Lowering the front of my OMNI

[Reeves]

I want to lower the front of the OMNI some this winter to help with air drag underneath. The 25" slicks have raised the car along with the skinnies and stiff suspension in the rear....I don't like the new ride height.

What are my options?

I was thinking of cutting the front springs, but I don't know how much can be cut off without 'unloading' the strut (spring floating when strut extended).

What is up with the coil over stuff? Anybody got a killer system for not too much $$$ ??

If I do go coilover, what's a good springrate for mostly 1/4mile WOT at a time? :)

I'm currently working on limiting the upward movement of the front end...I have to get the ride height where I want it first...

Thanks!
James Reeves - Reeves Racing
OVC - SDAC "Our Sh*t Rolls!"
86 GLH-T - 10.971 @ 128.31
87 Shelby Z - 14.16 @ 96 Dad's
88 Shelby Z - 13.5 @ 102.4
89 Dodge Caravan SE
91 Sportster Hugger 74" S&S
99 Neon SOHC - 15.1 @ 90Andrea's
01 Neon R/T
03 SRT-4 - 12.98 @ 104.5 Mom's
05 Dodge Ram Turbo Diesel
ovc.shelbydodge.org/ovc_james.html

[Russ Jerome]

I cut 1.5 coils from the Omni before going coilover, no complaints
here it worked fine.

I beleive I used a small cutoff wheel to slot the strut base so
I could use a hose clamp to keep spring seated on perch's. Just
a slot big enough to slide hose clamp thru so it does not make
a racket or come offcenter on launch.

[Russ Jerome]

I'm currently working on limiting the upward movement of the front end...I have to get the ride height where I want it first...

l

Skip my comment on clamp James :)

My 60's with stock springs were never bettered by coilovers,
if anything the adjustable Koni's/coilovers were worse. Cut a
lot of 1.9's on stock cut springs/street rubber, few if any with
the coilovers (tires were older but felt ok).

[Keito]

James,

In the for sale section, Super60dodge has a front pair
already cut for $25 shipped.
Might be a good set to try first.

Keith

[Reeves]

Thanks for the heads up on the for sale springs....I inquired about them.

Russ,
I currently have a hose clamp on each side holding the bottoms of my springs onto the perches as they used to shift around a lot. I just drilled a hole through the perch close to the spring and ran a little hose clamp through the hole and around the spring.

So 1.5 coils should lower it about maybe 1.5" or more? This is the cheapest way, and also works better for my plans of upward movement limiting.
Did you like it alright?

[Russ Jerome]

Russ,
So 1.5 coils should lower it about maybe 1.5" or more? This is the cheapest way, and also works better for my plans of upward movement limiting.
Did you like it alright?

Yup worked fine at track and daily driven. That was a full summer
of WI streets and 12.7/107's with no issues drove fine.

[Russ Jerome]

http://hometown.aol.com/russjerome/images/kframestruts.jpg

Thats them done, count your coils it was at least 1.5 from
memory...you know my memory maybe 2 full coils..

http://hometown.aol.com/russjerome/images/bottomshock.jpg

You still need to try the above tactic, $27 air shock in Omni.

[GLHNSLHT2]

James do you have a GLH airdam on the car? It's been a while since I've seen a pic of your car. If so you might want to go to the J-yard and grab an airdam off a mid 80's to early 90's Chevy S10 truck/SUV. Then bolt it to the bottom of your GLH grill. I did so on my GLH and it makes a huge difference in cooling and in limiting airflow under the car. It creates such a vacuum effect that my GLH looks almost like a LeMans Prototype car going down the Mulsanne Straight in the rain with a huge rooster tail coming off the back. A buddy drove his GLHS in the snow and rain around here and doesn't have to use his rear wiper hardly at all. My GLH driven in the same weather and you can't even see out the back window at even just a hint of moisture on the road.

[Reeves]

I may try two coils. I want to go much lower. I have a set of spare GLH springs here already. We are working on the needed fender mods now.

Airshock may be coming.....

[Reeves]

James do you have a GLH airdam on the car? It's been a while since I've seen a pic of your car. If so you might want to go to the J-yard and grab an airdam off a mid 80's to early 90's Chevy S10 truck/SUV. Then bolt it to the bottom of your GLH grill. I did so on my GLH and it makes a huge difference in cooling and in limiting airflow under the car. It creates such a vacuum effect that my GLH looks almost like a LeMans Prototype car going down the Mulsanne Straight in the rain with a huge rooster tail coming off the back. A buddy drove his GLHS in the snow and rain around here and doesn't have to use his rear wiper hardly at all. My GLH driven in the same weather and you can't even see out the back window at even just a hint of moisture on the road.

Is this bolted to the original GLH airdam underneath, or do you remove the GLH airdam and add this one? I still have all the original stuff on. It's all stock..you know?
:lol:

[GLHNSLHT2]

it's bolted to the bottom of the GLH grill. I just drilled some holes just big enough to thread bolts into the plastic. Holds well. I'll try and get a pic of it up on the net sometime tonight. I've got one bolted onto my ShelbyZ like the TurboZ's had. I've got one on my mom's acclaim and some buddies have them on their vans and tona's too.

[Reeves]

Makes me anxious to see a picture!

[Clay]

You have another option which I want to try on my GLH. Check out what the boys over at Boostedmopar.com are doing with neon front struts. You can lower the front around 2" by bolting in 1st gen neon front struts and springs.

Or you can buy the cheap coil over kits for the 1st gen neon and go that route with the neon struts.

RUSS - what did you do to lower the back end of of your GLH? Or did you have it stock in the back with cut coils in the front?

clay

[turboshadow]

Spring clamps could be a cheap and easy fix. And if you dont like it you can just unbolt them no damage done.

[Russ Jerome]

RUSS - what did you do to lower the back end of of your GLH? Or did you have it stock in the back with cut coils in the front?

clay

Think I clamped the rear springs on black car before coil overs.
On the blue car I cut lower retainer free and made a collar to
secure lower on shock. Will look for pics.

[Keito]

You could look into the Tercel coilovers.
There was a how to on the other forum.
Also, I added spacers underneath the rear springs to
stiffen it up.

[R/T]

Answer: Shelby Charger springs.

I hear they are 1" shorter to start with.

And as said above, spring clamps from Autozone are about $8 a set.

All our cars here in the family have front clamps... For that smoove, Phat, and tite look, Boyeeee!!! :thumb:

[Johnny]

Instead of hose clamps, how's this for an idea....
http://www.polybushings.com/images/springclamp.jpg

[Mario]

http://boostedmopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2845

[8valves]

Reeves, have you ever corner scaled the Omni? Contrary to popular belief, Lowering the front of the car will put more initial weight on the rear. Also contrary to popular belief, suspension movement does NOT cause weight transfer, it simply directs where/and in what direction the weight is transferred.

I know what you're trying to do to stop the front from rising, but just the right combo and setup of parts in the rear of the car will do this. But of course, this is the more expensive route to take. I'll be interested to see what effect this has on your short times.

I had a brief discussion about this with Ken at Turbopalooza for a minute. It's a tough concept to explain over the internet unfortunately.

Aaron Miller

[Clay]

Reeves, have you ever corner scaled the Omni? Contrary to popular belief, Lowering the front of the car will put more initial weight on the rear.

I know it may be hard to explain, but I would appreciate it if you could. Just drawing the mental picture of the car in my head, the CG staying the same, the CG vector shifts more towards the front (relative to where it was before) when the front end goes down, telling me what ever weight moves with 1" of lowering, should go to the front.


Also contrary to popular belief, suspension movement does NOT cause weight transfer, it simply directs where/and in what direction the weight is transferred.

right. suspension movement is a *result* of weight transfer. Weight is always going to transfer to the rear in a drag car. Its just the laws of physics that dictate that. But limiting the amount that transfers can be done.

[R/T]

As James said, limiting the front end *rising* keeps the front tires loaded and sticking to the ground.

Even with the rear solid, the front will still come up, the CG just changes.

James and I talked to some enemy agents ( Honduh racers ) at the Indy Import bash thing, we smacked them around, and they gave up some good ideas on keeping the front down, instead of stiffening up the rear.

Research is ongoing on the matter here at Repo Man Labs.... :eyebrows:

[GLHNSLHT2]

Sorry it took me so long James, But here's pics for ya.
http://pnw-sdac.org/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album54&page=1
As you can see in the 1st two pics it really likes to pick up stuff off the ground :) There's some more pics of it on other vehicles too. These are all of models without tow hooks. The Fog light models are a bit different too and I've got a couple pics of those I'll throw up later. I think the fog light models might work a bit better with the GLH airdam but you'd have to block the holes or I have the idea of using them for brake cooling ducts. Tow hook models are most popular and the same as non-tow hook models it's just they have notches cut out for the tow hooks. The non TH models are kinda rare where it snows :) I also hear these are cheap at the chevy dealer. I haven't ever checked. Oh, and it looks much better when the car is washed and there's a coat of amorall on it :)

[SpoolinGLH]

awseme thread guys!

[8valves]

I know it may be hard to explain, but I would appreciate it if you could. Just drawing the mental picture of the car in my head, the CG staying the same, the CG vector shifts more towards the front (relative to where it was before) when the front end goes down, telling me what ever weight moves with 1" of lowering, should go to the front.



right. suspension movement is a *result* of weight transfer. Weight is always going to transfer to the rear in a drag car. Its just the laws of physics that dictate that. But limiting the amount that transfers can be done.

This is going to be long, but worth it :D

This is the absolute simplest way I can describe it.

Think of you and I carrying a heavy door laying flat. We have it level at waist height, but you decide to lift it and hold it at head height. Which did it seem heavier at? When you're holding it at head height, exactly. It's still just as easy for me to carry, but it seems way heavier to you now.

Now, of course there is the scientific explanation, which summed up is that when supporting an object of weight the highest point supporting is forced to carry the most weight. By rasing the back end of the car, if you were to watch teh weights on a corner scale you'd watch the rear weight bias increase.

Another example, think of old school drag cars... stagger stance w/ teh front down and back up. Why? Because not only did it "look cool" but it put more initial weight over the rear tires. Now WHY would you do this on a FWD?

One more example... if you want to learn about FWD drag racign suspension setups, you neec to be talking to the All Motor boys. Everyones engines are pretty close in power production, the key is who can put it down the hardest out of the hole. Look at Scott Mohler's Neon and notice how the rear tires are tucked, and the front end is up over the slicks. Why doesn't he have teh rear end 10 ft in the air and the front end slammed??

About limiting the front end rise, start looking into shock valving more than anything. Moroso makes front shocks for RWD apps that are the cheaters, wuick riseers. They allow the front end to come up WAY fast w/ weak rebound valving so the weight can pitch back and more straight down onto the tires, not horizontal. Take that effect into opposite. REALLY aggressive rebound valving and soft compression so the car won't rise easily and will sit back down over top of the slicks easily as well.

Limit straps will work at stopping the front end from rising so high, but you're not gaining anything at teh same time. All of that energy is wasted, not to mention where you connect them at the lower point. I would assume you've realized not to connect to the LCA's... that would cause quite the wild ride when the torque started rolling! :p

A Leverage system, such as the Honda camps front traction bar setup is what is needed. A heim linkage on each LCA to a radius arm (at a slight pitch UP to the lower rad support) to a solid bar along the front radiator support. This will take the energy in the caster change as you hit the slicks and pull on those radius arms, effectively pulling the front radiator support and the rest of the fricken car right over top of the tires. BAM! That's the sound of busting axles from crazy traction boys!! I'm working on it, we'll see if I get it finished by spring or not.

Aaron Miller

[GLHNSLHT2]

so do we want the front end to rise up when we launch? or do we want to limit it's upward rise and just have the front end higher than the back?

[8valves]

so do we want the front end to rise up when we launch? or do we want to limit it's upward rise and just have the front end higher than the back?

You don't really want the front end to come up, but it's tought o entirely limit in a still streetable vehicle. You have to think of practicality somewhat.

The front end sitting slightly higher than the back will help in INITIAL, or static, weight balance. Dynamic of course is entierly dependent upon suspension parts/settings, far too complicated to get into online in my opinion.

Basically a very stiff rear that is initially a bit lower than the front will help.

Here's a cheap and easy one. Drill a hole through the back floor above the rear axle, one on each side of the car. Weld in a nut to the hole. Take an appropriate, read, very beefy and same thread pattern as the nut, then make it long enough to reach just above the axle. Use a lock nut to lock it's position. When you go to the track crank those babies down to just above the rear axle so when it tries to squat the rods keep it from swautting too far... leave and crank them up into the car, or pull them entirely out if you want to.

That's kinda ghetto, but it would be a cheap and easy alternative to suspension movement. Theory says it might actually help otu traction, you won't know till you try though! This would really only be beneficial to a very old/soft suspended car of course. It's much more of a bandaid for those that can't afford stiff valved shocks/springs.

Aaron Miller

[GLHNSLHT2]

ok so when I go to the track I should put the front Koni's on full stiff limiting their upward travel. Cause rolling on the street at 20psi if I nail it with the Konis on full soft the front will rise 3" or so and rip off down the road with it's nose in the air for a while. With them on full stiff it accelerates totally flat. The rears are always on full stiff.

[GLHSKEN]

You want the rears on full soft so it comes back up quickly

[omnivore]

Answer: Shelby Charger springs.

I hear they are 1" shorter to start with.

SC springs are the same length. The rear shocks for SC's have the spring perch situated 1" lower on the shock's body, thus acheiving a 1" lower rear ride height.

[t3rse]

what would the gas shock on the rear member do to handling? I thought about cutting out the wheel well and riviting in some aluminum

[8valves]

ok so when I go to the track I should put the front Koni's on full stiff limiting their upward travel. Cause rolling on the street at 20psi if I nail it with the Konis on full soft the front will rise 3" or so and rip off down the road with it's nose in the air for a while. With them on full stiff it accelerates totally flat. The rears are always on full stiff.

Here's where the shock manufacturer comes in. Most aftermarket adjustable shocks are adjustable on rebound only. Supposedly the stock Koni's are the same way, as well as the FWD kit I use. Now, I have never heard someone come straight out and say YES, they are only adjustable on rebound, or only compression, or this or that. So this is based off of the assumption that they are adjustable on rebound like most others.

If this is the case for you, then THEORETICALLY you would want the fronts on full stiff (think about it, the rebound action is up, so it doesn't allow it to pull the front as easily as you were proving).

The rear end is debatable to me. Some say go soft because the rear end won't try to bounce back up as hard and upset the chassis. Others would argue full stiff so that it perks right back up in the air after it compresses slightly.

I'd have to venture to say that trial and error is your best bet. I'm more of a fan of the full soft venture. W/ my Konis and spring rates the --- end BARELY sits down under WOT so it's less of a concern to me, but then again I've never felt my car hook anything less than 4th gear since we tuned it, and since I run low pro street tires inadequate for the job. A car that hooks in my opinion would want soft so that once the rear sits it doesn't do the upset the chassis dance, and it will keep the back end a bit lower for a bit longer... theoretically helping the weight situation.

Hope this helped. I wish Reeves would get back in here to see if he has played with any of this yet.

Aaron Miller

[Reeves]

Still here....

I've been working on cutting up some Omni fenders to gain more tire clearance. My 25x8.7x13 M&H's have been rubbing in the corners (tearing up my front and side airdams) and if I lower the car any, it would be worse.

I'm lowering the car not really for traction, but to get it to a more stock appearing ride height with the tall slicks and skinnies, and to hopefully reduce some air drag from underneath. I wasn't really lowering it for traction.

I am considering an adjustable limit strap in the strut itself, to keep it from being able to fully extend under WOT on the track. I think this would be safer, easier, and more reversable than what the Honda boys were doing, but also give the same effect.

R/T, what do you think?

Also, I have been checking into the Neon struts on the other board. Looks like 2nd gen neon struts would work, with just drilling out my current bearing hubs for the bigger bolts. But I haven't really seen what this does to the alignment? Is caster still OK?

[Reeves]

I may have found a set of SRT struts and springs. These should work, right?

[Mario]

Have you checked this thread out yet? http://boostedmopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2845

[Reeves]

Yes, but I'm not 100% sure I can use the 2nd gen struts with my stock L-body hubs. It looks like I can drill out the holes to use the bigger bolts, and also use spacers to take up the extra width. I can't change my brake setup because nothing else would fit my 13" Bogarts I don't think.

[8valves]

Still here....

I've been working on cutting up some Omni fenders to gain more tire clearance. My 25x8.7x13 M&H's have been rubbing in the corners (tearing up my front and side airdams) and if I lower the car any, it would be worse.

I'm lowering the car not really for traction, but to get it to a more stock appearing ride height with the tall slicks and skinnies, and to hopefully reduce some air drag from underneath. I wasn't really lowering it for traction.

I am considering an adjustable limit strap in the strut itself, to keep it from being able to fully extend under WOT on the track. I think this would be safer, easier, and more reversable than what the Honda boys were doing, but also give the same effect.

R/T, what do you think?

Also, I have been checking into the Neon struts on the other board. Looks like 2nd gen neon struts would work, with just drilling out my current bearing hubs for the bigger bolts. But I haven't really seen what this does to the alignment? Is caster still OK?

The Honda boys are utilizing caster change under the shock of the launch to PULL the front end down, putting more weight over the tires then there ever was before really. Limiting the front end won't transfer that weight back down to the contact patch.

This is the same principal Warren uses on his Laser, it puts more weight onto the tires under load.

Suspension theory has changed a whole bunch for FWD cars over teh last couple of years. I still suggest you start peeking at pictures of all motor Honda/any all motor FWD category cars for ultimate traction/suspension setups. They are at the limits of power production so they can only get the upper hand one way, through the 1/8 mile.

Aaron Miller

Aaron Miller

[R/T]

[QUOTE=Reeves]I am considering an adjustable limit strap in the strut itself, to keep it from being able to fully extend under WOT on the track. I think this would be safer, easier, and more reversable than what the Honda boys were doing, but also give the same effect.

R/T, what do you think?
[QUOTE]

I've been looking to run a strap from the inside of the fenderwell, near the front of the strut tower - to the strut just under the spring perch. There's a tab there on the front that would be easy to hook through. Since everything *under* the spring travels, no need to reach all the way down to the control arms.
This would keep the straps as short as necessary, and out of the way.

Since the wheels come off at the track to put the slicks on, it's really no more trouble to bolt the straps on then. Might need a second jack to push the suspension *UP* to strap it down... :D

Having the front strapped down would give a better angle on the axles, too.

[8valves]

Reeve's, what struts and shocks are you using, and springs as well? If the car is pulling the front end up as hard as you say, you might actually hurt yourself with straps. Think about it, if the front end lifts up that far that fast it's going to be able to lift the LCA somewhat as well. I know that at less power than you any weight pulled up off the front during WOT and the tires are gone immediately.

Now if you're under WOT on the launch and those straps get to full extension and pull up on the LCA you're going to be pulling weight off of the tires, making it even easier to spin. It's just my logic in my head that says this would happen, I have no real world experience with this.

I've never seen anyone do anything like this though, is this something that you guys came up with? If you limit the rear travel front will be limited somewhat at the same time... then if you have a very stiff rebound shock valving like Koni's on full stiff the front end should have a fairly difficult time pulling up too much.

Aaron Miller

[R/T]

I've never seen anyone do anything like this though, is this something that you guys came up with? If you limit the rear travel front will be limited somewhat at the same time...
Aaron Miller

A stiff rear will help, yes, but the front still comes up.

The H*nda racers we talked to said strapping the front of their cars down was good for 2/10's of a second.



In 60 ft!!!!! :bolt:

[8valves]

A stiff rear will help, yes, but the front still comes up.

The H*nda racers we talked to said strapping the front of their cars down was good for 2/10's of a second.



In 60 ft!!!!! :bolt:

You'd have to take into account what type of suspension their running to realize those kind of restults.

Hopefully it works out for you, but here is something to take into consideration when taking information from the Honda world. That community thrives on fads and trends. When one big time respected person uses one type of setup immefiately everyone makes the switch over to that now... then someone tops that and the previous "god" setup is now junk compared to the new one in everyones eyes. The SC61 was the turbo to have 6 months ago... now everyone wants a T67/HO or a GT42R for no apparent reason. Soon that fad will die off and something new will come up.

The same can be said for the suspension side of things. Tony1 is a big race chassis builder on their boards and was an advocate of them in one particular setup... immediately everyone who were the "immitation" characters, IE the ones who spout of info they've only read just to sound knowledgable to others on the board, were out saying they're the best thing since sliced bread. You just have to take it all with a grain of salt.

Hopefully it works out for Reeves though. I'd still like to know what shocks/struts he's using. When I was referring to keeping the rear stiff you're right, that will only help somewhat. Keeping the front stiff as far as rebound (extension under acceleration) will make it MUCH harder for the front to lift if you get it right.

Aaron Miller

[Phreakish]

ummm... I'm not sure where you got that the 'higher you support something, the more effort it takes'. Because that just aint true.

Holding a car door over your head is harder, because of the muscles you're using compared to holding it at your waist.

Jacking up the REAR of the ISNT going to shift weight rearward, if all you do is raise the rear. IF you do it with different spring constants, then there is the possibility. But it DOES NOT take more 'force' to hold something at the highest point.

Now, if you jack up ONE corner of a car, on the rear, IT WILL have a greater force on it, but so long as both are jacked up, the sum of the weights on the tires MUST stay equal to the weight of the car. I can take weight off the LEFT REAR and put it on the RIGHT REAR by rasing the right rear of the car. But if they are both raised the same amount, that aint gonna happen, and you're gonna push the weight forward again.

Trust me, setting this up in a free body diagram and taking a look at it, its NOT possible to shift weight AFT, by raising the rear end. I also dont see much (if ANY) shift in weight by lowering the nose, or jacking the rear. what it WILL do (if you LOWER the front) is give you more 'usable' suspension travel before the normal force on the front tires disappears with the rising of the nose.

and if I remember right, dragsters (RWD) first shoved the front end up VERY HIGH to get more weight on the rear, they DID NOT lower the front to get weight on the rear - it was an aerodynamic deal at that time. Also, a longer chassis gave a greater push down on the rear wheels (increase normal force) because the long chassis worked as a lever - as the rear tires torqued, it woudl try to lift the front end up, but if you have a small weight, on a LONG rod, its harder to rotate it (mass moment of inertia) and that resistance kept the rear wheels planted - this is what causes our rear ends to sink when we launch. A very stiff rear will plant those front tires by FORCING the tires down when the car tries to plant its ---... Or at least, that resistance will DECREASE the amount of normal force taken away during inital launch. A softer rear will help KEEP traction by absorbing the 'hit' when boost comes on, or nitrous - so that has some merit - its kinda like a shock absorber to keep the exteme initial torque from breaking the tires loose (put less to the ground, more into the chassis, then let more goto the ground when there is less (delta)T (torque) available).

Does any of this make sense? It does to me - but what do I know :D I'm still 8 mo's away from having my engineering degree.

[R/T]

You'd have to take into account what type of suspension their running to realize those kind of restults.

Hopefully it works out for Reeves though. I'd still like to know what shocks/struts he's using. When I was referring to keeping the rear stiff you're right, that will only help somewhat. Keeping the front stiff as far as rebound (extension under acceleration) will make it MUCH harder for the front to lift if you get it right.


As far as I know he has standard GLH struts / springs.

We've tried different rears - soft or hard with spacers in the rear.

These Honda guys were not your typical ricers by far - Kenworth race hauler with 2 decks in the back.
Their "crew chief" was the guy that engineered the cars - he has a 7 second Fox Bod Mustang.
I believe they were a trustworthy source.... :amen:

We'll find out in 3 weeks when the track opens!! :thumb:

[8valves]

As far as I know he has standard GLH struts / springs.

We've tried different rears - soft or hard with spacers in the rear.

These Honda guys were not your typical ricers by far - Kenworth race hauler with 2 decks in the back.
Their "crew chief" was the guy that engineered the cars - he has a 7 second Fox Bod Mustang.
I believe they were a trustworthy source.... :amen:

We'll find out in 3 weeks when the track opens!! :thumb:

Yeah, he needs some serious attention to be paid to the shocks. I know it costs some cash but it would be worth it in the end. Try to get in touch with circle track boys, they play with shock valving more than most people, and they're usually pretty cheap about it using DIY kits from AFCO and associated/similar companies. Let me and everyone else know how it goes with the setup.

Aaron Miller

[Reeves]

My front suspension currently consists of KYB GR-2 GLH replacement struts and stock high mileage GLH springs. The k-frame has been removed (several times) and has every seem fully welded, gussets added where we thought it would help, and also poly bushings used throughout.

My rear suspension has changed several times the more powerful I got. It used to be GR2 shocks with the lower spring perch installed upside down (for more height) with stock GLH springs and 4 spring spacers (the rubber one's) per side. I then added the higher rate Direct Connection springs. I then added the spring spacers to the Direct Connection springs. I then tried cheap Monroe's with stock GLH springs and no spacers (for some opposite theory, let the --- bounce and not hinge). This lead to the --- sagging so bad, that the skinnies went so far up into the quarter panel that it actually chewed them up. That is a LOOONG way to travel! I tried many combinations of the above parts, but I now have Koni's on full soft with Direct Connection springs and spring spacers.

I'm currently looking for some SRT-4 struts complete to add to the front of the car, lowering it about 1.5" I hope (any ideas?) and adding the straps still. If the straps don't work, oh well, back to the drawing board. I will still enjoy the lowered front for a little better aerodynamics.

Let's keep this going. What other things should I try? Ideas/comments are more than welcome.

[turboshadow]

Me and the dad have been working on straps for my shadow and its been trial and error. Its hard to find a place to attach them on the lower control arm to allow for enough levrage and the straps also flex to much too. Currently were going to try to chain down the front end and keep it pre loaded so there should be little to no movement at all when it launches as long as nothing breaks. We took out one of the bolts that holds on the swaybar and put in a i bolt then instaled another i bolt on the strut tower kinda near the map sensor location. So hopefully we will find out soon how it works out.

[8valves]

My front suspension currently consists of KYB GR-2 GLH replacement struts and stock high mileage GLH springs. The k-frame has been removed (several times) and has every seem fully welded, gussets added where we thought it would help, and also poly bushings used throughout.

My rear suspension has changed several times the more powerful I got. It used to be GR2 shocks with the lower spring perch installed upside down (for more height) with stock GLH springs and 4 spring spacers (the rubber one's) per side. I then added the higher rate Direct Connection springs. I then added the spring spacers to the Direct Connection springs. I then tried cheap Monroe's with stock GLH springs and no spacers (for some opposite theory, let the --- bounce and not hinge). This lead to the --- sagging so bad, that the skinnies went so far up into the quarter panel that it actually chewed them up. That is a LOOONG way to travel! I tried many combinations of the above parts, but I now have Koni's on full soft with Direct Connection springs and spring spacers.

I'm currently looking for some SRT-4 struts complete to add to the front of the car, lowering it about 1.5" I hope (any ideas?) and adding the straps still. If the straps don't work, oh well, back to the drawing board. I will still enjoy the lowered front for a little better aerodynamics.

Let's keep this going. What other things should I try? Ideas/comments are more than welcome.

I think you really need to find someone with some corner weights to see how the car sits in reference to ride height positions. Anyone that is into circle track racing, which is probably a lot in your neck of the woods, no offense :) should have some that you could hop onto real quick.

The idea is to not have the car drop too much in the rear, but once it does let it sit there, not pop back up violently. Also, the front should try to remain down, not letting the shocks rebound too far to let the front end rise, which it sounds like you're trying to do already.

Something else to look into is "speed holes" in the rear bumper, or at least a diffuser of some sort to keep air from getting trapped in our L bodies natural parachutes known as rear bumper/body panels. You'd be amazed at the difference this can show.

Just trying to bounce some ideas off of you. If you're at the spring fling, which I'd assume, I'm going to try to make it there and we can look/talk some things over. Later.

Aaron Miller