When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Is this a "You can take Evo out of rally, but you can't take rally out of Evo" kind of quirk?
Its a function of 60% weight being on front axle, high front CG and low RC, and underworked rear tires. You cant make the inside rear tire do work without ruining front mechanical grip.
So, lifting a rear tire is inevitable. You don't really want huge lift, but more rear spring less rear bar will balance that. Remember, once you lift a tire the rear bar is effectively done contributing and will just lift the tire higher.
This is not relevant to high aero cars though where a flat front splitter is more important than everything else.
We can at least agree that its a *problem*, not a feature. If we had the backing of a whole engineering team then it can dialed out, but we dont. FWD cornering it is
this is why im trying to move as much weight to the rear as possible
this is where my front and rears are, been thinking of raising the front a little. i dont know if the uprights impact any of that, but i think i'm looking to get the street ride height one
Can you expand on that? I had my eyes on MCS if I ever upgrade shocks. Didn't realize they had low travel on our platform.
I've seen on several Evos and Porsches the MCS's came with so little travel the wheel couldnt get much further than 1" or less of a tire-fender gap. Not the best measurement system, but they've been short enough times its a "thing" when MCS is discussed.
so it's more about the differentials, rather than net height? for RC i guess that makes sense
It comes down to the change in roll axis with it steeply angled forward when over lowering the front. Lowering the rear more helps at least get it somewhere more flat-ish. This is cause the RC moves at much different rates front and rear. Roughly 3:1 front and 1:1 rear. Lower both ends 1" and the front drops 3" and the rear drops just as much as the CG. So lowering the rear also has almost no effect on rear roll couple.
The thing to worry about in the rear is the camber curve ramp rate. It gets steeper and steeper which leads to unpredictability once you start sliding.
this is why im trying to move as much weight to the rear as possible
this is where my front and rears are, been thinking of raising the front a little. i dont know if the uprights impact any of that, but i think i'm looking to get the street ride height one
that rear is high. I dropped mine to a 13mm rake and the car instantly felt better.
Actually, I lowered the car as much as I could without the control arms being in a bad way. Then I adjusted to the 13mm.
It comes down to the change in roll axis with it steeply angled forward when over lowering the front. Lowering the rear more helps at least get it somewhere more flat-ish. This is cause the RC moves at much different rates front and rear. Roughly 3:1 front and 1:1 rear. Lower both ends 1" and the front drops 3" and the rear drops just as much as the CG. So lowering the rear also has almost no effect on rear roll couple.
The thing to worry about in the rear is the camber curve ramp rate. It gets steeper and steeper which leads to unpredictability once you start sliding.
Originally Posted by kaj
that rear is high. I dropped mine to a 13mm rake and the car instantly felt better.
Actually, I lowered the car as much as I could without the control arms being in a bad way. Then I adjusted to the 13mm.
thanks guys. i will probably do some kind of combo of dropping the rear and raising the front. i don't know if it's immediately apparent but i take it my level warrants the 1.25" correction length, not the 2" correction length?
I may have seen a rear lift on a hairpin - corkscrew
