Coil Overs; Better or not?
Thread Starter
Melting Slicks
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,662
Likes: 8
From: Knoxville Tennessee
Coil Overs; Better or not?
I have seen coil overs mentioned a few times but don't understand how they could make the suspension better unless it just removes weight. Why would you want coil overs on the front? Wouldn't the single monospring conversion be better like the newer vettes? Why would you want them on the rear? I could see some reasons there; but why have some of you done it? Is it race specific modifications, do they improve ride or handling? This one has me guessing.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,434
Likes: 0
St. Jude Donor '07
They are more adjustable. but if you want to race and you install coil overs it moves you up to the pro division, Same with the mono spring front suspension. I think that the stock suspension is pretty adjustable already and i think the stock set up is the best for starting to race. having all the coil overs and stuff will not help anything if you dont stiffen the frame because the frame will just bend. the only way coil overs help is if you have a triangulated roll cage that is tied into the frame so the frame doesnt twist. But if you want them on your daily driver you can adjust the ride height to the height you like. but on the down side is the 2000 dollar price tag. Van steel has some semi coil overs that are 500 and are fully adjustable like coil over but 1/4 the price. I belive ther is a thread with tips for installing the semi coil overs.
Race Director
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 16,945
Likes: 9
ride height adjustability
weight balancing
less unsprung weight
easy spring removal/swap
true independence unlike transverse leaf
most coil over shocks have large aluminium bodies > cooler running > less chance of oil foaming
compact design
weight balancing
less unsprung weight
easy spring removal/swap
true independence unlike transverse leaf
most coil over shocks have large aluminium bodies > cooler running > less chance of oil foaming
compact design
Le Mans Master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,434
Likes: 0
St. Jude Donor '07
Originally Posted by Twin_Turbo
ride height adjustability
weight balancing
less unsprung weight
easy spring removal/swap
true independence unlike transverse leaf
most coil over shocks have large aluminium bodies > cooler running > less chance of oil foaming
compact design
weight balancing
less unsprung weight
easy spring removal/swap
true independence unlike transverse leaf
most coil over shocks have large aluminium bodies > cooler running > less chance of oil foaming
compact design
That stuff too.
Senior Member since 1492
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 87,953
Likes: 156
From: Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get me...
St. Jude Donor '09
Originally Posted by 71coupe
I'll keep my stock springs. I think Cali had them and was complaining about the noise. I think he said they rattled.
If anything, I think I'd check out the air bags for the front. BUT that's a looooong way off for me and just an inquiry.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,727
Likes: 39
From: Fremont CA
Originally Posted by 71coupe
I'll keep my stock springs.
Drifting
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,825
Likes: 56
From: Shawano WI
There is only one compelling factor that would make true coilovers better than a conventional setup, and that is to place the lower mounting point closer to the contact patch of the tire. By placing the lower mounting point closer to the contact patch you are able to control the movement of the suspension much better. This is enabled by the compact design of the small spring on the coilover. If you mount a coilover in the same location as the conventional spring you have not made any improvements to the design of the suspension.
But you have made the suspension easier to work on and easier to adjust for corner balance. Unsprung weight reduction is very minimal because only half of the shock/spring unit is considered unsprung. Running lighter a-frames/spindles/hubs/rotors/or wheels would be a much greater savings in unsprung weight. The biggest reduction in unsprung weight is acheived by mounting the shock with the body up. Shock heating is actualy increased with a true c/o because the smaller spring is closer to the shock body and deminishes the air movement around the body. Alumnum body shocks help this situation.
Properly mounted true C/O's can be a benifit to suspension design. Semi-C/O's have no benifit except to make you faster by reducing the weight of your wallet.
But you have made the suspension easier to work on and easier to adjust for corner balance. Unsprung weight reduction is very minimal because only half of the shock/spring unit is considered unsprung. Running lighter a-frames/spindles/hubs/rotors/or wheels would be a much greater savings in unsprung weight. The biggest reduction in unsprung weight is acheived by mounting the shock with the body up. Shock heating is actualy increased with a true c/o because the smaller spring is closer to the shock body and deminishes the air movement around the body. Alumnum body shocks help this situation.
Properly mounted true C/O's can be a benifit to suspension design. Semi-C/O's have no benifit except to make you faster by reducing the weight of your wallet.
Last edited by Pete79L82; Dec 2, 2004 at 08:23 AM.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Every 2027 Corvette Engine Explained
Joe Kucinski
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Verdad Gallardo
10 Ugly Corvettes That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Drifting
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,825
Likes: 56
From: Shawano WI
Originally Posted by Twin_Turbo
That is actually what i am doing, I have the lower mount for the coil over where on the normal arm the bump snubber is.
That is the correct way to do it. But I would assume that you have to cut and reinforce the spring pocket in the frame to get clearence. True C/O's are a benifit but definately not a bolt on application to do it right!
Pete
Race Director
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 16,945
Likes: 9
I am going to remove the spring pocket and plate up that section with a inwards bent piece to give more clearance, I'm also going to remove the upper arm mounts. I have something completely different for that and will show it when I get done with that 
Pro
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 592
Likes: 4
From: Denmark
What do you guys think of the tubular A arms and coilover kit from Jim Meyers racing? Ive been looking at that for a while.
http://www.jimmeyerracing.com/cv7.html
http://www.jimmeyerracing.com/cv7.html
Race Director
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 16,945
Likes: 9
this is Meyers kit
I think it's as good as a bolt on could be, the shocks are kind of short but that's to be expected for a bolt in that has the ability to drop the car to low ride height without the adjusting collar at the end of the shock.
Longer shocks could have been used if those upper shock mount adapters were not used but the frame modified for a through bolt like norval has. The adapters are those 2 things above the shocks, they adapt from rod eye mount to the stock cushion type setup w/ a threaded rod through the hole.
I think it's as good as a bolt on could be, the shocks are kind of short but that's to be expected for a bolt in that has the ability to drop the car to low ride height without the adjusting collar at the end of the shock.
Longer shocks could have been used if those upper shock mount adapters were not used but the frame modified for a through bolt like norval has. The adapters are those 2 things above the shocks, they adapt from rod eye mount to the stock cushion type setup w/ a threaded rod through the hole.
Race Director
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 16,945
Likes: 9
Yes, in fact those arms will be stronger & probably lighter also, I think they are dom tubing and tig welded. The upper arms use the stock ball joint, I would have preferred a later model mini ball joint, maybe it's possible to get those. I like the later ball joint much better than the earlier one.
Melting Slicks
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,435
Likes: 0
From: largo florida
And just incase you guys are wondering about pricing...
63-82 coil over kit includes, Upper and Lower tube A-Arms, Adjustable coil over shocks $1495.00. Our handeling package includs the above along with a front and rear sway bars with rear adjustable shocks. Rears are not coil overs. $2495.00
So I guess the swaybar pictured isnt included in the 1500 price.
63-82 coil over kit includes, Upper and Lower tube A-Arms, Adjustable coil over shocks $1495.00. Our handeling package includs the above along with a front and rear sway bars with rear adjustable shocks. Rears are not coil overs. $2495.00
So I guess the swaybar pictured isnt included in the 1500 price.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,727
Likes: 39
From: Fremont CA
STOP RIGHT NOW! I wouldn't put the front suspension loads on my upper shock mount and expect the upper shock mount to stay attached to the frame for any extended length of time. The lower control arm might be OK to use in a semi-coilover application but, don't expect this set-up to work on stock GM welds and production line build quality! The upper spring pockets of the production frame are quite strong with a BIG surface area and will take the loads for the long haul. My 2 cents on the subject.