Drew, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I know that you're a very honest guy, which is why I've given you my business. Do the Swifts, with their substantial drop, alter the factory geometry? I don't mean whether it stays at an acceptable level - ie. less optimal than stock, but still workable. I don't see how they wouldn't and incur the compromises that go along with it, but I'd truly appreciate hearing an expert's opinion. Thanks!

 

Any drop technically alters the geometry to some point. It is still very workable though, in terms of toe adjustment, camber (via camber bolts), and travel.

Springs that drop the car lower than that will start to limit the strut from being able to do work.

Swift puts in a ton of research, engineering, and testing into their springs. Once that step is completed they have racing drivers/teams run them for feedback. Then, if all goes well, the spring is released. So its not just about getting the spring lower, its about increasing performance.

 

My concern with bigger drops is more with the resulting strut travel than geometry and roll centers.

Yes geometry is altered when you lower the car any amount, and you do end up with a lower roll center which is bad. But you do get a lower center of gravity, which is obviously good, BUT doesn't quite make up for the change in roll center height. Still....it's not the end of the world, and the increase in spring rate with Swifts definitely means you are getting much less roll then stock, no question there. Tein S-techs on the other hand lower the car well past Swifts and have softer rates....there you have a problem.

Some auto-x cars run very low and have crummy roll centers, but it doesn't matter because they have 12k/16k spring rates. They can afford to run low and enjoy a lower COG with a crummy roll center because their rates are so high it's not rolling much anymore. Kinda sucks on a street car though....to be that low you need those really high rates and I'll pass on that on my drive to work.

So Swifts more then make up for their change in geometry with their increased spring rates and you do have less roll overall. The camber curve is changed, but again i think it's safe to say the increased spring rate keeps that in check as well. More static camber or a bigger front bar would help too.

Happy NYE!

- Andrew

 

Andrew, thank you.

If I may follow-up, I feel terribly uncomfortable with the Swift's rake that shifts even more weight up-front. While I think that Swift's spring rates were also geared to help, I can't help and see it as a band aid for the sake of appearance. What do you think?

 

Rake doesn't shift weight front to rear.

 

Workable and optimal are hardly comporable; hence my concerns.

I'd be very interested to see the protocols(s). Can you ask Swift for some documentation? I'm sure that I'm not the only one who'd like to see it. Thanks!

 

what about these right here Tanabe GF210 Grip Feeling Springs?
Very stiff nice drop but they're not the most comfortable for daily driving.

 

Right, it shifts weight from rear to front, which is what I wrote.

 

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/6489933-post37.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/6490471-post40.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/6490547-post41.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/6490751-post42.html

I can ask, but do note that it might be proprietary information.

 

At the risk of sounding confrontational, the above is nothing more than hearsay - a personal extrapolation of what may or may not be the case. No disrespect meant to anyone, but Indy tested the claimed spring rates.There was no track testing. Too, he was paid by Swift in product that he may still be selling in the classifieds. The rake claims and their explanations make no sense, whatsoever. This is not to doubt the scope of his experience, but there's enough there to warrant hearing from the horse's mouth backed by documentation. Don't get me wrong; I have the utmost respect for Indy.

Speaking of sponsorship, I suspect that it drives your replies to almost every spring thread. Knowing that sponsorship is monetarily related doesn't exactly make for a stellar backdrop. As such, one has to exercise some critical thinking, espescially when your last review of a Swift product took place on snow tires (!) . As a point of interest, those springs were sent for review by Indy, who also has a vested interest in the product.

I'm sorry, but I find the proprietary aspect very difficult to swallow. Exactly, what is proprietary about testing springs, especially when a comparative sense is at play? And, if they do claim a proprietary method, how can one have faith in it without knowing what it is? You see, that makes no sense. I'm not trying to put you on the spot; the comment is rhetorical.

As far as I can see, Swift's concern lies with lowering (ie.cosmetics) and ride comfort, with handling coming-in second. Hence, claiming an improvement in handling over stock make little sense to me, too, as it's not what the springs seem to be designed for (ie. a pronounced rake, as an example).

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

 

MacPherson struts are notorious for being difficult live with once the car has been lowered. I mean, unless you change major parts (such as arms, and ball joints), lowering the car beyond an inch really just does more harm than good, because there is a point in which lowering the car beyond the suspension's threshold actually increases roll, and thus reduces the effectives of the suspensions ability to keep the tires planted to the road.

That's why I don't really understand the point of coilovers a the only suspension mod, or lowering springs, because you even though you might have the shocks and springs matched correctly, and tuned to just the right point, the remaining suspension peices are limited to perform well within the parameters of a stock suspension, with the stock ride height.

I really wish the EVO had a double wishbone like 350Zs have, as the tuning potential for that suspension configuration is limitless. That was probably the single greatest attribute of my previous 350Z. I had new arms (350evo), sways, coilovers, trailing arms, camber arms, you name it. I had it all, and the more I tweaked and played with the suspension the better the car drove.

 

If you are still upset that I moved your thread - this is NOT the place to do it.

And if you are going to "point things out" -- I am on all season tires - not snows. Secondly, if you read the Spec R Review, right at the top I mention that I have not raced on them yet - its winter.

I see someone who is just out to start something. If you wish to discuss it further please private message me.

 

Aren't you tired of accusing folks, when you can't reply directly? Pathetic, really.

Given the high-performance thrust of the mod, what difference does that make? Let me help you out - none.

Again, what difference does that make? You opined as to the handling, while driving on rocks. The so-called review was useless to anyone who actually cares about cornering. Those who'd like to know the point of all this, please refer to my post above.

What?

My questions were technical, on-point, and based directly on what you said. Given the comment above, one has no choice, but to believe that you simply can't answer knowing that you'll be called on your claims.

Why? You posted these claims on the forum over and over and over. I see no reason to hide this from public view.

Worse, you did not respond to a single technical objection in the message that you're supposed to be responding to. Instead, you decided to attack me personally. Given all this, one would have to be a fool to believe the Swift sales pitch.


Let's briefly review: you push Swift, make a plethora of claims, and when called to reply to technical questions, you make it personal instead of replying on-point. I have no idea why you felt the need to spin this, when my post is just above. It's not like folks can't see it. If anything, you've clearly compromised your integrity and anyone with a half of brain would be foolish to accept your dubious assertion on your say-so. You didn't answer a single question, all of which were based on your own claims. Instead, you uploaded diversionary, accusatory text in lieu of actually replying to the comments.

Frankly, I'm disappointed by this. I've always liked you and I expected better.

 

Under your mentality - Swift, GTWorx, RobiSpec springs - all are cosmetic springs.

In today's world of knock-offs and copies - many companies will not release any build or testing data for their parts. Too many people out there ready to duplicate them. Data on rates v. compression has been done. But engineering data to building/constructing them - I don't think you will get that. You have not been patient either. People do not live at their computers and its a holiday. I will email my contacts and see if they will allow me to give out information.

I am not a Mod in this section, nor would I want to be, to keep that clear.

It is basic physics, to rotate a car better you can move the weight slightly forward and use it as a pivot point. Go check out the other springs and their lowering amounts, they do it similarly.

To answer the review: I ran Swifts and WON on them before they asked me to represent them. Being sponsored by Swifts means I REVIEW their parts. People that are interested in them can COPY everything that I have done (which people have - and are loving them).

Bottom line - if you do not want something - don't buy it. If you like something - buy it.

 

I didn't even bother reading all of this. When you find the intellectual honesty to quote what I said and respond on-point, without putting words in my mouth, I'll be happy to reply. Funny, you have no problem quoting text, except for now. Dare I say, one would have to be an utter imbecile not to realize what that means.