.

 

[Jonny1*2]

Fare enough Phil, but stability of car is one of the key things which suspension dictates. If the car is pitching and rolling too much they cornering speeds (in/out) will be compromised no? Obviously driver skill makes alot of difference, but that aside I mean.

 

[ForceIndia]

Yes that kind of depends of what you are after. That’s why I wrote as I did before. For what I use my car for the B14's are way to soft. So don’t be fooled none of these kits come close to being a race kit. They are fast street kits nothing else.

One of the biggest problem I see is the difficulty to go harder on kits that don’t use coilovers in the rear. You can make them harder in the front but not (not easy anyway) in the rear = you loose the balance. They all use progressive springs in the rear as well, not the best thing.

If are one a budget I would say save money and go for AST Type II or what ever they are called with the hardest spring setting. At least then you have potential to make changes in spring rates front AND rear and even re-shim them. Like described in the Burpspeed V2 Thread:

"The problem we then faced was that the dampers were valved to suit softer road spec spring rates. Using stiffer springs (460lbs front; 450lbs rear) meant it was quite under damped. They had to be set near max to get anything near what was needed. Although we could use them as they are on the race car, we’ve decided to take the opportunity to get them rebuilt and re-valved to suit the stiffer springs and also with and eye on future changes. Taking them into to Curtis at AST UK this week to be done."

Where im at with my own B14's I’m stuck, cant get sh*t more from them. Just have to sell them of and get a proper setup that suit my needs. Please just don’t make the same mistake.

Good luck with your purchase!

The AST's would be very good if you have the time and budget to get the spring/damping set to your preference. The balance wasn't great for me with both spring options, so would need work.

And if looking to spend £1500+, why not go for the £1800KW competition setup?

 

[GodSpeed]

The AST's would be very good if you have the time and budget to get the spring/damping set to your preference. The balance wasn't great for me with both spring options, so would need work.

And if looking to spend £1500+, why not go for the £1800KW competition setup?

Do that setup use coilovers in the rear as well?

 

[Jonny1*2]

I wish someone would do a comparison of the setups/limitations etc. I'm going to be looking into some next year, so would like to know what is going to be best.

With H&R being softer, would that mean that they are going to be better for the track? or is that just to do with the springs not being stiff enough. Is it more to do with the damper setting/rates rather than the springs?

 

[ForceIndia]

AFAIK, yes. I'm sure drhowser or fred could confirm.

 

[ForceIndia]

I wish someone would do a comparison of the setups/limitations etc. I'm going to be looking into some next year, so would like to know what is going to be best.

With H&R being softer, would that mean that they are going to be better for the track? or is that just to do with the springs not being stiff enough. Is it more to do with the damper setting/rates rather than the springs?

H&R's are very good IMO, but obviously the balance is relatively set given that the damping is fixed.

The KW V2's are the best option that I've driven, the adjustability is useful (if not essential IMO). Oulton was a good example, kept it slightly softer in the morning (cold/damp) then played with the settings and got a slightly stiffer more oversteery balance as the track dried.

 

[Jonny1*2]

H&R's are very good IMO, but obviously the balance is relatively set given that the damping is fixed.

The KW V2's are the best option that I've driven, the adjustability is useful (if not essential IMO). Oulton was a good example, kept it slightly softer in the morning (cold/damp) then played with the settings and got a slightly stiffer more oversteery balance as the track dried.

Thought the H&R's were fully adjustable? :S

Yeah I've been hearing quite a bit about the KW V2 setup (around same price as the H&Rs? do they fit cup hubs?). Are they easy to adjust warren?

 

[ForceIndia]

Thought the H&R's were fully adjustable? :S

Yeah I've been hearing quite a bit about the KW V2 setup (around same price as the H&Rs? do they fit cup hubs?). Are they easy to adjust warren?

H&R have fixed damping, but obviously height etc are adjustable. Sadly they don't do a 182cup fitment.

I would say that the whiteline ARB is a useful addition. Has made a noticeable difference to the car for me.

 

[ForceIndia]

Just had a look, appears that they do the KW V3 for the 182, but pricier!

 

[Sir_Dave]

Some good reading here, nice to see some proper discussion for once

Does amuse me how people bum AST on here though, yes they are apparently very good, & in clio circles very expensive ... but in the wider world, they are very much at the lower end of the suspension market compared to brands such as Moton, Nitron, Intrax, or even independents like Black Art Designs.

They all charge upwards of £2k for a mid-range setup ...

Yum.

 

[Jonny1*2]

H&R have fixed damping, but obviously height etc are adjustable. Sadly they don't do a 182cup fitment.

I would say that the whiteline ARB is a useful addition. Has made a noticeable difference to the car for me.

How did the ARB make the car feel (sounds a bit gay, but you know what I mean )

 

[Jonny1*2]

Some good reading here, nice to see some proper discussion for once

Does amuse me how people bum AST on here though, yes they are apparently very good, & in clio circles very expensive ... but in the wider world, they are very much at the lower end of the suspension market compared to brands such as Moton, Nitron, Intrax, or even independents like Black Art Designs.

They all charge upwards of £2k for a mid-range setup ...

Yum.

True, but they you're gettin into the rhelms of is that too much to spend on a clio. I see your point though.

 

[ForceIndia]

How did the ARB make the car feel (sounds a bit gay, but you know what I mean )

More precise, and stable during quick direction changes. Well worth it.

 

[Jonny1*2]

More precise, and stable during quick direction changes. Well worth it.

Is it a direct replacement for the front one, or a rear one? Does the 1*2's not have a rear one anyway?

 

[J333EVO]

Very interesting read, and Phil has made some very relevant remarks. A friend of ours, Andy Dawson he used to write for Track & Race car mag and was manager of Nissan Europe Rally team with my partner's Dad, does lots of consultancy work now for everything from race teams to car manufacturers.

We were discussing our track day car recently at the launch of the new 500 Abarth Trofeo race series at Silverstone with him and a AVO representative as that's what we will be using. He told us of a recent test session at Bruntingthorpe with AVO, Andy advised a Mitsubishi EVO driver to soften his springs by I think it was 200lbs, from 600 to 400. At first the driver said car rolled to much, but Andy said drive it hard, lean on the car and we'll time you, result faster lap as suspension was actually doing what it was meant to do, soaking the bumps and allowing the dampers to work. Many kits unfortunately are too hard sprung, with too soft dampers.

Lotus, Aston Martin, and Andy all prescribe to softer springs but quicker faster reacting stiffer dampers, BUT and MR AVO admitted it was true, the customer will not accept a suspension set up that allows too much roll as they perceive that as slower, but against the stopwatch its often quicker by a considerable margin. Don't get me wrong excessive roll is not good, but some roll is needed to get the chassis working.

But unless someone can get a bench mark car and have all/or most available suspension set ups at hand to change over, and a driver who is consistent not necessarily ubber fast, but consistency is key and knows how to give good feedback, then it's all subjective as to which application is better.

We are very fortunate in integrale circles that an Aston Martin test driver who specifically does suspension work owns an integrale and done exactly the above, using his own car and a variety of suspension set ups and Aston Martins test facility at Gaydon gave incredible feedback in a very very long and detailed post on what worked and what didn't & why, ohlins very highly rated, but not everyone has that luxury.

PS notice Black Art Deisgns was mentioned, the owner John has an integrale also and his suspension is highly rated.

 

[ForceIndia]

It's additional for the rear.
Just visible here

More details here http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=456417

 

[J333EVO]

I used a WhiteLine rear adjustable replacement for the standard anti-roll bar on my Celica GT4 ST205 and it was excellent, completely dialled out the understeer and was not detrimental to ride quality at all.

Also fitted front and rear WhiteLine bars to a Suzuki Ignis Sport, it like the Clio didn't have a rear to start with, but made a huge difference to the car, made it very pointy, and cornered very flat, though felt much more nervous in normal driving though I liked that, someone else drove it and was unsure if it was necessary on a road car, though understood why it made a good JWRC car.

 

[ForceIndia]

Hasn't made my car feels nervous, but then I'm not running standard suspension.

 

[J333EVO]

By nervous I mean most road cars are designed to be pretty much inert on the straight ahead, theres a little slack so that when you say drive on a motorway you are not constantly correcting the angle of input on steering wheel, by fitting rear bar this slack was all but removed, though I dialled a bit back out by getting a little more castor on front and little more toe in on rear as the WhiteLine front bar on an Ignis allows upto 1degree of fore and aft castor adjustabiltiy and rear suspension as with most Jap cars is fully adjustable.

All in made car way more playful.

 

[Carlos Fandango]

So, is it possible to make a road car as good as a race car on track, I probably think not, then how close can you realistically get? In the latest Evo, which we all know loves the Porsche GT3, even they are questioning weather it "is too track biased" as it skips along etc., etc. Have I just answered my own question?

 

[Carlos Fandango]

Regarding the Whiteline anti roll bars, why hasn't my cup race car got one and I was blowing off all sorts of machinery at Spa including GT3 RS's amongst others. I'm not bragging, the car is phenomenal, but it has no ARB, runs front springs a lot stiffer than the rears etc., whereas road cars, people are saying stiffer on the rear, can someone explain all this to me???

 

[ForceIndia]

Regarding the Whiteline anti roll bars, why hasn't my cup race car got one and I was blowing off all sorts of machinery at Spa including GT3 RS's amongst others. I'm not bragging, the car is phenomenal, but it has no ARB, runs front springs a lot stiffer than the rears etc., whereas road cars, people are saying stiffer on the rear, can someone explain all this to me???

Not saying it's essential fella, but as you've pointed out, you're running a completely different setup. Different weight, completely different rear suspension design etc.

 

[Carlos Fandango]

Not saying it's essential fella, but as you've pointed out, you're running a completely different setup. Different weight, completely different rear suspension design etc.

It's the same as AST coilovers, all I'm doing is running camber. What interests me more is that the standard cup car runs springs that are over double the stiffness on the front where as people on here are saying stiffer on the rear....go and figure, I wish I could.

 

[drhowser]

Do that setup use coilovers in the rear as well?

no, they are still a seperate spring and damper on the rear.

 

[drhowser]

i'm also interested to read what phill has to say regarding suspension setup. especially regarding height, it is my understanding that the ideal height has more to do with the mounting points and wishbones than the apperance of the car.

from what i understand, the most neutral setup will have the wishbones level to try to have the roll centre as close to the centre of gravity as possible and to minimise the movement ratio between the two?

as far as facts and figures go, i don't have any at all, i don't even know the rate of the springs on the kit. all i do know is that when i ordered the kit i had to give kw the axle weights of the car and tell them the type of use it would be seeing.

i'd definately agree that a softer setup will give more grip and be more compliant in general. surely body roll would be better controlled by spending time setting up the low speed rebound values?

also i find that i can get a pretty good setup for both the road (minimum bump with a reasonable amount of rebound) and for the track also (less rebound, more bump, rear much harder than the front)

 

[Carlos Fandango]

also i find that i can get a pretty good setup for both the road (minimum bump with a reasonable amount of rebound) and for the track also (less rebound, more bump, rear much harder than the front)

Why rear much harder than front when the race cars the other way around?

 

[drhowser]

Why rear much harder than front when the race cars the other way around?[/quote]

it just seems to be the most balanced setup, i've tried it every which way and it just seems best to me.

possibly the fact of the different rear setup might have something to do with it. with the seperate spring and damper you will need to take some leverage into account, it is possible that even running softer springs on the one piece units, the force required to move the wheel could be similar.

the only thing i have not yet tried is running full slicks, so i don't know how that would affect the setup?

 

[Phil @ P5]

Fare enough Phil, but stability of car is one of the key things which suspension dictates. If the car is pitching and rolling too much they cornering speeds (in/out) will be compromised no? Obviously driver skill makes alot of difference, but that aside I mean.

I would change 'stability' for 'control'. You can't change the laws of physics so it's best to accept them and work with them. When you corner, brake, accelerate there will always be a shift of weight that needs to be controlled. You're right, it's about driver confidence as well, and all that needs to be packaged up.

Consider the basics, and tell me if you think roll is a good or bad thing. Take a slinky spring thingy, put a weight on the end and pull it down and let go. What happens? The spring will open and close, or bob up and down and this is referred to the natural frequency of the spring. A soft spring will have a low frequency and conversely a stiff spring will have a high natural frequency. Now back to the car. As you can see, a spring needs some sort of control to prevent excessive oscillations and that's the job of the damper, but if you don't have roll then the damper doesn't move and therefore there's no control. Yes, excessive roll is not good as you'll be cornering on the bump stops with no available travel for when you do hit a bump as well as alignment changes, but in general is your friend.

As I said above, suspension tends to 'tickle' the driver into thinking he's got a sporty set-up. Stiffer springs will result in shorter transient response so it reaches steady state quickly (steady state is when the weight transfer is done and the dampers and springs are no longer moving; constant speed/steering/yaw rate), so you turn in and bang, you're at steady state. Feels great doesn't it, like a go-kart? But if the damper is under-damped then what actual happens is an oscillation around steady state before it settles which hurts performance.

 

[ForceIndia]

Now back to the car. As you can see, a spring needs some sort of control to prevent excessive oscillations and that's the job of the damper, but if you don't have roll then the damper doesn't move and therefore there's no control. Yes, excessive roll is not good as you'll be cornering on the bump stops with no available travel for when you do hit a bump as well as alignment changes, but in general is your friend.

As I said above, suspension tends to 'tickle' the driver into thinking he's got a sporty set-up. Stiffer springs will result in shorter transient response so it reaches steady state quickly (steady state is when the weight transfer is done and the dampers and springs are no longer moving; constant speed/steering/yaw rate), so you turn in and bang, you're at steady state. Feels great doesn't it, like a go-kart? But if the damper is under-damped then what actual happens is an oscillation around steady state before it settles which hurts performance.

What you're describing there, with very little roll, is exactly how I felt the AST's behaved. I just don't have the knowledge to put it so articulately.

 

[Phil @ P5]

Regarding the Whiteline anti roll bars, why hasn't my cup race car got one and I was blowing off all sorts of machinery at Spa including GT3 RS's amongst others. I'm not bragging, the car is phenomenal, but it has no ARB, runs front springs a lot stiffer than the rears etc., whereas road cars, people are saying stiffer on the rear, can someone explain all this to me???

Probably because you're running silly stiff springs and therefore you don't need another spring in there....after all an ARB is just a spring. Assuming you're running slicks, then it's set-up to get heat in the tyres.

Phil

 

[Carlos Fandango]

But, (and I know I shouldn't start a sentence with but), when the race car and road car are essentially the same, why does there seem to be the discrepancy between the F/R spring rates?