cups v. coilovers?

[sfwilliams@comcast.net (Scott F. Williams)]

Mike Abatzis wrote:
> i'd still like to know, by the way. seriously i'm sure someone
> has these things in their 16v?

Yeah, I'm very curious about this, too. I'm really surprised that there
aren't 8v and 16v-specific spring kits.

> also, the bias is affected by plenty of other things besides
> spring/damper rates.

Of course, you're right about that. But, if we hold everything else constant
to make a scientific comparison (tires, anti-roll bars, etc.), then these
variables are all that matter to the handling bias.

> i still say the 16v springs were upgraded at the factory primarily
> for a sportier, stiffer feel.

Define what you mean by "sportier". To me, sporty handling means
"responsive" and "neutral". Stiff simply means stiff. :^) We could throw
huge spring/damper rates on our cars and make the things ride like trucks.
That wouldn't be sporty at all. :^)

> they obviously weren't optimized bias-wise,
> since the car still had plenty of understeer.

Well, the factory engineers might say that the suspension was optimized
according to the handling dynamics that *they* wanted. Optimal handling is a
rather subjective notion, of course. The point here is that the 16v has both
stiffer front springs and a larger diameter (stiffer spring rate) rear
anti-roll bar. The increases in rate at *both* ends reduce understeer
compared to if the car was equipped with the 8v parts.

That set up understeers lots more than the stock 16v. This brings to
practical fruition the notion that the 16v's increased engine weight imparts
a significant influence on handling and that the spring rates should be
adjusted accordingly.
--
Scott F. Williams
NJ Scirocco nut
'99 Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS
Mazda 323 GTX turbo "assaulted" vehicle
Golf GTI 16v "rollycar"
ClubVAC: "Roads found. Drivers wanted."