GrantB

I'm looking for a shock setup (preferably coilover, though would consider leaf springs) with digressive valving for my race car build.

DRM says their Bilstein setup is digressive, but I've been unable to get a dyno plot from them. LG told me they'll have a digressive setup coming out soon, but I haven't been able to get a dyno plot of that either. Pfadt's shocks were said to be digressive.

Are there any others which are affordable? Konis maybe? I don't need multiple ***** or anything like that, just a decent digressive setup valved for ride frequencies in the 2.3-2.5 Hz range.

Thanks for any help.

crimlwC6

Can't comment on whether or not digressive but changed from pfadt sa shocks to drm bilsteins with great results on my race only c5.

JeremyGSU

I can't comment on the other shocks either but for the money I don't think you'll get a better shock option than the DRM.

Matt_27

Koni 3013s can be valved to act somewhat digressive on compression but the curves still won't look like an MCS or Penske. Shocks without dyno plots are pretty useless IMO if you are seriously doing setup work.

strano@stranoparts.com

Most decent shocks are digressive at some point. I know I've run a lot of shocks and have ones I like and don't.

But there is a huge lack of information here, and frankly if I'm building a car I'm not building one I have no option of adjusting the damping on, while worrying about them being digressive or not. Not that I don't want digressive, I like that usually.... but also Corvette shocks don't have huge forces from the factory, and when Koni kind deals with those type forces at the bottom there is no room for them to be digressive. At the upper ends they certainly are. I have the curves.

I've been playing with Ridetech stuff lately, a few different versions and have some insight there too, but depends on what you do... coil-over or not. I also carry MCS, and KW too.

theseal

I have an almost new set of Koni singles for sale...

Xian

Can you expand a little more on valving for the C5Z and where/how the Koni's work into it? Are the 3013's a "typical" Koni shock where there's not a ton of compression but a decent amount of rebound control? Coming from a completely different car where I was using MCS's, I'm wondering how the Koni's will drive on course vs. stuff with a ton of low speed compression. Or is the C5Z an application where low speed compression is of limited benefit?

PS
All this is assuming AS trim ^^^.

Matt_27

Yes I am also extremely interested in this. If someone was able to share C5 3013 dyno plots that would be AWESOME.

RBbugBITme

Penske has non and single adjustable shocks for the C5/C6 now for pretty cheap.

mgarfias

Define cheap?

RBbugBITme

http://shop.penskeshocks.com/CORVETTE-C5-C6-NA-SA/

For what you're getting... Honda ricers spend $2k on crap shocks everyday.

mgarfias

Maybe with the next bonus check...

edwardo99

Here's what I'm doing for BS autocross this year after 2 years on Koni 3013.
Bought a used set of pfadt doubles. These were $5k remote-reservoir coilovers based on Ohlins LMJ with low friction ball mounts at each end designed for corvettes. I got them cheap.
Sent them to RE Suspension, who built them for Pfadt, it turns out. Had them remove the cheap Bilstein pistons that Pfadt specified and replaced with true ohlins digressive- linear and set up to my wishes. Tons of low-speed compression with the knee at 1 in/s. (No kidding!) not yet installed.

Xian

For the SA's, that's $2700... at that point I think I'd be looking at MCS. They've got non-remote Singles listed for $2750 and Doubles for $3450. At that price point, I just can't imagine not springing the extra cash for compression adjustment. Then again, I look at the MCS non-remote Doubles which aren't much less than the remote doubles so I know where I'd land. Again. LOL!

RBbugBITme

I'm not sure what you're saying. The single and double adjustables are almost identically priced and Penske Triples are $5200 vs $7900 for MCS.

Xian

Based on the link to the Penske's above, they're only $50 less than MCS when comparing non-remote Singles. Personally, I've had great experiences with MCS so why go with Penske when there's no significant savings? At that point ($2700), why wouldn't you spring another ~$700 to step up to the MCS Doubles? And if you're paying the $3450 for non-remote doubles then why not spend a little more and jump to the remote canister doubles?

Triples are great but that's a tough buy-in regardless of the manufacturer. I had triples on the front of my last car and absolutely loved them but I don't know that I could justify the expense...

RBbugBITme

There are plenty of reasons but I'll leave that alone I guess.

The rest of your logic is sound if the end user is going to make use of the additional adjusters.

Xian

Yeah, the slippery slope of pimp shocks. All it'll cost you is the most that you can spend.

GrantB

I've had very good experiences with non-adjustable shocks set up "by the book", with a steep knee around 3 in/s and critical damping falling from 65% to around 30% at higher speeds. I realize they are not likely to be ideal, but fewer ***** often means lower costs, lower rebuild costs, and in the case of Bilsteins, less frequent rebuilds. I've had bad experiences with adjustable linear shocks on stiffly sprung cars (Viper ACR; they did not come with regular KW valving) either being too stiff to handle sharp bumps well, or too soft to control the car properly.

strano@stranoparts.com

But that's an issue with valving, not with the damper being adjustable.

You never want less than critical damping IMHO. What I want is more than critical tapering off to critical.

The issue with non-adjustables is simple. Say you don't like the valving, similar to the way you didn't like the base valving of the Viper stuff? Now you have NO options.

I strongly disagree with the notion that some have that if you have, say 10 adjustments, that by definition 9 are wrong. I submit that 1 of those 10 will be better, but the one you like might well be different than what someone else likes. Also a change to the car otherwise, say a set of tires, could well lead to a want to change shocks. Set A might turn in slower than Set B, so you could well make a damping change to change the response and feel of the car for A vs. B. Or, you could just live with what you get.

I play with shocks a lot. Some I love, some I hate, some can go from terrible to nice in a few clicks of a ****. In fact I was testing some last weekend, the rears were way underdamped even for the street, but they were also adjustable. 4 clicks added and all the float and uncertainty--gone. This is on a street car driving down I-95 on All-season tires (conti DWS's).

Yes, I want *good* adjustable shocks. Many aren't. Would rather have a Bilstein over a QA1, would rather have a Koni or a Fox/Ridetech over a Bilstein.