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


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-18-2012, 06:38 AM   #15
SUKXOST
Do you even lift, bro?
 
SUKXOST's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LE Camaro
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sumter, SC
Posts: 3,158
I want to lower mine as well. Too much wheel gap IMO. You'd have THOUGHT it would be a LITTLE lower than a stock SS
__________________
My 1LE (645WHP/597WTQ) build/journal Thread:
1st ever 1LE COTW http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255461
SUKXOST is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2012, 10:44 AM   #16
Sleez

 
Sleez's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010, 2LT, RS, 6M, ABM (#1893) SOLD
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Willits, CA
Posts: 1,438
cool, since i already have SS springs, i can add the 1LE struts and be golden!!!
Sleez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2012, 11:00 AM   #17
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
You can doesn't mean you should. Springs and dampers are matched pairs. You can run FE5 springs with FE2 dampers but they are not optimal. SS springs are really too soft for motorsport. How many sets of dampers does GM need for one set of springs? FE3, FE4, and now FE6?
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.
__________________
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 08-19-2012, 04:55 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, 11:58 AM   #19
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,306
Prices are cheaper than I thought they would be. Thanks for posting this info.
b4z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2012, 12:18 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 12:32 PM.
nak3dsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2012, 12:30 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, 08:37 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: 3,679
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, 01:07 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, 01:37 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: 3,679
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, 02:40 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: 3,679
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, 04:13 PM   #26
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,306
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, 08:19 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, 08:24 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
 
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 06:30 AM.


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