Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com - View Single Post

robertway · 08-27-2010, 08:35 PM

Rob/Pete, thanks for taking the time to post up the information. I just wanted to get a better understanding of some of your points because I am still researching the eventual route I'd like to go with coilovers once I get to the point that my driving skills get beyond the lowering springs I currently run on the car.

Forst and foremost, for the sake of full disclosure and to not appear to be a mole infiltrating the thread, I currently am running Pfadt sways and springs and their coils were one of a few toward the top of my list for future suspension upgrades along with the Pedders units, KW units and now even possibly the Penskes that were just posted about.

The main points I'd like some more insight into are #1 and #2.

For #1, I don't follow how the use of the spring perch to raise or lower the car effects the compression on the spring, as long as the strut rises or falls with the raising or lowering of the perch I would think that the pre-compression on the spring would remain the same. With the rise and fall of the strut I would think 1000 ponds of car sitting on the corner is going to pre-compress the spring the same regardless if it is one inch higher or two inches lower. I apologize if my terms are a bit off but I am coming from the "mortal man using layman's term" side of the suspension equation.

As for #2, looking at the construction of the OE rear strut, it appears that the shock bush is load bearing already and the rubber bush is just in there to help GM meet their "ride quality"/ NVH specs. I don't see how removing that rubber bush all of a sudden makes the shock bush load bearing when it already appears to have to handle the full load presented to it by the rear strut with the bush in there to dull the NVH.

I want to make sure you guys understand that the reason I am getting involved here and probing a little bit more is I just want a better understanding of the points you are trying to make about the design some manufacturers have chosen to use in the past and even the present. I'm not going to try and hide the act that I know a couple of the design points you reference here are found in the Pfadt Coilovers for the Camaro while at the same time you admit that the spring perch to adjust ride height has been used by yourselves in the past. It is sometimes very difficult to come across as sincere with questions on a forum so I am doing my best to do just that and not have my questioning appear as though I am trying to start a vendor war. I hope you'll view it the same way and offer some further insight into your points above as it will probably help me and many other in my/our decision-making process.

Thanks in advance....

08-27-2010, 08:35 PM	#10
robertway Drives: 2012 Challenger SRT8 Auto Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Central New Jersey Posts: 839	Rob/Pete, thanks for taking the time to post up the information. I just wanted to get a better understanding of some of your points because I am still researching the eventual route I'd like to go with coilovers once I get to the point that my driving skills get beyond the lowering springs I currently run on the car. Forst and foremost, for the sake of full disclosure and to not appear to be a mole infiltrating the thread, I currently am running Pfadt sways and springs and their coils were one of a few toward the top of my list for future suspension upgrades along with the Pedders units, KW units and now even possibly the Penskes that were just posted about. The main points I'd like some more insight into are #1 and #2. For #1, I don't follow how the use of the spring perch to raise or lower the car effects the compression on the spring, as long as the strut rises or falls with the raising or lowering of the perch I would think that the pre-compression on the spring would remain the same. With the rise and fall of the strut I would think 1000 ponds of car sitting on the corner is going to pre-compress the spring the same regardless if it is one inch higher or two inches lower. I apologize if my terms are a bit off but I am coming from the "mortal man using layman's term" side of the suspension equation. As for #2, looking at the construction of the OE rear strut, it appears that the shock bush is load bearing already and the rubber bush is just in there to help GM meet their "ride quality"/ NVH specs. I don't see how removing that rubber bush all of a sudden makes the shock bush load bearing when it already appears to have to handle the full load presented to it by the rear strut with the bush in there to dull the NVH. I want to make sure you guys understand that the reason I am getting involved here and probing a little bit more is I just want a better understanding of the points you are trying to make about the design some manufacturers have chosen to use in the past and even the present. I'm not going to try and hide the act that I know a couple of the design points you reference here are found in the Pfadt Coilovers for the Camaro while at the same time you admit that the spring perch to adjust ride height has been used by yourselves in the past. It is sometimes very difficult to come across as sincere with questions on a forum so I am doing my best to do just that and not have my questioning appear as though I am trying to start a vendor war. I hope you'll view it the same way and offer some further insight into your points above as it will probably help me and many other in my/our decision-making process. Thanks in advance.... __________________ "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin LS3 Camshaft Swap Do-It-Yourself Instructions - 2010 LS3 gone but not forgotten!!!