Newbie flame-ball thread - Lowering = poo

[docter fox]

most enthusiasts would notice some difference but nothing compared to the level or accuracy that race teams set up suspension for and when people say there car is well set up with lowering springs....b*llocks is it

lol at Little Newms who bought a 172 for looks at not performance ...... understand what ya mean though

and as for cadwell park, definately!

 

[ant_wales]

So what affect would 35mm springs on a 1.2 16v dynamique have to the cars handling?

would it make it worse or hold the corners better?

thanks

 

[docter fox]

how much are the loweing springs your looking at?

personally id spend a bit more on the next set of tyres or perhaps a couple of hours driving tuiton in your car round a track?

 

[domn8]

meoww... I must agree that most of us dont/cant drive close enough to the limits in a way that a professional racer would to appreciate any improvement, that is consistently not just on the odd corner or two now and again prior to having a new hedge-row style front end fitted courtesy of Newtons Law.

That said should we really be driving like that on the open road? Get kids then you might think about your actions and who you could be leaving behind. Fast cars are fun.. if they and other road users are respected!

Oh and my opinion on handling is that one of the best improvements can be made by lowering the profile of your tyres and therefore increasing the rim diametre, but within reason (mainly comfort)

I personally thing lowering and larger alloys is all about subtlety and to some degree having the guts under the bonnet to pull it off!

All of this is naturally IMO.......... but generally Im not wrong

 

[Turkish]

you dont have to drive the car at its limit to notice an improvement in its handling yes at the limits then you will be more aware of a drastic change but it doesnt mean that we are suggesting you explore them on the road nor that they need to be explored to notice an improvement/change.

lowering profile and icreasing wheel size ? although it looked better my 172 handled worse when going from 195 45 16s up to 205 40 17s.

 

[Willy Williams]

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004

you dont have to drive the car at its limit to notice an improvement in its handling yes at the limits then you will be more aware of a drastic change but it doesnt mean that we are suggesting you explore them on the road nor that they need to be explored to notice an improvement/change.

LMAO. How are you going to accurately assess the adhesion of the tyres, the balance of the car, the propensity for the car to break away, the traction over bumps, if you dont drive the car flat out?

No race driver can accurately predict what a change will do to a car until he takes it out and drives it flat out or near flat out. They can guess but you only find out by driving it fast. Thats what test drivers are paid to do.

For example a car may feel better better pootling round a track, but maybe the suspension is working better because the slow speeds are not getting enough heat into the tyres resulting in lower tyre pressures which suits the particulart up. Crank up the speed, the heat goes up in the tyres and BANG, pressures too high and the car handles like a pig again.

Havnt you ever heard Martin Brundle talking about the problem F1 cars have trundling after the safety car? They handle awefully at slow speeds due to low tryre pressures, poor break temperatures and little downforce. You telling me its easy to asses a ride height change to any race car following a safety car?

If you can change a car and drive it slowly round a track and accurately asses the improvement to handling (whatever you think that actually means) then i suggest you apply for the position of technical director of Scuderia Ferrari.







IMO of course

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Willy Williams on 29 December 2004Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004 you dont have to drive the car at its limit to notice an improvement in its handling yes at the limits then you will be more aware of a drastic change but it doesnt mean that we are suggesting you explore them on the road nor that they need to be explored to notice an improvement/change.
LMAO. How are you going to accurately assess the adhesion of the tyres, the balance of the car, the propensity for the car to break away, the traction over bumps, if you dont drive the car flat out? A car can feel more poised and planted on the road and give better steering feel and sharper turn in at low speeds you dont need to drive balls out to notice these things and if you cant then you shouldnt be driving fast in the 1st place because IMO you are a very poor driver.No race driver can accurately predict what a change will do to a car until he takes it out and drives it flat out or near flat out. They can guess but you only find out by driving it fast. Thats what test drivers are paid to do.No person full stop can predict anything a car will do they can merely make an educated guess there are so many variables involved with grip and handling at any point on a road or track before you factor in the driver and car/setup.For example a car may feel better better pootling round a track, but maybe the suspension is working better because the slow speeds are not getting enough heat into the tyres resulting in lower tyre pressures which suits the particulart up. Crank up the speed, the heat goes up in the tyres and BANG, pressures too high and the car handles like a pig again. we are talking about predomonantly fast road use and occasional track use most people here will know they will need to loose some tyre pressure if going out for an extended session however most track days are short stints and the average bloke on the street will not be driving the wheels of the car in the same way a proffessional race driver will be so wont be generating the temperatures anyway.Havnt you ever heard Martin Brundle talking about the problem F1 cars have trundling after the safety car? They handle awefully at slow speeds due to low tryre pressures, poor break temperatures and little downforce. You telling me its easy to asses a ride height change to any race car following a safety car?We arent talking about race suspension, a "cup" set up as per the single make championship cars that are run in the uk would be f**king terrible to drive on the road as they are designed with super stiff dampers completely different geometry and very high poundage springs. Look at the amount of camber race cars run compared to road cars they are designed to generate masses of grip in bends when the suspension loads up. Youll probably find most race cars would be appaling to drive in normal conditions. what we are talking about here is road cars that are having suspension modified for fast road and occasional track use. If you can change a car and drive it slowly round a track and accurately asses the improvement to handling (whatever you think that actually means) Im not going to type out what i feel an improvement in handling is as no doubt however i word it ou will misinterpret it or attempt to pick holes in it and im not about to give you the pleasure.then i suggest you apply for the position of technical director of Scuderia Ferrari.Dont recall applying for that position nor saying that i was qualified to. IMO of course

 

[docter fox]

Quote: Originally posted by Willy Williams on 29 December 2004


LMAO. How are you going to accurately assess the adhesion of the tyres, the balance of the car, the propensity for the car to break away, the traction over bumps, if you dont drive the car flat out?

No race driver can accurately predict what a change will do to a car until he takes it out and drives it flat out or near flat out. They can guess but you only find out by driving it fast. Thats what test drivers are paid to do.

For example a car may feel better better pootling round a track, but maybe the suspension is working better because the slow speeds are not getting enough heat into the tyres resulting in lower tyre pressures which suits the particulart up. Crank up the speed, the heat goes up in the tyres and BANG, pressures too high and the car handles like a pig again.





agreed!

loony,

it could be the bigger width of the tyres thats your problem

the original minis had a problem with this as when you ordered the bigger wheels (and lower?) then the handling was quite a bit worse than standard unless you paid a lot extra for the suspension package and got it sorted properly

 

[Turkish]

width is not the issue here i had a mk2 172 i now have a 182 the std 172 ran 195 45 16s the 182 std runs 205.45 16 the 172 got worse with the 17s (205 40 17) fitted but the 182 with the wider tyres but same size rims is far better. also a few of the cup owners here have binned off their 195 16s and replaced them with 205s and noticed an improvement, yoz being one of them and he does alot of track work with his car.

 

[Willy Williams]

1. If you are going to drive on the road why lower your car? A standard Williams, 172 or any fast car is more than capable of performing well within its limits if safe driving is adhered to. It really doesnt have to be improved by a forum educated expert.

2. If you are going to drive in competition and transform your car to a race car (in real life and not in fantasy forum land), wouldnt the money be better spent paying a professional to do a proper job on the handling?

3. If you simply want to lower your car to improve looks fair play to you. It will look sh*t, but each to their own.



IMO of course

 

[Turkish]

sorry im busy typing an email to Bilstein and H&R telling them i would like them to put you in charge as cheif engineer, product developer, technical advisor and senior test driver as they clearly know f**k all and really should stop selling these needless kits to retards like me

 

[Munson]

Surely those firms are about making money off your ass though?

 

[Willy Williams]

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004

width is not the issue here i had a mk2 172 i now have a 182 the std 172 ran 195 45 16s the 182 std runs 205.45 16 the 172 got worse with the 17s (205 40 17) fitted but the 182 with the wider tyres but same size rims is far better. also a few of the cup owners here have binned off their 195 16s and replaced them with 205s and noticed an improvement, yoz being one of them and he does alot of track work with his car.





The ultimate conclusion as to whether a car is improved by changing the ride height is in the time it takes to lap a track.

Car might feel great but if its slower, the ride height change was a waste of time (from a racing perspective).

Just a wild stab in the dark, but im guessing nobody in fantasy forum land has done this?

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Willy Williams on 29 December 2004


1. If you are going to drive on the road why lower your car? A standard Williams, 172 or any fast car is more than capable of performing well within its limits if safe driving is adhered to. It really doesnt have to be improved by a forum educated expert.

your opinion

2. If you are going to drive in competition and transform your car to a race car (in real life and not in fantasy forum land), wouldnt the money be better spent paying a professional to do a proper job on the handling?

My coilovers fitted to my 172 were correctly set up by a company with laser alignment eqipment who also set up competiton and track day cars thankyou. The same will be true of the 182 when the kit is released

3. If you simply want to lower your car to improve looks fair play to you. It will look sh*t, but each to their own.

Again this is opinion, i dont lower for looks however i do prefer the lower stance to the unappealing 4x4 std ride height



IMO of course

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004Surely those firms are about making money off your ass though?



so is the company who sold you the whole car in the 1st place, whats your point ?

 

[Munson]

Quote: Again this is opinion, i dont lower for looks however i do prefer the lower stance to the unappealing 4x4 std ride height


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pip_taylor/Forums/182Cup.jpg...

 

[Willy Williams]

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004

sorry im busy typing an email to Bilstein and H&R telling them i would like them to put you in charge as cheif engineer, product developer, technical advisor and senior test driver as they clearly know f**k all and really should stop selling these needless kits to retards like me



Im sorry but i never claimed to be an expert. That is why my car is 100% standard.

To improve handling i bought new tyres, new springs and new shock and changed the bushes. Amazingly it was an improvement on the worn components on the car. Funny that. Maybe Renault have improved the standard parts

 

[Turkish]

New OE parts will obviously be better than shagged out old ones as will better tyres, thats pretty obvious. Im failing to see your point.

 

[Martin]

Hey Willy, I had my coilovers fitted by Nick Hill.... so does this mean my car is being ruined by a forum educated idiot or vastly improved by an experienced race/road engineer?

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004
Quote: Again this is opinion, i dont lower for looks however i do prefer the lower stance to the unappealing 4x4 std ride height


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pip_taylor/Forums/182Cup.jpg...




http://www.leemather.plus.com/images/RSClio182/Clio182_04.jpg

look at the arch gaps, this angle is more telling that you could fit a small child between the arch and the tyres.

 

[Munson]

At this point I feel I should refer back a few pages, where I suggest that I was aiming my opinions mainly at the standard 182/Cup. That car does NOT look too high, and IMHO it does look sh*te when lowered.

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Martin. on 29 December 2004
Hey Willy, I had my coilovers fitted by Nick Hill.... so does this mean my car is being ruined by a forum educated idiot or vastly improved by an experienced race/road engineer?


theres no telling these clowns, ive worked in the motortrade for almost 7 years dealing with BMWs and porsches etc and driven a hell of alot of performance cars in that time but clearly i know f**k all and am a "forum expert"

 

[Willy Williams]

And loony,

Saying that your car was setup with laser alignment as used on race cars so it must be an improvement is a bit like saying your house built by Chris Tarrent so it must be worth a million pounds.

Setup is about understanding how the car reacts to different inputs and how to change those reactions. Its not about alighning your wheels with a fancy bit of celebrity equipment.

 

[Munson]

Errr are you saying that car looks too high? If so, then you might wanna stop driving on the road and get into track racing full time IMHO, but with proper track cars and not road cars fitted with gay springs

Ive seen bigger gaps on a 350Z or a HOnda s2000, both of which I would consider proper fast cars.

 

[Lee]

Oi, stop using pictures of my car you tart, you can use your own now. Bit unfair you chose that one too, that was the day I got it so its settled since then.

Im happy with mine as standard and thats how its staying. I cant be bothered to read the rest of this thread but do agree with Roys first post.

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Willy Williams on 29 December 2004
And loony, Saying that your car was setup with laser alignment as used on race cars so it must be an improvement is a bit like saying your house built by Chris Tarrent so it must be worth a million pounds.Setup is about understanding how the car reacts to different inputs and how to change those reactions. Its not about alighning your wheels with a fancy bit of celebrity equipment.

im saying the car was set up by experts who deal with cars used for motorsports using the correct equipment not by some grease monkey in a back street garage with a spanner and innaccurate guages or is that concept too complicated ?

 

[Yugguy]

Lowering a certain amount is one thing, but it does look sh1te when its so low you cant see the top half of the rear wheels - just looks like the suspension is broke.

 

[Willy Williams]

Quote: Originally posted by Martin. on 29 December 2004

Hey Willy, I had my coilovers fitted by Nick Hill.... so does this mean my car is being ruined by a forum educated idiot or vastly improved by an experienced race/road engineer?



Funnily enough i spoke to Nick about coilovers a while back. Did you get the JD coilovers? I think Nick uses them as they have camber adjustment as well as ride height adjustment.

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004



Errr are you saying that car looks too high? If so, then you might wanna stop driving on the road and get into track racing full time IMHO, but with proper track cars and not road cars fitted with gay springs

my car was fitted with coilovers not "gay" springs thankyou although how a spring can be classed as having a sexual preferance is beyond me.

Ive seen bigger gaps on a 350Z or a HOnda s2000, both of which I would consider proper fast cars.

have a look at a gt3 RS porsche or a proper fast car thats driver focused not just some fast-ish pap for the masses and you see how low and how little an arch gap there is.

 

[Munson]

OK well sorry, it seems your preference is for skinny arch gaps and nothing else - why have you got a Clio if you want supercar style ride height?. Ive made my opinions clear and I dont want to get involved in an argument. Read my original post dude

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004OK well sorry, it seems your preference is for skinny arch gaps and nothing else. Read my original post dude




erm how about you read my posts, my reason for buying the coilovers was the vastly improved hanling characteristics they gave, if you knew anything about me, my car or reasons for it you would aslo know i did not have them at their lowest setting, as for the arch gap i said i preferred the lower look but this was not my motivation to change the suspension. If i had the choice of lower but no improvement in handling, or same rideheight yet the charachteristics the coilovers gave then the latter is what i would opt for.
how about you talk to one of the numerous people on the forum WHO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN IN MY 172 WITH THE COILOVERS FITTED and see what they have to say about them ?

 

[Willy Williams]

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004



Errr are you saying that car looks too high? If so, then you might wanna stop driving on the road and get into track racing full time IMHO, but with proper track cars and not road cars fitted with gay springs

my car was fitted with coilovers not "gay" springs thankyou although how a spring can be classed as having a sexual preferance is beyond me.

Ive seen bigger gaps on a 350Z or a HOnda s2000, both of which I would consider proper fast cars.

have a look at a gt3 RS porsche or a proper fast car thats driver focused not just some fast-ish pap for the masses and you see how low and how little an arch gap there is.

Cars that have a rally pedigree tend to have large arch gaps. Are Delta Integrales not driver focused and pretty fast?

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Willy Williams on 29 December 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004Errr are you saying that car looks too high? If so, then you might wanna stop driving on the road and get into track racing full time IMHO, but with proper track cars and not road cars fitted with gay springs my car was fitted with coilovers not "gay" springs thankyou although how a spring can be classed as having a sexual preferance is beyond me.

Ive seen bigger gaps on a 350Z or a HOnda s2000, both of which I would consider proper fast cars. have a look at a gt3 RS porsche or a proper fast car thats driver focused not just some fast-ish pap for the masses and you see how low and how little an arch gap there is.

Cars that have a rally pedigree tend to have large arch gaps. Are Delta Integrales not driver focused and pretty fast? [/QUOTE]


watch the rallies back to back, and youll find tarmac settings = low ride height and bigger wheels low profile tyres, gravel snow and desert = narrower tyres smaller wheels, higher ride height and higher profile tyres. last time i checked i dont drive in alot of snow heavy gravel or sand dunes.

 

[Munson]

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004OK well sorry, it seems your preference is for skinny arch gaps and nothing else. Read my original post dude



erm how about you read my posts, my reason for buying the coilovers was the vastly improved hanling characteristics they gave, if you knew anything about me, my car or reasons for it you would aslo know i did not have them at their lowest setting, as for the arch gap i said i preferred the lower look but this was not my motivation to change the suspension. If i had the choice of lower but no improvement in handling, or same rideheight yet the charachteristics the coilovers gave then the latter is what i would opt for.
how about you talk to one of the numerous people on the forum WHO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN IN MY 172 WITH THE COILOVERS FITTED and see what they have to say about them ?





Hmm well I would, but Im not really that bothered to be honest. Sorry if I caused offence - I just dont see the point in lowering a standard road car, not passing judgement on those that do, as I already clearly stated. Take a pill dude

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004OK well sorry, it seems your preference is for skinny arch gaps and nothing else. Read my original post dude


erm how about you read my posts, my reason for buying the coilovers was the vastly improved hanling characteristics they gave, if you knew anything about me, my car or reasons for it you would aslo know i did not have them at their lowest setting, as for the arch gap i said i preferred the lower look but this was not my motivation to change the suspension. If i had the choice of lower but no improvement in handling, or same rideheight yet the charachteristics the coilovers gave then the latter is what i would opt for.
how about you talk to one of the numerous people on the forum WHO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN IN MY 172 WITH THE COILOVERS FITTED and see what they have to say about them ?





Hmm well I would, but Im not really that bothered to be honest. Sorry if I caused offence - I just dont see the point in lowering a standard road car, not passing judgement on those that do, as I already clearly stated. Take a pill dude


Go out in a 172 that has had good quality coilovers fitted and correctly set up drive it back to back against one running OE set up and youll see why, thats all im saying. My mates ex used to bang on about me and him "pissing cash away on quick cars" saying why dont we buy a 1.2 and save money on petrol and insurance. Anyway one day she had to drive his car and was instantly hooked she loved it and could finally understand why. Thats all im saying, 1st experience then you have a more educated viewpoint.

 

[MarkCup]

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004


how about you talk to one of the numerous people on the forum WHO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN IN MY 172 WITH THE COILOVERS FITTED and see what they have to say about them ?

I thought to appreciate and judge handling...you kind of needed to be sat behind the wheel? Or have you let numerous forum members have a long enough drive in your car to judge it for themselves?

Willy Williams - I can see totally where youre coming from, as I said earlier...its all subjective. A car that handles very well for one person, might drive like sh*te to someone else...it depends on their driving style.

Has anyone ever heard in F1 of difficulties a driver faces taking the spare car out...because it had been set-up for the other team driver? It handles well for one of them...not the other.

The only true way to make an improvement to any cars handling is to make changes, then try it, then make more changes, then try it, then make even more tweaks, and try it, until you end up with what feels best. Which is what Willy Williams was saying about race teams and set-up processes.

Do off the shelf springs/dampers give you that ability?

 

[Willy Williams]

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004OK well sorry, it seems your preference is for skinny arch gaps and nothing else. Read my original post dude

erm how about you read my posts, my reason for buying the coilovers was the vastly improved hanling characteristics they gave, if you knew anything about me, my car or reasons for it you would aslo know i did not have them at their lowest setting, as for the arch gap i said i preferred the lower look but this was not my motivation to change the suspension. If i had the choice of lower but no improvement in handling, or same rideheight yet the charachteristics the coilovers gave then the latter is what i would opt for.
how about you talk to one of the numerous people on the forum WHO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN IN MY 172 WITH THE COILOVERS FITTED and see what they have to say about them ?

Hmm well I would, but Im not really that bothered to be honest. Sorry if I caused offence - I just dont see the point in lowering a standard road car, not passing judgement on those that do, as I already clearly stated. Take a pill dude

Go out in a 172 that has had good quality coilovers fitted and correctly set up drive it back to back against one running OE set up and youll see why, thats all im saying. My mates ex used to bang on about me and him "pissing cash away on quick cars" saying why dont we buy a 1.2 and save money on petrol and insurance. Anyway one day she had to drive his car and was instantly hooked she loved it and could finally understand why. Thats all im saying, 1st experience then you have a more educated viewpoint.



Well if your mates ex says coilovers are an inprovement in handling im convinced.

 

[docter fox]

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004

im saying the car was set up by experts who deal with cars used for motorsports using the correct equipment not by some grease monkey in a back street garage with a spanner and innaccurate guages or is that concept too complicated ?

no offence intended but just because they deal with motorsport doesnt mean they do yours as they would one of their cars, and this laser allignment could just mean your wheels all point the same way

it may handle better (id guess because of coilovers not the height) but IMHO the only way you can be sure they are set up right is to either have a team tweaking the settings or to actually know what your doing and set it up yourself

but i have neither ,

but then im happy with the way my car handles, and i strongly doubt that anyones car on here is set up right, but then again aslong as the owner is happy with the way their car handles then isnt that the point of modifying your own car.......

it just annoys me when people say their cars quicker because its lower as to them it feels "sportier" which doesnt mean its quicker!

and as for the point about looking at rally cars, well you must be joking! you cant just look and say "ooh they have bigger wheels and sit lower on tarmac", they spend lots of £££ using "professional experts" to set up the "suspension" for each race, not just to choose bigger wheels and lower height, you cant just assume itll transfer over to your car, did you change your gearing for bigger wheels?

"If you simply want to lower your car to improve looks fair play to you. It will look sh*t, but each to their own"

lol, everyone will modify their car to what they want from it and how they want it to look and i understand that, just dont say its a lot better because its lower without any proof, ie objective times, not subjective "well it feels better"

 

[Turkish]

Quote: Originally posted by Willy Williams on 29 December 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Loony on 29 December 2004

Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 29 December 2004OK well sorry, it seems your preference is for skinny arch gaps and nothing else. Read my original post dude

erm how about you read my posts, my reason for buying the coilovers was the vastly improved hanling characteristics they gave, if you knew anything about me, my car or reasons for it you would aslo know i did not have them at their lowest setting, as for the arch gap i said i preferred the lower look but this was not my motivation to change the suspension. If i had the choice of lower but no improvement in handling, or same rideheight yet the charachteristics the coilovers gave then the latter is what i would opt for.
how about you talk to one of the numerous people on the forum WHO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN IN MY 172 WITH THE COILOVERS FITTED and see what they have to say about them ?

Hmm well I would, but Im not really that bothered to be honest. Sorry if I caused offence - I just dont see the point in lowering a standard road car, not passing judgement on those that do, as I already clearly stated. Take a pill dude
[/QUOTE]

Go out in a 172 that has had good quality coilovers fitted and correctly set up drive it back to back against one running OE set up and youll see why, thats all im saying. My mates ex used to bang on about me and him "pissing cash away on quick cars" saying why dont we buy a 1.2 and save money on petrol and insurance. Anyway one day she had to drive his car and was instantly hooked she loved it and could finally understand why. Thats all im saying, 1st experience then you have a more educated viewpoint.Well if your mates ex says coilovers are an inprovement in handling im convinced.[/QUOTE]


my mates ex had not been in the 172 it was prior to this all im saying is that until she had been in and driven a hothatch she didnt see the point just like you dont see the point when you have not driven my car before and after the coilovers were fitted

 

[Tom]

What a f**king pointless thread.

If your not into driving then get the bus.

How anyone can say something cant be improved upon is beyond me.

I have a huge list of stuff that ive binned from my 182

Here is some...


STD Exhaust: its not built to last and it weighs a tonne
STD Stereo: No mp3 support and it sounds sh*t.
STD Air filter: poor throttle response
STD Suspension: its superb for std kit, but the thing still has body roll dives under braking, the ride is harsh and its too high.
And no doubt i will continue to improve the 182 until it becomes the car i want it to be.

The suggestion that coilovers and the like are developed fo chavs is short sighted, anyone whos owned them wont go back to std suspension for long.

Coilovers not only have more development hours put into them to make them better but they also are better quality than OE parts.

Some people on here need to have a think before they babble sh*te.