Spring Rate Chart
Jan 10, 2005, 06:50 PM
#166
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I have Cusco Zero 2Rs in. And I didn't realize how much stiffer the H&R was compared to stock, until I have the Cusco in. Now the rides is firmer than stock, which translate into less body roll and quicker response. It's not much harser than stock on freeway, but doing through a ditch is not as forgiving as stock (nor my H&R springs).
I have mine set at front:3, rear; 3. Anything softer, the car wants to bouce a bit. I think it serves well for everyday use... I will find time to bring it to the track later.
I have mine set at front:3, rear; 3. Anything softer, the car wants to bouce a bit. I think it serves well for everyday use... I will find time to bring it to the track later.
Jan 13, 2005, 05:55 PM
#167
Evolving Member
iTrader: (20)
![[TYPE]SS's Avatar](https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/customavatars/avatar23079_1.gif){kind=avatar}
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by M3this
What would everyone reccomend for daily driving, a bit softer ride then stock, yet still increases performance and lowers height by an 1" or so. I was thinking the Tein Flex Coilover set up w/ EDFC.... any comments on this ?
anybody?
Jan 26, 2005, 09:20 AM
#168
Evolving Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hotchkis spring
I installed Hotchkis springs about a month ago and their awsome! I, like a lot of other people wanted to reduce the wheel gap but still have a decent ride. Believe me these are the springs you want. The ride is almost stock feeling and is lowered just enough. They even come with shorter bump stops(even better quality then stock). Dont bother with looking at any other spring if your situation is like mine, I did all the research on the other springs so dont even waste your time looking at any other brand.
Feb 7, 2005, 08:20 PM
#169
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The spring rates you posted for the RSR Ti2000 are incorrect, RS-R's own website listed the spring rates as:
246(front) and 325(rear)
http://rs-r.com/products/suspension/ti2000.php
Also incorrect is the rear spring rate for the Espelir GT springs according to Mackin Industries' website: http://www.mackinindustries.com/pdf/coilsprings.pdf
Its 5.3k, not 5.9k.
Interesting, on RS-R's page, the spring rates and drop are the same for both TI2000 and Down springs, only difference is the material the springs are made out of.
246(front) and 325(rear)
http://rs-r.com/products/suspension/ti2000.php
Also incorrect is the rear spring rate for the Espelir GT springs according to Mackin Industries' website: http://www.mackinindustries.com/pdf/coilsprings.pdf
Its 5.3k, not 5.9k.
Interesting, on RS-R's page, the spring rates and drop are the same for both TI2000 and Down springs, only difference is the material the springs are made out of.
Last edited by Y2A; Feb 7, 2005 at 08:39 PM.
Feb 27, 2005, 08:26 PM
#170
Evolving Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Kohler, WI
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok,
Call me uninformed, but can anyone explain what the units for spring rate in K mean? I can't find a logical conversion factor to lbs. I'm sad to even say this, but I'm an engineer and I don't even know. I'll blame our public schools for teaching non-metric units
Call me uninformed, but can anyone explain what the units for spring rate in K mean? I can't find a logical conversion factor to lbs. I'm sad to even say this, but I'm an engineer and I don't even know. I'll blame our public schools for teaching non-metric units
Feb 28, 2005, 09:10 AM
#172
Evolving Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Kohler, WI
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just found the answer myself. Spring rate in metric is (kg/mm). English is (lb/in). So to go from kg/mm to lb/in take the metric measurement times 55.88 conversion factor. The inverse is true to go from lb/in to kg/mm. That conversion factor is about .017895.
Example:
165lb/in x .017895 = 2.95kg/mm
2.9kg/mm x 55.88 = 162lbs/in
I think the confusing part is this post lists spring rate in k and lbs. That's not accurate. Hope this helps.
Example:
165lb/in x .017895 = 2.95kg/mm
2.9kg/mm x 55.88 = 162lbs/in
I think the confusing part is this post lists spring rate in k and lbs. That's not accurate. Hope this helps.
Mar 17, 2005, 12:57 PM
#173
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scottybob
Has anyone installed the ralliart springs? I really like the lack of drop(good for a stock shock) and the front to rear rate balance.
Apr 30, 2005, 07:42 PM
#175
FYI, these guys seem like the only place that have the Ralliart springs for a semi-reasonable price:
http://www.tozka.com
http://www.tozka.com
Jun 1, 2005, 07:44 PM
#177
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Lexington, MA
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spring rate vs. damping
You are correct that damping has to be matched to spring rate, in order to
maximize tire contact with the road. This should be obvious with a little
thought experiment (as Einstein used to do). Suppose that you have no
damping at all. Then each wheel of your car is a pogo stick, and will bounce
up and down off the pavement repeatedly with the slightest irregularity in
the surface. Now go to the other extreme, and suppose that your shocks
are so stiff that they don't move at all (unless you drop your car from a
helicopter at 5000 feet). In this case, your wheels are locked to the body
of your car, which means that whenever the road surface isn't completely
flat under all four wheels of your car (i.e. the four points of the pavement
under your four tires do not define a plane), one or more of your tires must
not be in contact with the pavement. This is simple geometry.
The rule of thumb that I heard as a teenager (a few years ago, now) is that
your damping is properly matched to your springs if, when you push down on
a corner of the car and then let go, it pops back up slightly above the resting
position and then returns to the resting position without going below it. This
is a little hard to check on the Evo, since pushing down on the sheet metal
hard enough to move the springs seems to require denting the sheet metal,
but I think the principle is still sound. :-)
Michael
maximize tire contact with the road. This should be obvious with a little
thought experiment (as Einstein used to do). Suppose that you have no
damping at all. Then each wheel of your car is a pogo stick, and will bounce
up and down off the pavement repeatedly with the slightest irregularity in
the surface. Now go to the other extreme, and suppose that your shocks
are so stiff that they don't move at all (unless you drop your car from a
helicopter at 5000 feet). In this case, your wheels are locked to the body
of your car, which means that whenever the road surface isn't completely
flat under all four wheels of your car (i.e. the four points of the pavement
under your four tires do not define a plane), one or more of your tires must
not be in contact with the pavement. This is simple geometry.
The rule of thumb that I heard as a teenager (a few years ago, now) is that
your damping is properly matched to your springs if, when you push down on
a corner of the car and then let go, it pops back up slightly above the resting
position and then returns to the resting position without going below it. This
is a little hard to check on the Evo, since pushing down on the sheet metal
hard enough to move the springs seems to require denting the sheet metal,
but I think the principle is still sound. :-)
Michael
Originally Posted by Michael Adair
For what it's worth changing springs only is NOT the thing to do IMHO. I did tons of research and despite 20 people telling me that the Eibach springs are "progressive" and would be perfect for me. Not the case. The stock springs are matched to the struts. I think we all know that. Mits spent plenty of time to make the rates and spring length correct etc. I now have the Eibachs installed with stock struts and it is the worst. 
It is obvious I lost travel with the shorter springs. Imagine the car being 25% stiffer than it was stock but without correct dampening. On anything but the smoothest roads it won't keep the rubber in contact with the road. I am in the process of putting my stock springs back on and winter tires and will deal with coilovers in the spring. I just thought I would warn someone else. This info was confirmed through John at Roadrace Engineering as well. So unless someone has a better idea I wouldn't recommend it-
It is obvious I lost travel with the shorter springs. Imagine the car being 25% stiffer than it was stock but without correct dampening. On anything but the smoothest roads it won't keep the rubber in contact with the road. I am in the process of putting my stock springs back on and winter tires and will deal with coilovers in the spring. I just thought I would warn someone else. This info was confirmed through John at Roadrace Engineering as well. So unless someone has a better idea I wouldn't recommend it-
Jul 7, 2005, 08:26 PM
#179
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by evodan2004
so is there any spring out there that will improve handling, performance, drop on a evo stock suspention. dont care about ride quality. just want a beter spring for stock evo.
