When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I keep wanting to install the coilovers. I think that with the coilovers the suspension is truly independent.
This is not true. I went into real detail on this in a different thread (link to that post). The short version is that a car with a transverse lateral leaf spring and a swaybar is no more or less independent than a car with coil springs and a sway bar. A transverse leaf can be set up to be completely independent from side to side by putting the center clamps close together (like on the rear of a C4), or it can be set up to provide a small anti-roll (like a swaybar) effect by spreading the center clamps far apart (like on the front of a C4). But once you add a swaybar into the mix, then you take away some of the suspension's independence (regardless of the spring form factor). Nobody runs a C4 without a substantial front swaybar, so the whole issue of suspension independence is moot: all C4s run with significant anti-roll, which is the same as saying they all run with reduced independence. Switching to coil springs won't change that.
But I worry that the coilovers will be too stiff for street use. This car will rarely see the track.
You should be able to get coil springs in any rate you could reasonable want. That's actually one of the advantages of a coilover setup that uses standard 2.5" springs: lots of selection for free length and rate! But as I've written before, spring rate is not the biggest determinant of ride quality in most cars. By far the biggest factor affecting ride quality is damping curves, followed by certain bushings' hardness of spring mounts and subframe bushings. I think if you stay within the typical spring rates that most people use, you will not render the car too harsh for the street, but you'll need to pay attention to the shocks that come with your setup.
Fact - I stated it was my personal experience and opinion that a 600 lb coil was more efficient than a 600 lb leaf in the front of the C4.
(and lets not split hairs over the leaf 600 lb rate, early springs slightly less, later ones slightly more)
Fact - I stated that an upright coil was more efficient than the lateral leaf (again my opinion based on the above) I did not state the leaf was inherently inefficient due to the fact it is lateral. Matthew made a comment about a spring being a spring being a spring and its rates remain constant. My reply was if you begin to lay a coil over it loses its rate and its not the same spring anymore (I used this as an example) this then turned into an attack by Matthew and Tom who have both decided to go off on their own little tangent about how wrong I am about leaf springs.
Fact - my experience and opinions are based on converting my C4 to coilovers (both front and rear) and going racing with them. Perhaps Matthew and Tom could do the same and then get back to us with their 'experiences' on the subject.
I can happily accept that people wont always agree with anyones (including my) point of view. Quotes like this are make it quite clear that you do not value anyones opinion or experience if it differs from your own beliefs on the subject.
The tag team tactics of Matthew and Tom are nothing short of online bullying, but it has been going on in CF/C4 for quite a while now, and it does nothing to promote any healthy conversation on any topic - I have seen many people suffer from tirades against them like this thread has produced. Its a damn shame really.
Well, color me a bully if you like, but you do not have the necessary mastery of the principles at work or even the terminology to contribute to this discussion. All I can tell that you've done is swap parts several times and jumped to erroneous conclusions. Yes, you went faster, but your conclusions are not supported by the facts. If you removed a spring that gave a 600 lb/in wheel rate and replaced it with a different type of spring that gave a 600 lb/in wheel rate with no other changes you would experience the same suspension travel. An upright (perpendicular to the suspension movement) coil spring has a higher motion ratio than one which is angled. That's why the angled coil spring must be a higher rate to achieve the same wheel rate. You did not state this originally and what you did write indicated that a leaf spring would lose rate if laid down. Bunk. We know, as GM did, that higher wheel rates, will increase cornering limits. I know that you raised your wheel rates as the car ceased to bottom out and the clock showed the benefit.
And to think I came here just to find the front suspension motion ratio and then calculate the wheel rate of the '93 I just bought as it came to me with QA1 coil-overs.
Any chance that you can talk Chris Ramey into posting a picture of his rear coil over shock mounts he fabricated to beef up the lower mounting point?
This is a good place to point out that the new Ridetech coilover kit contains a steel reinforement bracket for the rear coilover mounts that looks a lot like Chris Ramey's idea. Which is to say that it is probably the best option out there for coilover swap kits. So far I've heard no word on anyone coming to take VBP's place as a manufacturer of aftermarket high-rate, adjustable monoleaf springs for C4s.
Well, color me a bully if you like, but you do not have the necessary mastery of the principles at work or even the terminology to contribute to this discussion. All I can tell that you've done is swap parts several times and jumped to erroneous conclusions. Yes, you went faster, but your conclusions are not supported by the facts. If you removed a spring that gave a 600 lb/in wheel rate and replaced it with a different type of spring that gave a 600 lb/in wheel rate with no other changes you would experience the same suspension travel. An upright (perpendicular to the suspension movement) coil spring has a higher motion ratio than one which is angled. That's why the angled coil spring must be a higher rate to achieve the same wheel rate. You did not state this originally and what you did write indicated that a leaf spring would lose rate if laid down. Bunk. We know, as GM did, that higher wheel rates, will increase cornering limits. I know that you raised your wheel rates as the car ceased to bottom out and the clock showed the benefit.
And to think I came here just to find the front suspension motion ratio and then calculate the wheel rate of the '93 I just bought as it came to me with QA1 coil-overs.
This is why I dont come into CFC4 anymore, because it contains idiots like you.
You must be friends with Matt or Tom, and if you arent you soon will be.
A 5 minute Newby drags up an old thread so he can trash talk, what a moron. Your incoherent ramblings make no sense.
If your such an expert why dont you know what your motion ratio is, or how to work it out yourself.
My head is spinning..; Anyway can I put coil overs on an 87 ?? The only one I can find is an Exotic Muscle for the front with a skinny spring. Looks kind of odd. Or has anyone modified the front brackets on these early c4's?
blackozvet, if you don't want to be here, don't be here. OTOH, if you are here, then don't **** up the thread telling us how much you don't want to be here!
Originally Posted by TommyFox
My head is spinning..; Anyway can I put coil overs on an 87 ?? The only one I can find is an Exotic Muscle for the front with a skinny spring. Looks kind of odd. Or has anyone modified the front brackets on these early c4's?
You'll have to search for it, but I know there was a thread on here a couple years ago (at least) where someone modified the bracket up front. It can be done, but it isn't simple.
I looked at the Ridetech site to check out the bracket but didn't see the product.
It's part of their big 89-96 Coilover kit. If you go that page and look at the first picture of the entire kit, they are the black brackets on the outside top corners of the pic, just above the two outside coilovers. They call them "Lower Shock Mounts" in the instructions.
My head is spinning..; Anyway can I put coil overs on an 87 ?? The only one I can find is an Exotic Muscle for the front with a skinny spring. Looks kind of odd. Or has anyone modified the front brackets on these early c4's?
I had somebody use a custom mount - a repurposed Grand Cherokee bracket - on the front. I didn't install a rear coil over...used the stock transverse spring but installed a lowering block. Haven't tracked it yet...seems to work pretty well though. QA-1 Double Adjustable Generic kit w/Eibach springs.
I had somebody use a custom mount - a repurposed Grand Cherokee bracket - on the front. I didn't install a rear coil over...used the stock transverse spring but installed a lowering block. Haven't tracked it yet...seems to work pretty well though. QA-1 Double Adjustable Generic kit w/Eibach springs.
Interesting you remember what year and model Cherokee? Did you go to a salvage yard and cut them off?
Hi everyone, I can see that most of the people on this thread are far more experienced then I am and I did my best to digest the knowledge put out in this, I own a 1996 c4 corvette base model and I recently lowered the front and read of the car by cutting down the rubber (I know I know big no no) I wanted to have a lower stance but it as bit me in the bum slightly my passenger side wheel well got some rubbing on the top when I’m Turning hard I want to still keep the nice look of having it lowered and I need to replace my shocks int the front and rear I will be doing a coil over conversion like in the tread above but I’m looking for more information on bracing the front strut mount, everyone seems to be in agreement that it is necessary and I will do it but I guess I have to ask if it is practical for just a daily driver. Furthermore where should I brace it Om trying to develop a plan of attack for myself as I hate running into problems head first. If anyone has any information it would be greatly appreciated
On a 1996, there is enough room for the shock and spring. The tower is strong enough. Look a couple posts up. Jaye Bass has the hot ticket.
I agree, there is no need to reinforce the upper shock mount, front or rear, in order to install a coilover. The shock by itself puts far more force into that mount on quick/sharp bumps than the spring ever will. The only mount that's a concern is the rear lower mount - it helps to brace it.
You'll have to search for it, but I know there was a thread on here a couple years ago (at least) where someone modified the bracket up front. It can be done, but it isn't simple.
After looking at it closely the front can be done fairly easily. It's the back that's a concern. A rear reinforcement bracket for the early C4 would be the ticket to keep from breaking off the lower mount ear.
After looking at it closely the front can be done fairly easily. It's the back that's a concern. A rear reinforcement bracket for the early C4 would be the ticket to keep from breaking off the lower mount ear.
I am probably going to do the front only at first so I'm not worried about the rear right now. I will make sure that I reinforce the back one when I do it though.
I am probably going to do the front only at first so I'm not worried about the rear right now. I will make sure that I reinforce the back one when I do it though.
I have an 87 so a little bit more of a pain. For now I'm going to get the cheap lowering kit. I just want some better aesthetics on ride height.
