Lowering Ruins handling

[Harry_manback]

Is what i was told by the garage mending my car, so i asked how that was possible.

the guy said that all you young lads.... means us lot i guess.
lower our cars but dont realise that being on 3 wheels or having a really stiff ride makes cars handle badly on all roads that aint race tracks.

so i said i had considered lowering my car 60mm on shocks and springs.

he said not to bother as my car (standard 14. 16v) would hold the road better than a lowered 172.

Aparantly i have more room for correction, where as a lowered car would just drift across the road.
now, i have never been in a lowered clio at speed, so i couldnt compair.

what you rekon to that then eh!!
he did drive an XR2 though, with some mental looking camber on it!

 

[Djw John]

Tbh on a rough back road he is probably right as the tyres wont be touching the ground as much! But on smooth main roads then its a slight improvement i think. Better than standard but not the miracle Ive heard some people say. Good tyres make a bigger difference imo

 

[theduck]

lowered 60mm on uprated shocks will improve the handling. It will lower the centre of gravity, redcue body roll, and as uprated suggests, its BETTER suspension, which equates to better handling. Your car WILL NOT out handle a lowered 172/182, as they have BETTER suspension setups as standard, and better springs once lowered, your mechanic talks sh*t and you should use someone else. - just my oppinion your mechanic but if one told me that i'd walk straight out.

 

[James Bushell]

Couldn't agree more.. with the mechanic.. (But does depend on the sort of roads you drive tho) The stiffer it is.. the more the car will bounce, less contact with the road means less grip and slower cornering speeds.. Unless it's very smooth obviously..

I would never have mine lowered.. unless it was a pure track car.. Due to the sort of lanes i enjoy.. i NEED as much suspension travel as possible.. Even in the cup with standard ride height it's very easy to get all four wheels of the ground.. Especially this left hand crest i know..

 

[edde]

There are advantages to getting different suspension coilovers etc. lower setups have harder springs so you cannot have as much freedom in the wet to use the curbs on track etc.
Lower cars means more cornering speed or more spare grip when cornering at the same speed. However in the dry on on a smooth track a lowered car will be quicker than a normal one.
I've had my car on both stock suspension coilovers and back to stock and I miss the coilovers for what they gave me in the dry. Even any weather they were more comunicative and my tyres didn't wear as much on the edges.
The only way to know if you'll like it is to get your car lowered you'll find the advanatges and disadvanatges only when you go back to stock from modified suspension.
You will have more spare correction in a stock car but a lowered car driven at the same sped would be less close to its limit.
Personally I'm not going back to coilovers they were good but the springs and ride were to hard and I was on stock tyres and mine were ajustable. When I get on track I miss there avantages but stock suspension isn't that bad.

 

[BenR]

what an apalling generalisation......i guess thats why he runs a garage.

 

[Lagerlout]

lol @ Ben

I disagree.... lowering has to be beneficial to some degree - Surely your lowering the centre of gravity, which can only be a good thing. I think it's the way in which some cars are lowered that causes the problems i.e. shortened rock-hard springs which lower the car, but do nothing for ride etc.

Surely as part of a complete suspension set up a low ride height is beneficial?

 

[Aust1n]

my 1st clio wasnt lowered, felt frightening round bends at high speeds.. my 2nd 1 is and it handles like its on friccing rails..

dimwits..

 

[haitch]

lol at your grease monkey, absolute rubbish eh

 

[ChrisO182]

I can see where he is comming from, on my 106 i just put some spax springs on and althouth it was more solid on nice flat bends it was terrible on slightly rough surfaces or if there was a little dip in the corneres, not all cheap mods from halfords are going to improve on what the manufactures have spent loads on, saying that a nicely SET-UP aftermarket job can improve loads on the compromise that is build infrom the factory

 

[u33db]

Clearly hes referring to the fact that lowering a car generally means stiffer suspension which is unable to soak up bumps as well on country roads or uneven surfaces.

Same as williams vs 172...williams handles better over rough roads due to a softer setup wheras a 172 will likely have the edge on smooth surfaces m-way's/new roads.

He's stating the obvious but is basically correct.

 

[Turkish]

He needs to define what is the issue though, lower doesnt have to mean stiffer. Sweeping statement and far too vague IMO. Lowering does not ruin handling, providing the spring/damping rate are selected properly.

 

[u33db]

Well if your you're going to be pedantic about it then yes.

Not doubt if this mechanic had the time he'd have rolled out a blackboard and explained the physics and pro/cons of spring rates vs handling with accompanying diagrams. Sadly he no doubt had some work to get on with so was forced to make such a general comment and save time...

 

[Turkish]

Either way he was speaking to someone who he felt didnt have a clue and was arrogant enough to make a rediculously vague generalisation. Personally i'd say it's better to make no comment at all than talking a load of b****cks. Sadly too many people in technical professions assume the person they are speaking to is stupid.

 

[u33db]

Hows he talking a load of b****cks??

It's all very well to start saying that handling won't be ruined providing "spring/damping rate are selected properly" blah blah but lets be honest, slapping a 200-odd quid APEX kit, selected from the finest shelves of ripspeed (or whatever), on your car (which 99.5% of owner generally do) doesn't really come under that banner does it?

The chap said he's never been in a lowered car at speed so i guess the mechanic was right in saying he didn't have too much of a clue...

 

[Turkish]

It's b****cks because its not accurate. He is assuming that you are talking about fitting a cheap spring kit with an overly firm rate.

He also stated a lowered 172 would handle less well than a standard 1.2, that in itself is complete crap, anyone care to recall Fred in his 1.2 on coilovers owning Yozza in his standard cup down a twisty a road.
If Harry stated he was going to have a spring and shock kit fitted then how can the bloke turn round and make a statement on cars that he's unlikely to have driven and there's no way he will have driven every combination of model and spring/suspension/coilover kit available. The bloke was making a million assumptions and running his mouth like most greasemonkeys tend to do. The crap i've heard spouted by tech's to people who dont know any better over the years is stupid.

The "tech" could have simply added if you get overly firm springs/dampers then lowering the car will spoil the handling. Not difficult is it.

 

[James Bushell]

Either way he was speaking to someone who he felt didnt have a clue and was arrogant enough to make a rediculously vague generalisation. Personally i'd say it's better to make no comment at all than talking a load of b****cks. Sadly too many people in technical professions assume the person they are speaking to is stupid.

Agreed..

 

[Phill1978]

all depends on road type, seen ford focus keep corner speed with some really decent cars due to their exellent balance and ability to soak up bump at speed, ive run a 172 on hard suspension (thankfully with ride adjustment) and on firm setting yes it was incredible on smooth even half decent roads, but i found IF i was unlucky enough to wander into a nast posthole, dip, ver poorly repaired road surface it would skip and bounce and wouldnt feel solid on the road at all (given that the clio is superlight anyway) so i think the key phrase is "Suitable Damping"

 

[u33db]

Well it seems to me i'm the only person who sees where this mechanic is coming from.

Perhaps he could have explained things a bit better but as i said, he no-doubt had other jobs to do rather than discuss the pros and cons of suspension v handling with this chap (who by the sounds of things didn't even ask for more info?!)...time and a place for things though.

Point is he said "a really stiff ride makes cars handle badly on all roads that aint race tracks" which is true;

- standard 1.2 vs lowered 172...i've been in a standard 172 and standard 1.2 in the above conditions (typical of the roads up here) - the 172 feel damn uncomfortable and was skipping accross the road. Likewise with most lowered cars i've owned...they've nearly all held the road better in std form on rough/uneven country roads.

RE fred beating yoz...you said twisty...we're talking rough surfaces here: theres no way that'd happen.

 

[u33db]

^Agree with meggerman btw

 

[Turkish]

Perhaps he could have explained things a bit better but as i said, he no-doubt had other jobs to do rather than discuss the pros and cons of suspension v handling with this chap (who by the sounds of things didn't even ask for more info?!)...time and a place for things though.

How long does it take to say, "if it's lowered and too stiffly sprung the handling will be worse than standard on poor surfaces." one sentence would have clarified it and wouldnt have taken him all afternoon. I'm not saying he should spend all day discussing the relative merits of spring/damping rates vs road surface.



- standard 1.2 vs lowered 172...i've been in a standard 172 and standard 1.2 in the above conditions (typical of the roads up here) - the 172 feel damn uncomfortable and was skipping accross the road. Likewise with most lowered cars i've owned...they've nearly all held the road better in std form on rough/uneven country roads.

Ex had a 1.2 i've had a 172 and a 182 both with standard suspension and modded and IMO the 172 and 182 were better out of the box on any road than the 1.2 the 182 is better than the 172 standard and the 172 when it had H&R's on it pissed on the lot of them.

RE fred beating yoz...you said twisty...we're talking rough surfaces here: theres no way that'd happen.

Believe it because it happened and even yoz will admit Fred dropped him. I've follow Fred down the same road in my H&R'd 172 and was all over him despite not knowing the road, oh and for the record billiard table smooth it aint.

..

 

[u33db]

Loony, you know as well as i do people have certain ways of talking.

The fact this "greasemonkey" is using phrases "all you young lads" doesn't really imply hes going to come out with something as eloquent or descriptive as "if it's lowered and too stiffly sprung the handling will be worse than standard on poor surfaces". Does that mean he doesn't know what hes talking about? No, i wouldn't say so!

As for your moded/std 1x2's or yoz v fred it really depends what you call an uneven road as meggerman says. I can only assume you're meaning of uneven isn't quite as uneven as mine!

Theres a 30mile country road out to my parents near me thats typical of roads up here. In pretty much all the cars i've had (well perhaps minus the valver), all handled better as standard in these circumstances as the suspension was far softer. Std for std, i also remember my sister following my valver in her 172...100mph the 172 would be quite unstable due to its setup which is notably stiffer...indeed plus 100mph it'd be hard to keep hold of the wheel!

Like i said, it depends what you call a stiff road but fact is stiffer is worse on uneven surfaces.

 

[Turkish]

Loony, you know as well as i do people have certain ways of talking.

The fact this "greasemonkey" is using phrases "all you young lads" doesn't really imply hes going to come out with something as eloquent or descriptive as "if it's lowered and too stiffly sprung the handling will be worse than standard on poor surfaces". Does that mean he doesn't know what hes talking about? No, i wouldn't say so!

Perhaps he does however he should stick to doing rather than trying to explain as its clearly not his forte. Once you give someone with little or no knowledge a description or opinion (opinion being more dangerous as it isnt based on fact) they will take it as gospel. It's better not to get into discussion if you arent a very good communicator or arent prepared/dont have the time to explain things properly. I deal with people at work all day that think they know better when they dont and they are a bigger pain in the ass than those who dont know nor pretend to know anything.

As for your moded/std 1x2's or yoz v fred it really depends what you call an uneven road as meggerman says. I can only assume you're meaning of uneven isn't quite as uneven as mine!

I mean shitty windy broken tarmac'd country road in the midlands not a super smooth racetrack or a high street on wortorn bagdad.

Theres a 30mile country road out to my parents near me thats typical of roads up here. In pretty much all the cars i've had (well perhaps minus the valver), all handled better as standard in these circumstances as the suspension was far softer. Std for std, i also remember my sister following my valver in her 172...100mph the 172 would be quite unstable due to its setup which is notably stiffer...indeed plus 100mph it'd be hard to keep hold of the wheel!

I dont think s**t roads are confined to the north i could show you plenty of really trashed ones round here but obviously i cant comment on the state of the road you are talking about nor the handling of the two cars side by side on it seeing as ive not driven them on that road so ill have to take your word on that. However i will say that my 172 with the H&R's fitted actually rode poor surfaces better than the stock setup i can only put this down to well chosen spring and damper rates and the fact they run a helper sping on the front. Either way it was better than the OE kit in every condition and i think everyone on here who bought H&R's after me would make the same comment.

Like i said, it depends what you call a stiff road but fact is stiffer is worse on uneven surfaces.

The bloke immediately assumed lower = stiffer, im merely saying thats not always the case nor does lower = worse on poor road, far too many generalisations thats all.

..

 

[u33db]

It's always going to be stiffer if you lower it as a shock has less travel to disapate energy from any impacts.

Altering spring rates/poundages/using progressively wound springs (like on your coilovers) will give the impression of not being any stiffer as you've greater control over/altered how this energy is disapated.

However, on a bumpy road, flat-out on a standard setup vs flat-out on a lowered setup the std system will be capable of absorbing far more impact.

 

[Phill1978]

most of these cars are designed for smooth european roads, most of these suspension kit arrive from america or europe also designed for the smooth tarmac and lowered look.
in this country I have acknowlaged that 80-90% of all roads i travel on to work apart from the dual carigeway are uneven, have dangerous cambers, huge grates with moss grass growing out and into side of road (slippy) Trees over hanging (we leaves are a killer in my cup) etc.. the list is endless.

I have one point to make: If Renault were setting up there F1 car for monaco they would use a ultra stiff yet finely balanced suspension setup.. if they were to do a charity or promotional event on a city street like last year in London with the F1 for London event they wouldnt keep their Monaco settings even for a decent london (miles better than any northern roads as we are the forgotten county`s) and if they were on a B road or a any typical UK road (or worse yorkshire roads) they would have to increase the ride height and probably ditch ANY performance related suspension due to lightweight and power output.

basically, punters buy cars that have been designed for smooth eurpean roads and run them in the UK, they then put firm suspension on which is great and indeed increase steering response, eliminates roll, changes of direction are faster etc.. but they dont alter their setup for any less than perfect roads so in effect are running the wrong suspension setups for the road type.

cant have best of both worlds, but it depends what world you live in most, for lots of people a ford focus will wip almost anything on a nasty road due to its exellent chassis, and ability to keep ploughing through shite roads even at high speed, where as the clio is skitish and feels dangerous on anything other than decent roads that are dry, proper damping will sort this out though.

funny thing is if you own a 4x4 like a subaru forester with decent power (forester Sti s a beast) and pliant suspenision, no hothatch or uber saloon will even touch it over rough surface

 

[Turkish]

The springs on my coilovers were not progressive.

I guess we will never agree on this one. I just feel the guys description was poorly worded and ill advised as he was speaking to someone who wasnt technically minded. It was very opinion rather than fact driven statement and biased in how he delivered it.

 

[u33db]

No coilovers don't have progressive springs but they have helper springs with an adjustable platform between them and the main spring which does a similar job...this is what allows dampling rates/ride heights to be set as you can alter the force going to each.

Fair enough though if thats what you think about his comment. I just think that generally speaking hes correct and given the fact the young chap doesn't know that much about the effects of lowering/wasn't exactly asking for an in-depth description his comment was probably warranted.

 

[Turkish]

No coilovers don't have progressive springs but they have helper springs with an adjustable platform between them and the main spring which does a similar job...this is what allows dampling rates/ride heights to be set as you can alter the force going to each.

Some do, not all do though. my H&R's had helpers but alot of the kits that are 500ish run one spring and this combined with a poorly damped and firmly sprung kit is possibly why coilovers are seen as being harsh compared to standard kits. Again an assumption by people who have either not owned a set or only owned one so have no basis for comparison.

Fair enough though if thats what you think about his comment. I just think that generally speaking hes correct and given the fact the young chap doesn't know that much about the effects of lowering/wasn't exactly asking for an in-depth description his comment was probably warranted.

We've all seen how baised views or snapshots of information can give a false or misleading impression. I just feel he could have been a little more careful with his choice of words or a little less narrow minded about the subject thats all.

..

 

[MarkM]

My car is lowered and handles far better then standard therefore his statement is wrong.

He is right in the sense that very low cars have less suspension travel therefore are less capable of controlling the wheels over bumpy road surfaces (all UK roads). Also aftermarket lowering springs on standard dampers do not allow the damper to work properly which is probably the route of most 'young lads'.

As said a properly setup set of coilovers will far outperform standard and will drop the ride height.

My ledas do not use helper springs. Also with the dampers on there softest setting the ride is on a par with the standard cup setup.

 

[Harry_manback]

a few points first, my cars the 1.4 16v dynamique plus, which i believe has slightly better suspension than a standard 1.2 but thats not really the point.

Im not actually stupid and those of you who think i am can go f**k yourselves.

the inside edges of my new tyres are wear badly the guy said that my camber was out and that a new set of springs would prolly cure it.

so i said this might be a good excuse to lower it. then he made his statement. the problem is 1/3 of the people who have answered this thread say lowering is good and the guy doesnt know what hes talking about.

another 1/3 say hes right lowering will damage handleing on roads than aint race tracks.

the final 1/3 appear to be talking sh*t and have prolly never compaired lowered cars vs standard. i guess i fall into this catagory as i have never lowered my car and would be interested to find out.

this is beacuse there is such unclear message about the effects of lowering a car. i live in lincolnshire where the roads are mental and not smooth. so lowering prolly isnt a good idea but i cant helpt but feel im not really an accepted member of CS untill i spend £800 on coilovers and remove the majority of my front body work on speedhumps and potholes.

i like the look of a lowered car.
id like to go fast round crap corners.
anyone actually know what they are talking about wanna give me advice?

 

[kartman]

Hi harry, here is what I have found through alot of experience. Very low springs on standard shocks are ok on smooth roads but crap on country roads. Good quality shocks and dampers (eibach, koni) are better on country roads but still lose grip when the going gets really rough. I'm talking 2 inch ridges from trucks that have literally pushed the tarmac along. My latest kit (leda) is the first kit I have had that doesnt skip on those really rough corners which was a nice surprise.

The best thing to do is at the next yorkshire meet is to see if you can have a go in some peeps cars to give you an idea of what different kits feel like. You are welcome to have a go in mine.

Also, you dont have spend £££'s on suspension to fit in at CS. Certain members are just more vocal about things. Do what suits you.

Mike.

 

[Lunner]

There is sopme truth in ehat he is saying, but what is clear is that he really doen't have a clue, and is piecing together odd bits of facts that he has been told and is comming up with bullshit.

Same as the bloke who said lowering your car puts more stress on the cv boots, the cv boots are never under any stress

 

[caymanr26]

im beginning to want a leda kit!!

 

[Fred@BTM]

bumpy roads fair enough

A roads, the mechanic's statement is incorrect

 

[MarkM]

a few points first, my cars the 1.4 16v dynamique plus, which i believe has slightly better suspension than a standard 1.2 but thats not really the point.

Im not actually stupid and those of you who think i am can go f**k yourselves.

the inside edges of my new tyres are wear badly the guy said that my camber was out and that a new set of springs would prolly cure it.

so i said this might be a good excuse to lower it. then he made his statement. the problem is 1/3 of the people who have answered this thread say lowering is good and the guy doesnt know what hes talking about.

another 1/3 say hes right lowering will damage handleing on roads than aint race tracks.

the final 1/3 appear to be talking sh*t and have prolly never compaired lowered cars vs standard. i guess i fall into this catagory as i have never lowered my car and would be interested to find out.

this is beacuse there is such unclear message about the effects of lowering a car. i live in lincolnshire where the roads are mental and not smooth. so lowering prolly isnt a good idea but i cant helpt but feel im not really an accepted member of CS untill i spend £800 on coilovers and remove the majority of my front body work on speedhumps and potholes.

i like the look of a lowered car.
id like to go fast round crap corners.
anyone actually know what they are talking about wanna give me advice?

My advice would be to get some ledas and then get them fitted professionally and setup - camber ride height damping etc. cost probably about £1500.

Coilovers do not have to be harsh but you do have to get a decent set. I have had to have a small arch liner mod on mine for the ride height I have and have not bottomed out once on a speed bump.

If your budget is not this big a good quality set of springs eg. Eibach will tighten up the handling without breaking the bank.

IMO a big drop on cheap springs is a big no no as handling will be ruined.

The in between option would be a spring damper package I think Koni do them can not comment on these but I imagine would be a good compromise. If you do decide to lower get the geometry checked and reset.

From my experience adding coilovers has transformed my cupped 182 into a much better handling car but has compromised the ride quality. You dont get something for nothing.

 

[Harry_manback]

There is sopme truth in ehat he is saying, but what is clear is that he really doen't have a clue, and is piecing together odd bits of facts that he has been told and is comming up with bullsh*t.

isnt that what this forum is about, trying to sort fact from fiction, the only problem is most of what is said here is hearsay. i could just jump on the bandwagen and accept what the big names on hear say, but then we'd all be driving sleeper 182 sl*gs. sometimes people need to question the very reason for doing things.

its not that i dont have a clue im just trying think about this in the real world where my race track is full of potholes and is wet and slippy.

£1500 is a lot to spend on a car thats worth about £3k. imo

 

[Fred@BTM]

harry some people have sense, others such as myself, don't LOL

 

[MarkM]

What is your budget Harry?

IMO go for the Eibach springs £150 ish maybe less they will be a good quality upgrade over standard without the big drop. Defo get it all checked out after installing I think Fred fits springs for £40?? I say this because they are a big name with a good rep on here.

The forum is probably 10%fact 90%BS IMO. Whats wrong with 182 sleepers.

 

[Lunner]

...and £2k is even more to spend on a car when its worth sub £1k.......

 

[caymanr26]

ill be selling my eibach pros in a couple of weeks - only problem with them is they dont lower very much at all but the ride is great