Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Grabiak Performance Center
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Specific Models / Packages > Camaro 1LE Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-19-2012, 05:55 AM   #18
Sleepy
 
Sleepy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 LS M6 SW
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by nak3dsnake View Post
Except the ZL1 front spring rates are almost identical to the SS front spring rates. And The rears are much stiffer to allow for hard launches and better control. Springs manage the weight of the car, a stiffer spring rate will allow you to handle better. Yes finding the right spring rate + dampening level is more optimal. Ford runs GT spring rates on V6 dampeners with the Performance package from the factory. With your logic no one should lower there cars with spring with much high rates than from the factory. There are aftermarket companies that use the same springs and rates for both V6 and V8 cars.
ZL1 front spring rate IS identical to SS. They are both 27 N/mm. The rears are different, SS is 66 N/mm and ZL1 is 70 N/mm. Higher spring rate doesn't mean better control. Control comes from matching dampers to the springs in compression, rebound, and travel. What higher spring rate will give you is less body movement (body roll, brake dive, and squat under acceleration). You will think the same damper can be used for SS and ZL1 springs but it isn't optimal because the travel is different. ZL1 suspension travel is lower compare to SS but it can get away with it because MRC can dial in more compression when it detects a big hit. SS structs are not as smart. If you compare v6 to SS springs, you will see that lower 25 N/mm spring rate of v6 is compensated by longer travel of 96 mm. 25 N/mm x 96 mm = 2400 Newton unit of force to bottom out. SS springs are 27 N/mm x 84 mm = 2268 N.

I don't know about Mustangs so I am not going to comment on them but I will say something about aftermarket lowering springs. It is MY OPINION that most lower the car's handling capacity. Lowering springs have too little travel, too low of spring rate, and factory dampers cannot control them well. It is basically a cosmestics modification at the expense of handling. I am not saying you cannot lower your car with higher rate springs. All I am saying is that you gotta match those springs to proper dampers. Pedders supercar coilovers have 8kg/mm springs up front. This is twice the factory spring rate but it rides and handles very well. Compare that H&R super sport lowering springs that has very close to factory rates and you'll quickly see the importance of matching springs to dampers.
Sleepy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2012, 12:58 PM   #19
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,286
Prices are cheaper than I thought they would be. Thanks for posting this info.
b4z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2012, 01:18 PM   #20
nak3dsnake


 
nak3dsnake's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro IBM 2LT/RS M6
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by b4z View Post
Prices are cheaper than I thought they would be. Thanks for posting this info.
They're pretty good prices, better than what I would have thought. Though the rear shock mount pricing is odd. They are the correct numbers but one is twice the price of the other. It makes me wonder if its differnt, or and error in pricing.
__________________
Looks: AAC P13W DRLs, Heritage Grille, RS Embroidered Headrests, GM Door Sill Plates, GM Premium Floor Mats, Body Color Engine Cover, LLT Mobile 1 Oil Cap, ZL1 Sport Pedals, 3M Clear Bra.
Performance: Vararam Ram Air Intake, Hurst Short Throw Shifter w/ Hurst Hard Drive Pistol Grip, IDEALG Clutch Master Cylinder, RX Catch can, GTO clutch fluid reservoir, Brembo Brakes, 1LE Track Pack, GMPP Exhaust Upgrade.

Last edited by nak3dsnake; 08-19-2012 at 01:32 PM.
nak3dsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2012, 01:30 PM   #21
nak3dsnake


 
nak3dsnake's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro IBM 2LT/RS M6
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepy View Post
ZL1 front spring rate IS identical to SS. They are both 27 N/mm. The rears are different, SS is 66 N/mm and ZL1 is 70 N/mm. Higher spring rate doesn't mean better control. Control comes from matching dampers to the springs in compression, rebound, and travel. What higher spring rate will give you is less body movement (body roll, brake dive, and squat under acceleration). You will think the same damper can be used for SS and ZL1 springs but it isn't optimal because the travel is different. ZL1 suspension travel is lower compare to SS but it can get away with it because MRC can dial in more compression when it detects a big hit. SS structs are not as smart. If you compare v6 to SS springs, you will see that lower 25 N/mm spring rate of v6 is compensated by longer travel of 96 mm. 25 N/mm x 96 mm = 2400 Newton unit of force to bottom out. SS springs are 27 N/mm x 84 mm = 2268 N.

I don't know about Mustangs so I am not going to comment on them but I will say something about aftermarket lowering springs. It is MY OPINION that most lower the car's handling capacity. Lowering springs have too little travel, too low of spring rate, and factory dampers cannot control them well. It is basically a cosmestics modification at the expense of handling. I am not saying you cannot lower your car with higher rate springs. All I am saying is that you gotta match those springs to proper dampers. Pedders supercar coilovers have 8kg/mm springs up front. This is twice the factory spring rate but it rides and handles very well. Compare that H&R super sport lowering springs that has very close to factory rates and you'll quickly see the importance of matching springs to dampers.
So the mag ride let's them get away with running the same rates in front and near the same in back with a shorter spring. I personally wouldn't lower my car but I had assumed that most manufacturers increased rates more than slightly over stock to compensate for the lower height.
__________________
Looks: AAC P13W DRLs, Heritage Grille, RS Embroidered Headrests, GM Door Sill Plates, GM Premium Floor Mats, Body Color Engine Cover, LLT Mobile 1 Oil Cap, ZL1 Sport Pedals, 3M Clear Bra.
Performance: Vararam Ram Air Intake, Hurst Short Throw Shifter w/ Hurst Hard Drive Pistol Grip, IDEALG Clutch Master Cylinder, RX Catch can, GTO clutch fluid reservoir, Brembo Brakes, 1LE Track Pack, GMPP Exhaust Upgrade.
nak3dsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 09:37 AM   #22
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 10 Legacy 2.5GT, ...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 3,513
So it appears that the 1LE is following the "big bar/soft spring" approach relative to the SS by increasing only the bar stiffnesses. Even BB/SS tweaking affects the strut/shock valving, which we don't know anything about anyway.


Sleepy - most of the Mustang lowering springs range between about 25% and 75% stiffer than OE, and that's probably true generally. For the amounts typically lowered, that's not enough stiffer to hold the frequency of bump stop contact down to OE levels. But it is too much stiffer than OE for the OE dampers to properly control for best grip. What stiffer springs with OE damping does do is move the level of "critical damping" down toward "best ride", which may explain why there aren't very many complaints about lowering not fixed by trimming the bump stops.

Geometrically, lowering springs give something up that effectively "steals" part of the benefit that the increased rate is supposed to be providing, assuming that what you're primarily after with your new springs in the first place is more spring rate. Wanna bet that most purchasers of "lowering springs" don't think past the amount lowered?


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 02:07 PM   #23
Sleepy
 
Sleepy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 LS M6 SW
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
So it appears that the 1LE is following the "big bar/soft spring" approach relative to the SS by increasing only the bar stiffnesses. Even BB/SS tweaking affects the strut/shock valving, which we don't know anything about anyway.


Sleepy - most of the Mustang lowering springs range between about 25% and 75% stiffer than OE, and that's probably true generally. For the amounts typically lowered, that's not enough stiffer to hold the frequency of bump stop contact down to OE levels. But it is too much stiffer than OE for the OE dampers to properly control for best grip. What stiffer springs with OE damping does do is move the level of "critical damping" down toward "best ride", which may explain why there aren't very many complaints about lowering not fixed by trimming the bump stops.

Geometrically, lowering springs give something up that effectively "steals" part of the benefit that the increased rate is supposed to be providing, assuming that what you're primarily after with your new springs in the first place is more spring rate. Wanna bet that most purchasers of "lowering springs" don't think past the amount lowered?


Norm
Norm, maybe we should start calling them "performance springs" so that lowering amount will not be the only thing that matters. I think Mustang guys are lucky. They have choices like Steeda Competition and Koni Yellows. Camaro guys have Eibach Pro-Kit and KYB GR-2 . Big bar/soft spring is great for body roll and ride but it doesn't do anything for dive and squat. Suspension geometry didn't change so anti-dive, anti-lift, and anti-squat remain the same. Also, big bar take away some independent from independent suspension. I can't wait to see more reviews on this car. I think this whole sub 3 mins VIR time is mostly the tires if it is even achievable.
Sleepy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 02:37 PM   #24
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 10 Legacy 2.5GT, ...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 3,513
Performance springs - I like that better, but it's probably a case of shovelling sand against the tide at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepy View Post
Suspension geometry didn't change so anti-dive, anti-lift, and anti-squat remain the same.
Actually, things like geometric roll centers and anti effects all vary with ride height. It's not that the curves for any of those things plotted against ride height have changed, just that you're operating in different regions of those curves once you lower the car. Or raise it up, for that matter.

As an example, it is entirely possible with some suspension arrangements for the anti-squat % to drop slightly over the first inch of rear suspension compression (squat), before turning around and increasing with still further squat. Even stranger curve shapes are possible, but at least the odd variations in the middle are relatively minor.


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 03:40 PM   #25
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 10 Legacy 2.5GT, ...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 3,513
One rather important consideration I left out ↑↑↑ is camber gain. With a strut suspension, the lower you go without getting into correcting the geometry, the slower your camber goes negative to compensate for roll as the suspension is compressed still further (consider what the outside suspensions are doing while cornering). With struts up front and either a multi-link IRS or just about any stick axle suspension arrangement, this becomes an understeer effect.


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 05:13 PM   #26
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,286
gM is a big fan of soft springs and big bars they always have been.
Someone at GM is apparently unaware that the bigger the bar, the less "independent" the suspension becomes and ride quality can go to crap just like it does with stiff springs.
b4z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 09:19 PM   #27
Sleepy
 
Sleepy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 LS M6 SW
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
Performance springs - I like that better, but it's probably a case of shovelling sand against the tide at this point.


Actually, things like geometric roll centers and anti effects all vary with ride height. It's not that the curves for any of those things plotted against ride height have changed, just that you're operating in different regions of those curves once you lower the car. Or raise it up, for that matter.

As an example, it is entirely possible with some suspension arrangements for the anti-squat % to drop slightly over the first inch of rear suspension compression (squat), before turning around and increasing with still further squat. Even stranger curve shapes are possible, but at least the odd variations in the middle are relatively minor.


Norm
Is it true some of these anti effects causes undesirable behaviors? I have heard of WRX understeers on power during corner exit because of anti-dive. I don't really understand how they are related but Whiteline has a kit on the market to eliminate anti-dive for that car.
Sleepy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 09:24 PM   #28
Sleepy
 
Sleepy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 LS M6 SW
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
One rather important consideration I left out ↑↑↑ is camber gain. With a strut suspension, the lower you go without getting into correcting the geometry, the slower your camber goes negative to compensate for roll as the suspension is compressed still further (consider what the outside suspensions are doing while cornering). With struts up front and either a multi-link IRS or just about any stick axle suspension arrangement, this becomes an understeer effect.


Norm
IRS is one of the main reason I purchased this car. Multi-links are great. Good negative camber gain on compression. Great for cornering and this is the reason why people can't get back their factory alginment spec after lowering aggressively. Upfront, struts are the standard economy car stuff. Very little negative camber gain on compression. Not so good for cornering or lowering but with the Camaro, we get to relocate two ball joints instead of one if we want to correct the geometry for lower ride height. I can't complaining. This is expected for the price of this car. I am happy with it.
Sleepy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 09:26 PM   #29
Sleepy
 
Sleepy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 LS M6 SW
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by b4z View Post
gM is a big fan of soft springs and big bars they always have been.
Someone at GM is apparently unaware that the bigger the bar, the less "independent" the suspension becomes and ride quality can go to crap just like it does with stiff springs.
I agree completely. I don't think more than 50% of roll stiffness should come from bars. It'll be better if they increase both springs and bars rates equally. Maybe there is a corporate limit on suspension frequency at GM that I don't know about. Wouldn't it be cool if fbodfather comes in here and answer some of these questions?
Sleepy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 09:30 PM   #30
L99CAMA2011


 
L99CAMA2011's Avatar
 
Drives: One of the baddest handling Gen 5s
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Masachusetts
Posts: 3,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by nak3dsnake View Post
I didn't ask for it but I can. The current SS diff is $1821.43 though. prepare to pay a bit more for a complete 1LE diff. XD The 2012 front endlinks are much thicker and use larger 12mm studs instead of the 10mm used on the 2010 links.
End link studs are same 10mm.
L99CAMA2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 09:37 PM   #31
Synner


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS M6
Join Date: May 2011
Location: US
Posts: 3,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by nak3dsnake View Post
They're pretty good prices, better than what I would have thought. Though the rear shock mount pricing is odd. They are the correct numbers but one is twice the price of the other. It makes me wonder if its differnt, or and error in pricing.
One is listed as an SS and 1LE part number while the other is 1LE and ZL1 specific so something isn't right. Why would only one mount be different?
Synner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 09:44 PM   #32
L99CAMA2011


 
L99CAMA2011's Avatar
 
Drives: One of the baddest handling Gen 5s
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Masachusetts
Posts: 3,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by b4z View Post
gM is a big fan of soft springs and big bars they always have been.
Someone at GM is apparently unaware that the bigger the bar, the less "independent" the suspension becomes and ride quality can go to crap just like it does with stiff springs.
Actually pal not so at all. Even the Pedders ZL-1 bar isn't so bad. I now have the ZL-1 stocker in the rear of my car and even with Pedders stiffer swaybar bushings the car handles very well and still has compliant suspension. No twisting, breaking my rear motions going on when I pull into gas stations sideways.
L99CAMA2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 10:41 PM   #33
nak3dsnake


 
nak3dsnake's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro IBM 2LT/RS M6
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synner View Post
One is listed as an SS and 1LE part number while the other is 1LE and ZL1 specific so something isn't right. Why would only one mount be different?
It shouldn't be, both were supposed to be ZL1 mounts when I got the numbers. I asked to have them verified because somethings just not right.
__________________
Looks: AAC P13W DRLs, Heritage Grille, RS Embroidered Headrests, GM Door Sill Plates, GM Premium Floor Mats, Body Color Engine Cover, LLT Mobile 1 Oil Cap, ZL1 Sport Pedals, 3M Clear Bra.
Performance: Vararam Ram Air Intake, Hurst Short Throw Shifter w/ Hurst Hard Drive Pistol Grip, IDEALG Clutch Master Cylinder, RX Catch can, GTO clutch fluid reservoir, Brembo Brakes, 1LE Track Pack, GMPP Exhaust Upgrade.
nak3dsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 10:42 PM   #34
nak3dsnake


 
nak3dsnake's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro IBM 2LT/RS M6
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by L99CAMA2011 View Post
End link studs are same 10mm.
Ok, someone else posted on another thread that they were larger 12mm studs. Thanks for clarifying.
__________________
Looks: AAC P13W DRLs, Heritage Grille, RS Embroidered Headrests, GM Door Sill Plates, GM Premium Floor Mats, Body Color Engine Cover, LLT Mobile 1 Oil Cap, ZL1 Sport Pedals, 3M Clear Bra.
Performance: Vararam Ram Air Intake, Hurst Short Throw Shifter w/ Hurst Hard Drive Pistol Grip, IDEALG Clutch Master Cylinder, RX Catch can, GTO clutch fluid reservoir, Brembo Brakes, 1LE Track Pack, GMPP Exhaust Upgrade.
nak3dsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.