| ausmini https://ausmini.com/forums/ |
|
| Better than average mini handling https://ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5581 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | miniVan [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Better than average mini handling |
has anyone had any experience with the cone replacement coil springs?? eg: http://www.minispares.com/Product.aspx?pid=37254 or the complete coilover kits? http://www.minispares.com/Product.aspx?pid=34279 there not much more expensive than competition cones http://www.minispares.com/Product.aspx?pid=37258 are these worth the money over standard cones with good shocks? i'm just looking for anyone with experience for each type guys forums open! |
|
| Author: | fuzzy-hair-man [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There was a topic on coil springs a fair while back heres the thread http://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4185&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=coil+springs |
|
| Author: | Chris [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There was recently a thread on mini mania regarding these and some recent breakages that have occured. KC is fairly vocal about what he thinks of them! |
|
| Author: | Chris [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here it is...... http://www.minimania.com/web/threadid/6 ... thread.cfm Complete with pics. |
|
| Author: | miniVan [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ok.. so i see kc's point on the cone replacement coils.. but i dont understand the problem with complete coilovers if uppermounts a strengthened approprately also.. with my recent trumpet failure.. i dont see why people are so concerned with coil failures.. its not like i can now go and sue morris for their trumpets failing to last 40 years of abuse |
|
| Author: | min13k [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
but they did last 40 years of abuse these things are lasting a mater of months ....... coil overs are good BUT you need to cut and shut the rear towers and strengthen the uper suprts cos the cone takes most of the shock out the ride and the shock smoothes it out also the cone takes the weight not the shock so now you are puitting all the weight on the coil over if you know what i mean so streghtening it would be a good idea makka |
|
| Author: | miniVan [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
the coils are binding so snapping.. bad design as they are like one fat coil coilover for me are the way to go i need more room in my engine bay (need to remove cone towers) anyone know anything about rear beam suspension? like a 5 link rear end instead of the rear mini subframe |
|
| Author: | Chris [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
miniVan wrote: the coils are binding so snapping.. bad design as they are like one fat coil
coilover for me are the way to go i need more room in my engine bay (need to remove cone towers) anyone know anything about rear beam suspension? like a 5 link rear end instead of the rear mini subframe There are mounting kits that we are assured require no body mods. Beams I believe require major body mods to incorporate the control arms required to locate the beam. |
|
| Author: | nuclear_mini [ Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
why dont you just go conventional mini handling tuning... if you want to spend loads of money, get some of those KAD alloy trailing arms for the back end! They will help keep the weight down and make it handle better... properly setup negative camber arms and caster... and the biggest of all!~ right tyres... |
|
| Author: | miniVan [ Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
just weighing up my options.. because clearly a setup of suspension "engineered" in my garage will clearly out perform the original.. hmm how does sarcasm come though in text,.. anyway |
|
| Author: | miniVan [ Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
my main reason for this is trying to get extra room in the engine bay for a starlet engine in my roundy.. so i will go coilovers at the front.. the rear however is another kettle of fish.. i cant see how beam axle can outperform the IRS i have now (if setup correctly with camber brackets/hilos/road-rally cones/sway bar) |
|
| Author: | nuclear_mini [ Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
the beam axle is really good for handling because it cuts down on a heap of weight... well thats the way i think it works. Properly setup IRS is slick though and I dont know if it would be value for money putting a beam axle in.... Is this on the money guys? |
|
| Author: | Morris 1100 [ Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
One advantage of the beam axle is that the wheels always stay at the set angle to the road (except over bumps). If you set it up with 1° of camber that is what you will have when you are in a corner. With the trailing arm suspension you can set it up with 1° but when the car rolls in a corner the loaded wheel rolls with the car and you lose the camber. |
|
| Author: | miniVan [ Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
why would all these manufactures be going to IRS is live axle was so good then? i can only see weight as being an advantage |
|
| Author: | Chris [ Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Morris 1100 wrote: One advantage of the beam axle is that the wheels always stay at the set angle to the road (except over bumps). If you set it up with 1° of camber that is what you will have when you are in a corner.
With the trailing arm suspension you can set it up with 1° but when the car rolls in a corner the loaded wheel rolls with the car and you lose the camber. I also suspect it will suffer big toe changes as well. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|