Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 425

Thread: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

  1. #201
    Hybrid booster Turbo Mopar Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tempe Arizona
    Posts
    416

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by csxtra View Post
    Here's a pic of the car as I have the suspension height set currently:
    Attachment 37216

    The rears could go down another 1 1/2" and the fronts can go down at least 2" more, but fender clearance is the limiting factor (no hellaflush for me).

    I am VERY happy with the car's new stance...and it rides much better than I had expected. Now to get it aligned and start tweaking the dampers to get the handling perfect.

    I'll be putting together a "how-to" for installing this setup soon.

    Mmmmm looking proper!

  2. #202
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor iTurbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Gillette, Wyoming
    Posts
    5,355

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Looking good Warren. I think the ride height looks perfect where you have it. I have a set from Rich (pics in post #192) that I was also going to put on my '87 CSX, but since that car is so far from running/driving, I'm going to install them on my Shelby Lancer instead this Saturday. I'll post more pics then, although I may have to send my set of adjusters back to Rich to be tweaked.
    87 Shelby Lancer #127
    91 Dodge Spirit R/T
    08 Dodge Caliber SRT-4
    86 Dodge Omni GLH Turbo

  3. #203
    Garrett booster
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida, United
    Posts
    84

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Looks good, nice rake to it!!!

  4. #204
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor iTurbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Gillette, Wyoming
    Posts
    5,355

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    I did some test fitting of Rich Bryant's rear spring adjusters on my Shelby Lancer on Saturday. Went pretty well, and it was easier than I thought to install on the car (as opposed to a bare rear axle like my previous pics).

    Basically to install them you just gotta put the rear of the car on jackstands, remove the wheels, remove lower shock bolts, and remove old coil springs and isolators. Then use a hydraulic jack under the rear axle to raise it way up in order to provide clearance for the drill, and drill 1/2" hole in the center of each rear spring pad. I then used a Sawzall to cut the upper spring mount/tower down since the original one gets in the way of the spring/adjuster. The adjuster bolts onto the rear spring pad using the 1/2" hole that was drilled. I would also recommend using a new poly upper isolator from PolyBushings.com. Just so you know, this isolator is the same as used on our original springs so nothing special here. Another thing to note is that no lower isolator is used. The new spring rests on the threaded adjuster instead of the actual spring pad like stock. I cut my upper isolator 'tower' down so that there was enough left to slip the isolator on. You don't want to completely remove the tower/bracket because you still need the 'nub' used to slip the isolator on.

    Unfortunately, I did run into a problem with the adjuster angle being too much. I believe Rich had these welded at 20', but 15' would be better. It's difficult to say what angle would be 'perfect' because the bottom spring pad angle changes in relation to the upper spring mount as the rear suspension moves up and down. I'm going to send these adjusters back to Rich and get an updated set and try again. Will have pics soon.
    87 Shelby Lancer #127
    91 Dodge Spirit R/T
    08 Dodge Caliber SRT-4
    86 Dodge Omni GLH Turbo

  5. #205
    ...if you know what I mean... Turbo Mopar Contributor csxtra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati OH
    Posts
    791

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by iTurbo View Post
    I cut my upper isolator 'tower' down so that there was enough left to slip the isolator on. You don't want to completely remove the tower/bracket because you still need the 'nub' used to slip the isolator on.
    I wonder if the Lancers are different than the Shadows, because on the CSX, I just had to remove two screws and the towers came off with a little persuading from a hammer. After the towers are off, there is a nub on the frame that the polybushings upper isolator fits on (albeit wth about .1" of clearance on each side).

    Here's a pic of the nub after removing the tower:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Rear-TopSpringPerch.jpg 
Views:	97 
Size:	318.7 KB 
ID:	37261

    Quote Originally Posted by iTurbo View Post
    Unfortunately, I did run into a problem with the adjuster angle being too much. I believe Rich had these welded at 20', but 15' would be better.
    15 degrees is what I came up with also, and what I modified my adjusters to (as shown in the pics posted previously). They still point slightly forward when the suspension is at full compression, but with the towers cut down or removed and the barrel springs, there should be no interference issues.

    Also, I just got a set of Polybushings front strut bump stops that I'm going to test-fit on the QA-1 shocks so I won't have to worry about the tires contacting the fenders. QA-1 has some rubber ones that will work, but I'd rather have poly (and support our vendors).
    Warren Hall
    "My Name is Warren and my car is an alcoholic..."
    OVC - SDAC "Our Sh*t Rolls!"
    Cincinnati, OH
    87 CSX # 741
    317WHP - 380 WFt-Lbs (STD-5)
    12.460 @ 113.2 - Race Gas + Methanol Injection
    12.749 @ 109.84 - 91 octane + Methanol Injection (Still tuning...)
    "Illegitimi non carborundum."
    -General Joseph Stillwell
    TD Runlogger Page Has Moved...

  6. #206
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor iTurbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Gillette, Wyoming
    Posts
    5,355

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    On my Shelby Lancer, I tried removing the two screws to get the upper bump stop off entirely, but it wouldn't budge. I even tried banging on it with a large sledge hammer and it still wouldn't come off. Seemed to me like it was spot welded to the frame on the inboard side. Looking at your pictures though, it seems like the same part as the CSX.

    First I tried removing just the lower section with the rubber bumper. I thought that it was threaded onto the tower, but the pipe wrench I was using just snapped it off instead. Even with that removed, it was difficult to assemble everything because the tower was still getting in the way. I would have preferred to do it the way you did, but I just could not get that thing off of my car so I cut it instead.

    Good to hear on the bump stops being used on the QA1. I like that idea better than trying to get the original rear bump stop to work anyway. Another thing that would be nice is if there was some kind of dust shield that would work with the QA1 so the shaft isn't so exposed to the elements. For a track car that probably isn't a huge deal, but on my daily driver SL, I may just continue to use the KYB GAJ.

    Attachment 37262Attachment 37263Attachment 37264Attachment 37265

    That ended up not being enough, so I broke out the Sawzall.

    Attachment 37266Attachment 37267Attachment 37271Attachment 37268

    If you look closely you can see the end of the 'nub' just inside where I cut with the Sawzall, so it may not be too late for me to do it like you did if I could only get the part off the car. BTW, your CSX looks really nice underneath! I was going to put these on my '87 CSX as well, but it's a long way off from driving so I opted to try them on my nearly 300k mile SL instead. It's been sitting more than anything for the last several years and the rust sure is starting to spread.
    Last edited by iTurbo; 02-06-2012 at 03:04 PM.
    87 Shelby Lancer #127
    91 Dodge Spirit R/T
    08 Dodge Caliber SRT-4
    86 Dodge Omni GLH Turbo

  7. #207
    Basic Vendor (MSD, Hawk, etc) Turbo Mopar Contributor rbryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,476

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Thanks for posting the pictures. I will get the angles fixed for the next sets and of course exchange your set for one that is right.

    I think my mistake was related to my original idea of having the threaded portion replace the stock bumpstop tower. When I flipped it to the bottom the angle wasn't quite the same as it was on the top which I could have realized but I just didn't think about it...

    IMO the bottom setup is superior because the top mount requires so little modification to work. I don't see any reason not to run the bumpstops on the shocks. Does anyone know why the factory didn't put them on the shocks? Were they afraid that people would forget to add them when installing new shocks or something?

    -Rich

  8. #208
    ...if you know what I mean... Turbo Mopar Contributor csxtra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati OH
    Posts
    791

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Thanks for the lead-in on the bumpstops Rich...

    An update on the bumpstops, I tried putting the Polybushings front strut bump stops on the QA1 shocks, but the id of the center hole was too big and they were about .4" too short (I must have mismeasured somewhere).

    So I ended up using the QA1 BC01 rubber bump stops:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	122-BC01.jpg 
Views:	104 
Size:	5.4 KB 
ID:	37290

    They were a bit too long, but when I cut the top ring off of them they were the perfect length. Their ID is a bit smaller than the shock rod, so I used a bit of silicone grease to make it slide on. But they stay put at the top of the shock rod.

    Here is one installed with the shock fully compressed ( I didn't use the washer because its ID was too small to fit over the shock rod):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	QA-1BumpStop.jpg 
Views:	157 
Size:	342.1 KB 
ID:	37291

    And to answer your question about why the bumpstops weren't on the shocks, most stock style rear shocks (including Konis) have a metal cover over over the top of the shock to protect the rod, so getting bump stops on/off would have been a pain/impossible. Since the QA1s don't have that top cover and are made to easily remove the eyelets for different applications, they make it possible to easily put the bump stops on the shocks. That's my theory.
    Warren Hall
    "My Name is Warren and my car is an alcoholic..."
    OVC - SDAC "Our Sh*t Rolls!"
    Cincinnati, OH
    87 CSX # 741
    317WHP - 380 WFt-Lbs (STD-5)
    12.460 @ 113.2 - Race Gas + Methanol Injection
    12.749 @ 109.84 - 91 octane + Methanol Injection (Still tuning...)
    "Illegitimi non carborundum."
    -General Joseph Stillwell
    TD Runlogger Page Has Moved...

  9. #209

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Oh man, I just found this thread. I'll definitely be considering this kit for my GLHS once I'm ready to go through the suspension! =)

  10. #210
    Basic Vendor (MSD, Hawk, etc) Turbo Mopar Contributor rbryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,476

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by csxtra View Post
    Thanks for the lead-in on the bumpstops Rich...

    An update on the bumpstops, I tried putting the Polybushings front strut bump stops on the QA1 shocks, but the id of the center hole was too big and they were about .4" too short (I must have mismeasured somewhere).

    So I ended up using the QA1 BC01 rubber bump stops:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	122-BC01.jpg 
Views:	104 
Size:	5.4 KB 
ID:	37290

    They were a bit too long, but when I cut the top ring off of them they were the perfect length. Their ID is a bit smaller than the shock rod, so I used a bit of silicone grease to make it slide on. But they stay put at the top of the shock rod.

    Here is one installed with the shock fully compressed ( I didn't use the washer because its ID was too small to fit over the shock rod):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	QA-1BumpStop.jpg 
Views:	157 
Size:	342.1 KB 
ID:	37291

    And to answer your question about why the bumpstops weren't on the shocks, most stock style rear shocks (including Konis) have a metal cover over over the top of the shock to protect the rod, so getting bump stops on/off would have been a pain/impossible. Since the QA1s don't have that top cover and are made to easily remove the eyelets for different applications, they make it possible to easily put the bump stops on the shocks. That's my theory.
    Good pictures!

    It is good to have the bumpstop be tight on the shock rod. That way if you start with it all the way up you can see how much shock travel you actually have. If things are working properly the bumpstops really shouldn't ever hit the shock body, they are a safety item to prevent the shock from being destroyed if they do.


    The washer ID being too small is nothing that a step drill bit wouldn't quickly fix.

    Good theory on the bumpstops. Most of the double shockeye shocks don't have them and that does make sense, you wouldn't be able to add them because there is no way to get them over the end. The Lbody on the other hand has a bayonet top so the bumpstop easily goes on the shock rod. I guess we are lucky with the QA1 because the top shockeye is removable and we can add the bumpstop!

    One more reason to go with a Buick Regal QA1 shock on the non lbody.

    -Rich

  11. #211

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Add me to the non L-body list.

  12. #212
    Hybrid booster BlueBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Milton Ontario
    Posts
    257

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    I'm a suspension newb. How do I choose a spring rate?

    I used to run MP "road race" springs in my LeBaron for what it's worth.
    Ean Orsel - 1987 Chrysler LeBaron coupe (The Blue Baron) 1987 Chrysler LeBaron coupe (The Silver Cloud) 2002 Chrysler Neon LX (Lex) "It has the turning circle of the moon." -Jeremy Clarkson

  13. #213
    Basic Vendor (MSD, Hawk, etc) Turbo Mopar Contributor rbryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,476

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
    I'm a suspension newb. How do I choose a spring rate?

    I used to run MP "road race" springs in my LeBaron for what it's worth.
    It is hard to really compare stock springs to coilover springs because the stock springs are progressive and start soft and get stronger as they compress.

    Most coilover springs (including these) are linear and are the same spring rate through their entire range. Linear springs are generally considered more predictable for handling but don't give that initial soft spring feel when you go over light bumps.

    6k/4k (front/rear) is what most use for a car that will be driven regularly on the street (especially the lighter cars).
    7k/5k is of course slightly stiffer.
    8k/6k is probably about as stiff as you want to go for a daily driver.
    After that higher rates are probably better suited for the track (or teenagers that feel no pain).


    Overall it is important to note that these are coilover shocks/springs and are not designed to be cushy like a stock spring.

    If in doubt go with a 6k/4k. For the heavier non lbody cars or for a stiffer ride then choose 7k/5k or 8k/6k.

    8k/6k really is pretty stiff though. One customer put 8k fronts on a V8 conversion which had more weight in the front than normal and actually thought that 6ks would have probably been better for daily driving...

    -Rich

  14. #214
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    6,378

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    I know a simple Google conversion would work, but what do those rates come out to in lb/in for all the rest of us non-metric types!? (had a little too much wine right now...so...yeah... LOL ;P )

  15. #215
    Hybrid booster BlueBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Milton Ontario
    Posts
    257

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    What confuses me, is the "6K" option details are 6k(336lbs/in) Front - 4k(224lbs/in) Rear. [Random choice for example]
    While my MP race springs are listed as 200lbs/in F - 275lbs R.

    Besides the coilovers being a different rating, the rears are actually softer than fronts.
    Ean Orsel - 1987 Chrysler LeBaron coupe (The Blue Baron) 1987 Chrysler LeBaron coupe (The Silver Cloud) 2002 Chrysler Neon LX (Lex) "It has the turning circle of the moon." -Jeremy Clarkson

  16. #216
    Basic Vendor (MSD, Hawk, etc) Turbo Mopar Contributor rbryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,476

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper1 View Post
    I know a simple Google conversion would work, but what do those rates come out to in lb/in for all the rest of us non-metric types!? (had a little too much wine right now...so...yeah... LOL ;P )
    Multiply the kg/mm by 56 (ok it is 59.997...) to get in/lbs.

    e.g.

    6 kg/mm * ( (56*lb*mm) / (kg*in) ) = 336 lb/in.

    -Rich

  17. #217
    Basic Vendor (MSD, Hawk, etc) Turbo Mopar Contributor rbryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,476

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
    What confuses me, is the "6K" option details are 6k(336lbs/in) Front - 4k(224lbs/in) Rear. [Random choice for example]
    While my MP race springs are listed as 200lbs/in F - 275lbs R.

    Besides the coilovers being a different rating, the rears are actually softer than fronts.
    If they were a true race application then they would be stiffer in the rear but then you have to know what you are doing.
    For a car driven on the street a stiffer rear than front is not safe as it will make the rear end very unstable.

    The race springs appear to be just that. If you look at the shelby springs or stock springs you will find that they are stiffer in the front.

    FWD race suspensions with sticky tires that are up to operating temperature handle better with stiffer rear than fronts. Street cars handle terribly with such a suspension. Even on the track a car with the super stiff rear handles horribly until the tires warm up and make it stick. I have talked to people that tested a FWD car with super stiff suspension at the track for a few laps and almost hit the wall on the first lap and wanted to take it into the pits because it was impossible to handle. They were told to give it a couple of laps and then they loved it after the tires were warm enough to work. Sadly that isn't an option on the street so we have to run softer rear tires and deal with the understeer.

    If you look at pretty much any FWD coilover application you will find similar rates to what I am offering.

    If you have a pure drag car that you want a stiff spring for or a dedicated track car I can give you whatever rates you want.

    Or if you tell me that you know what you are doing so that I don't have to feel bad if you hit a wall (and hopefully survive it) then I can also offer whatever you want.

    -Rich

  18. #218
    Hybrid booster BlueBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Milton Ontario
    Posts
    257

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by rbryant View Post
    Or if you tell me that you know what you are doing so that I don't have to feel bad if you hit a wall (and hopefully survive it) then I can also offer whatever you want.
    LOL I had a boss that taught me, "The customer is always right, no matter how wrong they are".

    I guess I'll have to decide if I still feel like a teenager. I'll likely go with the 8K. I don't race the car at all. But I did enjoy the firm feel of the MP springs. I only had to dodge pot holes and manhole covers.
    Ean Orsel - 1987 Chrysler LeBaron coupe (The Blue Baron) 1987 Chrysler LeBaron coupe (The Silver Cloud) 2002 Chrysler Neon LX (Lex) "It has the turning circle of the moon." -Jeremy Clarkson

  19. #219
    Basic Vendor (MSD, Hawk, etc) Turbo Mopar Contributor rbryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,476

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueBaron View Post
    LOL I had a boss that taught me, "The customer is always right, no matter how wrong they are".

    I guess I'll have to decide if I still feel like a teenager. I'll likely go with the 8K. I don't race the car at all. But I did enjoy the firm feel of the MP springs. I only had to dodge pot holes and manhole covers.
    I am happy to offer whatever people want but IMO those options shouldn't be in the "off the shelf" list.

    If you want 12k rear with 4k front then I am happy to sell them that way but I would hope that someone doing that would have a good reason and know what they are doing.

    I will add a 'custom spring rates by request" option to the dropdown and you can just specify them in the order notes.

    One thing to note is that with adjustable shocks it is possible to really stiffen them up a lot. So if you have an 8k front and 6k rear you can always loosen the front and tighten the rear when at the track. That will actually make it feel more like an 8k/8k setup. Swaybars can also be used to play around with things but IMO it is best to get your springs to the correct rates for whatever you use the car the most for.

    If you want something like an 8k/7k setup where you normally run tight in the front and loose in the rear and then change to loose in the front tight in the rear at the track that can be done but the rear might take some getting used to on the street (as you have probably experienced with the MP race springs).

    Or we can order extra rear springs for $150/pair to swap in at the track for as long as they are within 2k of the original spring. If they are more than 2k different from the original then the shocks should be revalved to match the springs because they normally come valved for the correct spring range.

    -Rich

  20. #220
    Moderator Turbo Mopar Staff Force Fed Mopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Greenville/Spartanburg SC area
    Posts
    7,537

    Re: Official BC Coilover Kit Development Interest.

    The rear springs are stiffer than the fronts on G/J/P/etc-body cars because of the suspension design. The wheels have more leverage on the spring because of it's location. On chilort's Daytona we are trying out 325lb frt/375lb rr springs, but he is planning on road racing it and doesn't much care about a soft ride on the street.
    Rob M.
    '89 Turbo GTC
    2.5 TIII swap is here!

    Project LookOwt
    '91 Daytona ES, 61k original miles, Rick Lozier's old 3.0 nitrous car
    Back to basics, then the mods go back on....

Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mobil 1 reproduction plaques, interest?
    By LaserXT1986 in forum General Vendor Area
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 11-17-2012, 10:22 AM
  2. any interest in a a413 LSD?
    By boostedgolf in forum Transmission
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 01:32 PM
  3. CSX Style grills -Interest?
    By Darkapollo in forum Interior, Exterior and Chassis Modifications
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-12-2008, 11:23 PM
  4. Interest in IN group
    By fleckster in forum Shelby Dodge Auto Club
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 02:33 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •