Ohlins' Adjustable Coil-Over Kits Are In Stock At J&M / hotpart.com

[bnightstar]

the OHlins are rebuildable and far better made than Koni etc. The damper is far more important than the spring. Plus with CO you can swap in an infinite selection of springs and revalve when needed.

I don't see how a Mustang is any different than any other performance-minded car. Your statement would more properly apply to a Porsche because it has a screwball weight distribution.

from what my BMW friend on the track said: "We don't understand how the things you do to your suspension work or make sense but it's a fact they do"

Sure CO is more flexible but they are best used with higher spring rates if you are going to stick 250-300 spring no need for CO is my point. Just get B6 or FPTP and BMR springs and call it a day. For us the track guys that need 500 springs leave that be

Sponsored

 

[guitrflip]

that'll work. I would ring up https://cortexracing.com/ and/or Steeda and pick their brains. You'll likely want a roll-center correcting rods up front (Steeda) and a bump-steer kit (various). And throw some camber plates on there at the same time.



If I was buying the B12 kit I'd probably pair the shocks with Steeda's Ultralight 225/880 spring set. Check first. Steeda should allow you to have them build you completely assembled units ready to just bolt in.

Is the B8 (B12 Kit) newly released? I don't appear to see anything on forums about it nor any reviews. Steeda has it on their website it appears to pair with Eibach Sports Kit plus Springs (progressive spring rate). Yeah, along with this setup, I'll pick up that roll-center rods and bumpsteer kit combo that Steeda's selling. I think with these, Hops will be fixed and predictability (after replacing springs to linear) is in the near future. Good call, i guess i should contact Steeda and ask them to swap the progressive springs into linear.

Another good option I think would be Bilstein B16s. You can get them on Rockauto for $1600, which is not much more than the B6s or B12s. My B16s are coming next week, but from what I've read, they should be good. Granted they do come with progressive springs. Vorshlag has the rate vs stroke for them on their site.

Thank you for this site, Shogun and I agreed that Ohlin's DVF tech of which is the end-game CO that I'll be choosing when i start going to tracks. In the meantime, for my needs, Shogun was suggesting to go with somethin to fix the stock suspension of the car since I've mentioned to him that i regularly (3-4 a week) canyon run my car since i live close to one. Bilstein B16 CO does look tempting, but for the money, i could buy other supportive mods like bumpsteer and Roll-center front rods to tie up the stock problem of 'Wheel-hopping' when cornering.

Sure CO is more flexible but they are best used with higher spring rates if you are going to stick 250-300 spring no need for CO is my point. Just get B6 or FPTP and BMR springs and call it a day. For us the track guys that need 500 springs leave that be

I think there's is a misunderstanding, so let me clarify. From your post the other day in regards to Vorshlag, we (Shogun and I) learned that we CAN go with off-the-shelf route. We learned the reason to the madness of why Ohlins chosen spring rate of 514 lb/in and 800 lb/in on the off-the-shelve (because of the DVF). As I mentioned before, I've considered to have a non-coilover suspension setup to fix my 'stock' issue (according to Shogun). SO we're agreeing with you.

 

[Norm Peterson]

In hopes to make-up for how heavy our vehicles really are. I love the chassis of the S550 and since I am fortunate enough to live close to a canyon, I prefer corners than straight-lines. I guess you can say I'm into curves (pun intended) than flats . Sorry Off-topic.

Back to the topic of Ohlin OTS. I see, so Ohlins OTS have a different ballgame compared to other coilovers due to this proprietary DVF. With that in mind, the rears being at 800 has more of a difference of ~1.56x spring rate compared to the front. Which means one would need to go higher spring rate if they want a stiffer rear spring rate. In that case, can we assume 800lb/in is street tolerable of which then would meet my goal and purpose of reviving this thread?

Let me know if I'm making sense or not.

-Jason

800 at the rear springs is only about 200 at the rear tire, which is very soft compared to 500 at the spring/475-ish at the front tire. The only thing that makes sense to me is that they're building dedicated race cars - tuning the car to maximize the ability to apply as much power as possible as soon as possible on corner exit, expecting to gain more from the earlier acceleration than they give up with the more understeerish handling balance.

At some point when chasing trophies and contingencies at time trialing you might want to choose that philosophy. I suspect you'd already be pretty deep down the rabbit hole by then, though.


I don't think that's the right approach for a true dual-purpose street/track car either. In street driving, a more understeerish TLLTD tends to feel "heavy" or "dull" and not very satisfying even when the damping is good.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

Suspension fine tuning is definitely not a popular topic in these forums since everyone prefers to discuss power and have an attitude of "moh powah baby!" (Source: Donut Media).

It's always been that way, from long before forums even existed. Drag racing (and its less-than-legal street cousin) have been the 800-lb gorilla in the car hobby since as far back as I can remember. Most folks, it seems, never even try to look past the excitement of a roaring engine to see if there's anything else.


Norm

 

[shogun32]

Is the B8 (B12 Kit) newly released?

nope, been around for several years.

 

[guitrflip]

nope, been around for several years.

I meant for 2015+Ford Mustang GT specifically.

 

[shogun32]

I meant for 2015+Ford Mustang GT specifically.

and I was answering your question. specifically.

 

[guitrflip]

and I was answering your question. specifically.

Lol! touché

 

[bnightstar]

800 at the rear springs is only about 200 at the rear tire, which is very soft compared to 500 at the spring/475-ish at the front tire. The only thing that makes sense to me is that they're building dedicated race cars - tuning the car to maximize the ability to apply as much power as possible as soon as possible on corner exit, expecting to gain more from the earlier acceleration than they give up with the more understeerish handling balance.

To be fair the JRZ RS One Touring are 500 lbs front and 900 lbs rear so there are other CO out there running similar rates. Though I'm convinced that maybe the Ohlins need the rear to be 900 lbs.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I think we had the same discussion in my thread on the Ohlins topic. As I said there is good reasons why they use this rates. Also there is a reason why the Mustang front is better with higher spring rates for corner curving it's called Positive Camber roll suspension (this is the reason why people with the DR springs run 3" of camber or more).

Not sure what you're trying to say with that.

One thing that is certain is that once an inside wheel goes into the soft region of a dual-rate spring, the total roll resistance at that end is decreased and you will get more roll than you would with linear-rate springs whose rate is the same as the stiff portion of a dual-rate. So you end up dialing in a little more negative camber to compensate.

And also this is the reason why big front bars make the car corner better. Regular car dynamics don't exactly apply to the Mustang it is a different animal.

No, it isn't. Increasing front sta-bar stiffness has two effects that tend to act in opposition to each other.

There's nothing wrong with the conventional understanding that a stiffer front bar attracts greater load transfer which reduces front grip. It's just not the whole story.

By reducing roll, it lets the [more important] outside front tire to work under conditions of better camber, resulting in improved grip. Camber loss as the car rolls in a corner is a known MacStrut deficiency (especially when lowering is considered, which is the usual approach to building a track car), so you might expect a MacStrut suspended car to benefit more from the improved camber situation than it gets hurt by the increased lateral load transfer. A true short-long-arm suspension might not, though in either case it probably depends on the actual magnitude of roll stiffness and geometric roll center heights that you're starting with.

And that's only looking at it statically. Dynamically, I expect tire characteristics and load transfer as a function of time would be involved.

I kind of trust Ohlins more than I trust hotparts. Also if you are going with 250-275 springs you can go with just off the shelf shocks and struts what is the point in going to a coilovers and spend 2 times as much ?

I have no basis for opinion regarding Ohlins vs Hotparts other than my suspicion that they are actually targeting different customers. Track only vs dual purpose.

I agree that for spring rates - wheel rates, actually - in the 250-ish lb/in neighborhood there isn't much reason to go with coilovers.

guitrflip - The 250-ish range really is a reasonable compromise point for the kind of car you're building here.


Norm

 

[bnightstar]

No, it isn't. Increasing front sta-bar stiffness has two effects that tend to act in opposition to each other.

It's expected from basic car setup charts that increasing front sway bar will add understeer. With the Mustang that is just not the case in fact adding more front bar (to some point) actually reduce understeer in the car you explained why very well but it something that most people that just start with setting up cars just find strange / not logical. But the reason is that the car just don't have enough spring for the weight.

 

[shogun32]

But the reason is that the car just don't have enough spring for the weight.

I'm not seeing the data to support that. The 350/R commends itself quite well on tracks without resorting to 1.7x the factory spring rate up front. I'm not saying the car can't work with 500+lb/in but I wonder if it's safe to say it's necessary. If Steeda's customers were all running 450+ I think they'd mention that.

 

[bnightstar]

I'm not seeing the data to support that. The 350/R commends itself quite well on tracks without resorting to 1.7x the factory spring rate up front. I'm not saying the car can't work with 500+lb/in but I wonder if it's safe to say it's necessary. If Steeda's customers were all running 450+ I think they'd mention that.

Did you drive a 350/R around a track ? Even the R run springs that are good for the road and are more road than track. I work a lot with Kenny Brown (40 years of creating race cars) and his track cars with proven track wins use 800 lb front springs or more depending on track.

You are not seeing such rates on the cars here because people like you complain for street ability even from a 350 lb springs but that doesn't mean they are not used.

For example the Steeda #20 car is on MCS RR2 dumpers and is running more than 350 lb of front spring.

For daily drive car I could argue that you don't even need firmer springs the PP1 shocks and struts with good Front bar and great alignment is all you need in order to have an amazing canyon car that is super predictable and fun to drive in Mountain passes. I drive with bunch of Evo X's and I'm not slower than them in the corners and they say my car handles insane when pushed mostly because with my current setup I don't have under/oversteer which mean that car is perfectly balanced. Also GT spring rates are soft enough to be able to handle potholes good. Which in my 3rd world country is big deal. So you don't need to spend tons of money to have a reasonable daily driving Mustang you just need to step a bit out of the beaten path.

 

[guitrflip]

guitrflip - The 250-ish range really is a reasonable compromise point for the kind of car you're building here.

Norm

Thank you, Norm. I see. Originally, the spring rates that i was gunning for is 300-325lb/in. because I've heard it's kind of a sweet spot before the car goes intolerable. for street and it becomes dedicated to track-only kind of ride. What do you think? IS 300-325lb/in seem to high? I guess coming from 160 stock spring rate to 250 is a good enough for a noncoilover setup which is close to or more less to the GT350 spring rate.

 

[bnightstar]

Thank you, Norm. I see. Originally, the spring rates that i was gunning for is 300-325lb/in. because I've heard it's kind of a sweet spot before the car goes intolerable. for street and it becomes dedicated to track-only kind of ride. What do you think? IS 300-325lb/in seem to high? I guess coming from 160 stock spring rate to 250 is a good enough for a noncoilover setup which is close to or more less to the GT350 spring rate.

If you want street car go with BMR083 that are same rates as GT350 this will be fine for the street.

Sponsored