2Fass240us
forum member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Posts
- 324
- Reaction score
- 1
pew pew pew!!!
I do not expect my word to be taken as gospel but when 7 people voted a Vorshlag Bilstein non-adjustable set-up as better than a JRI set-up, then I have to chime in because that is complete bullshit.
If the Bilstein setup were adjustable, then it might well be a better setup for the OP because the OP's requirements are primarily for the street. It would depend on the OP's durability versus performance tradeoff preferences (of course, this presumes that such a tradeoff would be necessary. What durability data exists for dampers such as the JRIs?).
I think it'll be interesting to see how well your JRIs hold up on the street. It'll be a testament to them if they hold up over a period of years or something without requiring a rebuild, but your personal requirements might demand a rebuild before then.
The JRI setup (from Maximum) is perhaps the only coilover setup that would meet my needs for my street car, because it's the only coilover setup I know of for which the vendor claims it can get me to stock ride height. The Konis and Boss 302 springs take my front as low as I'm willing to go. Even with this, I sometimes (not badly) scrape my front on the driveway.
I have a street / track car and my front height is enough to clear parking blocks and I have no problem with driveways as of yet. It is not stock height, but neither is it slammed. As for how long they will last before rebuild, we will see. The OP indicated he wanted to do some autocross and trackdays and he wanted full adjustibility and he did not care if he had to rebuild them periodically. JRI's fit that bill better than Bilsteins. BTW I like Bilsteins. Have had them before. But not in same league as a JRI or MCS set up.
BTW, I suspect those MCS shocks are probably pretty damn good and may be every damn bit as good as Terry suggests, but there is a weight of opinion about JRI's that was simply not being acknowledged.
I've been throughly pleased with my front Cortex JRi DA setup in combination with rear Penske 7500 DA's. Night and day better with the JRi up front then it was with the Cortex Koni DA setup in the front before. You can go full retard at all times now with total confidence which is a good thing for someone like myself who see's red every time the road starts to get twisty
The tire clearance argument is a none issue IMO as seen in the pick below. This is the clearance with an 18x10 Forgestar and 275x40x18 RE-11 on my car. I have no doubt that a much larger Rim/Tire setup could fit with zero issues despite the Eye/Eye shock config in the back.
In terms of ride height adjustment with that setup, me thinks it's another none issue unless your Snoop Dog trying to flip switches for the bitches on a Friday night in the mall parking lot.
I'm dropped 1.5" or so in the back and 1.25" or so in the front (going by memory) and still have threads on the shock body to play with if need be.
Thanks for the picture. Saves me a lot of trouble.The tire clearance argument is a none issue IMO as seen in the pick below. This is the clearance with an 18x10 Forgestar and 275x40x18 RE-11 on my car. I have no doubt that a much larger Rim/Tire setup could fit with zero issues despite the Eye/Eye shock config in the back.
Not immediately acknowledged to your "greatest thing since sliced bread" standards, perhaps. But OP's purposes sounds like a new market for them, and it'll take time before the kind of recognition they deserve makes it way around the HPDE/autocross/serious dual purpose community***.BTW, I suspect those MCS shocks are probably pretty damn good and may be every damn bit as good as Terry suggests, but there is a weight of opinion about JRI's that was simply not being acknowledged.
I think concerns about unibody strength at the rear shock tower are very valid. I would also say that whoever built/designed the factor S197 race cars did too. Otherwise, you're just bolting to sheetmetal. IIRC, there is no bracing, gusseting, triangulation, or anything in an S197 where the shock top mount goes.
This is a picture of the trunk of a Boss 302S- note that the cage takes the load from the spring mounting point. Whether this is by design or accident, I do not know for sure, but I would suspect the former.
For anybody who needs a refresher on the 302S suspension setup, it used a concentric coil over shock rear.
Most of the series of which I am aware that the 302S could be used in mandate a small tire (IE, a 275 in NASA AI), so the wheel clearance thing is probably rarely a concern, unless you want to use the car for a different series. Which...if you're somewhere with unlimited tire and can afford a 302S, you an probably afford to flare the car and buy big wheels.
As for relevant tech I will point to the fact that you can't show me one case of rear shock tower failure on an S197. As for the benefits of concentric outboard coilovers See Cortex response above.Not immediately acknowledged to your "greatest thing since sliced bread" standards, perhaps. But OP's purposes sounds like a new market for them, and it'll take time before the kind of recognition they deserve makes it way around the HPDE/autocross/serious dual purpose community***.
But even that might still come up short of your standards, where you have this tendency to see as substandard everything you aren't currently running (especially if it's something that few others are using). At least that's how it reads. Consistently. You wanted to know where it came from . . .
If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't have listed the non-adjustable Bilstein setup as an alternative either. Though I sort of understand how it ended up there. The fact that the rear springs are divorced from the dampers (in the MCS) affects your choice of rear spring and bar stiffnesses, and the damper settings required as a result, but I don't see any order-of-magnitude magic hiding in making the springs and dampers concentric here. Feel free to convince me otherwise, if you can do so in terms of pure/flat/unemotional relevant tech and not via product names and testimonials.
*** 50 years ago, Bilsteins and Konis weren't exactly household names either.
Norm
The matter of shock tower strength aside, the
Cortex says this:
Taken fron Boss Mustangs online:
Reply #2 on:*November 24, 2014, 01:55:06 PM »
"Failure of the rear upper shock mounting point of the S197 chassis is extremely*unlike.* We have never seen it happen and there is good reason.* The upper mounting pad is tied directly into the rear unibody frame rails with steel that is quite thick.* The upper pad that the OEM shock bushings bolt to approximately 0.200" thick and it is surrounded by multi-wall heavy duty vertical reinforcements on all sides. The CorteX Racing upper shock mounts have a large pad area that spreads the loads and feeds them directly into all of the vertical supports surrounding the bushing pad area.* Because the shocks are nearly vertical there is essentially no side loads (horizontal). For those that are not convinced, you could always retain the OEM bump stops that are bolted to the top of the axle tube and shorten them as needed to ensure adequate bump travel. We do this on the majority of our installs mainly because it is easier on the shocks over time.* If retained, the OEM bump stops would take loads from a large hit such as jumping the car instead of the shock mounts. We have spent a fair amount of time thinking this through and testing our design on daily driver and dedicated race cars of a number of years.* The benefits of a much improved motion leads to better ride quality and much improved handling. Properly setup full coil-overs on an S197 are amazing and we highly recommend them for all serious enthusiasts."
I believe them I don't believe you.
I measured something like 34" on my '08. But I don't remember taking any measurements between either the axle side or body side shock pickups.Does anybody know what the C-C spacing is..of the oem springs ? They sit well inboard of the oem rear shocks.
The relationships between spring deflection and shock piston movement for the various body motions will change (and won't change by the same amount), so the forces will change. Things like axle roll steer and anti-squat will not change at all assuming that you maintain the same ride height and LCA/UCA/PHB linkage pivot points - which is really where the suspension geometry part is.The inverted rear coil overs, being located a lot further apart vs oem springs....would change the rear suspension geometry a bunch... I suspect like apples + oranges.
You just asked the question that some people on here consider classified info including guys that own them.
For me, I chose a bit more conservative route with 18X10ET43 which has sold a zillion and works well. As I see it, the clearances of concern are the struts to inner side of rim for the front and the rear is avoiding excessive poke on the outer rim side with inner clearance sufficient enough to not be a concern (at least up to 11").
Using the 18X10ET43 as reference, to maintain the same front inner clearance and same outer clearance in the rear, you merely adjust offset 1/2" in opposite directions and I think you would have to be extremely close to as good as the magic Vorshlag numbers.
I would bet that a 30F & 55R would be very close to correct assuming some amount of negative front camber beyond Ford Spec. You guys that have been sworn to secrecy tell me I'm not very close. Every individual setup may take a bit of tweaking with any offset is why I chose not to push the limit.
I do not claim to be any kind of expert; I just don't see it as rocket science. Just adjust the numbers based on a tried and true unclassified setup.