shogun32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2019
- Threads
- 89
- Messages
- 14,701
- Reaction score
- 12,225
- Location
- Northern VA
- First Name
- Matt
- Vehicle(s)
- '19 GT/PP, '23 GB Mach1, '12 Audi S5 (v8+6mt)
- Vehicle Showcase
- 2
- Thread starter
- #46
So after a couple days of doing the front shocks are finally installed. The rears will have to wait for another day since the incorrect (or incredibly sloppily) spacer needs to be replaced.
Fortune Auto claimed the shocks were valved for 450lb/in but I am running 250lb/in. I started out with 8 clicks out (1 turn) from closed but after a couple of "woah nellie" moments due to unhelpful chassis movement I tightened by 3 to -5 out but then I started to get some hobby horsing. Pulled over after bombing thru some back roads and backed off 1 to -6.
If a mere 250lb/in spring requires turning the rebound up near max there is NO WAY IN HELL this valving can properly deal with a 450lb/in spring let alone anything higher. No offense but based on experience so far FA's "we spent a lot of time optimzing" is questionable at best. And I could tell that just looking at the sweep graphs they provided me per previous post. This is a common problem with people who start with shitty suspension. They add massive spring which significantly reduces piston motion speed and stroke distance. As a result it conceals just how bad the valving really is.
Based on 855-890lb front corner weights (ed. something smells about those numbers - @TeeLew got some actual numbers?) I figured a bit over 2 inches or so of spring preload would suffice. But we observed 2 inches of sag and that takes up a MUCH needed inch of suspension travel. as long as I stay out of the bump stop the compression stroke is reasonable on everything short of the nasty bumps like what you get hitting recessed man-hole covers deeper than 1 inch. On those you get a cringe-worthy bang and a sensation that my rim just took the impact. That's because currently I only have 1.5" worth of travel (before bumper) in the system. Need to add at least 20mm of preload (total will now be 3") and based on the pic I probably need to add a couple turns of ride height.
So compared to the front Steeda dual-rate springs this setup definitely allows the CG to move around a bit. But there is no brake dive worthy of the name, at least at public road speeds. I can see why people like the DR springs if you equate lack of chassis movement with 'confidence' and 'grip' in energetic side to side transitions. But the bumping-around is definitely annoying after a while. The FA solution felt like it might have less ultimate grip but is easier to read the car. But also doing testing at 40F on public backroads is not a very repeatable environment.
The slow-speed compression can defintely be increased the (digressive no less) rebound feels rather odd. I have spring sets in 200, 350 and 450 sitting in the wings but I'm definitely going to have to re-valve these things correctly. Grrrr.
Fortune Auto claimed the shocks were valved for 450lb/in but I am running 250lb/in. I started out with 8 clicks out (1 turn) from closed but after a couple of "woah nellie" moments due to unhelpful chassis movement I tightened by 3 to -5 out but then I started to get some hobby horsing. Pulled over after bombing thru some back roads and backed off 1 to -6.
If a mere 250lb/in spring requires turning the rebound up near max there is NO WAY IN HELL this valving can properly deal with a 450lb/in spring let alone anything higher. No offense but based on experience so far FA's "we spent a lot of time optimzing" is questionable at best. And I could tell that just looking at the sweep graphs they provided me per previous post. This is a common problem with people who start with shitty suspension. They add massive spring which significantly reduces piston motion speed and stroke distance. As a result it conceals just how bad the valving really is.
Based on 855-890lb front corner weights (ed. something smells about those numbers - @TeeLew got some actual numbers?) I figured a bit over 2 inches or so of spring preload would suffice. But we observed 2 inches of sag and that takes up a MUCH needed inch of suspension travel. as long as I stay out of the bump stop the compression stroke is reasonable on everything short of the nasty bumps like what you get hitting recessed man-hole covers deeper than 1 inch. On those you get a cringe-worthy bang and a sensation that my rim just took the impact. That's because currently I only have 1.5" worth of travel (before bumper) in the system. Need to add at least 20mm of preload (total will now be 3") and based on the pic I probably need to add a couple turns of ride height.
So compared to the front Steeda dual-rate springs this setup definitely allows the CG to move around a bit. But there is no brake dive worthy of the name, at least at public road speeds. I can see why people like the DR springs if you equate lack of chassis movement with 'confidence' and 'grip' in energetic side to side transitions. But the bumping-around is definitely annoying after a while. The FA solution felt like it might have less ultimate grip but is easier to read the car. But also doing testing at 40F on public backroads is not a very repeatable environment.
The slow-speed compression can defintely be increased the (digressive no less) rebound feels rather odd. I have spring sets in 200, 350 and 450 sitting in the wings but I'm definitely going to have to re-valve these things correctly. Grrrr.
Sponsored
Last edited: