I too would like to know. Only thing I can think of is maybe the manufacturers of these springs kept drag racing in mind and general racing in mind. As you accelerate all your weight transfers to the rear causing more weight in the rear than the front during acceleration. Although that alone isn't enough to explain it.Wow, this thread is a bit of a lesson in springs. So let me see if I get this right. Generally, rear springs are anywhere from 3 to 4 times stiffer than front springs?! This comes as a surprise to me as I always thought that front springs were much more stiff than rear springs as they had to support the oscilating mass of the engine. Can someone explain the significant disparity between the front and rear rates?
Please explain in detail rather than simply say its IRS rather than DRS.You guys are likely thinking of stick axle cars and those spring rates being somewhat close to the front spring rates.
IRS equipped cars, totally different story, hence the substantial difference in rates front to rear.
If you look at the rear suspension you'll notice the spring is pretty far inboard ... The control arm will have more leverage to compress the spring. Need higher spring rate.Can someone explain the significant disparity between the front and rear rates?
That actually makes sense.If you look at the rear suspension you'll notice the spring is pretty far inboard ... The control arm will have more leverage to compress the spring. Need higher spring rate.
Yeah this is really weird to me, particularly since a greater percentage of weight is on the front wheels. Granted I haven't had RWD cars in years, and never lowered one.Wow, this thread is a bit of a lesson in springs. So let me see if I get this right. Generally, rear springs are anywhere from 3 to 4 times stiffer than front springs?! This comes as a surprise to me as I always thought that front springs were much more stiff than rear springs as they had to support the oscilating mass of the engine. Can someone explain the significant disparity between the front and rear rates?
This has to be why.If you look at the rear suspension you'll notice the spring is pretty far inboard ... The control arm will have more leverage to compress the spring. Need higher spring rate.
The Motion ratio on the S550 is pretty bad compared to other cars. This is why you need so much more rear spring compared to the front.Yeah this is really weird to me, particularly since a greater percentage of weight is on the front wheels. Granted I haven't had RWD cars in years, and never lowered one.
It has nothing to do with independent rear suspension. My car is IRS too, but AWD. Stock, my rates are almost identical to each other. On the current coilovers, rates are 10k/10.2k (560/571).
This has to be why.
It is what [MENTION=16770]MtnBiker[/MENTION] said - leverage.Wow, this thread is a bit of a lesson in springs. So let me see if I get this right. Generally, rear springs are anywhere from 3 to 4 times stiffer than front springs?! This comes as a surprise to me as I always thought that front springs were much more stiff than rear springs as they had to support the oscilating mass of the engine. Can someone explain the significant disparity between the front and rear rates?
Ordered myself a pair of these today. Hoping they help with the front end pogo stick bounce as well as the little bit of drop.BMR SP089 Minimal Drop Front Springs: .875" Drop
170lb/in