Damn, that's a lot of information that I straight-up do not understand!
| 4g61t.org http://www.4g61t.org/forum/ |
|
| dsm vs csm spring rates http://www.4g61t.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=39065 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | turbo=good [ Fri Aug 15, 2014 4:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | dsm vs csm spring rates |
I am working on an 4g63 open wheel car right now. Im looking for some specs on spring rates. How would front springs on a 1g fwd dsm compare to the front springs on a csm. I basically going through my options of stock fitment parts first before going cu$tom. The car will be 50% of the weight of a normal dsm, so the factory springs will be too stiff. Are CSM spring weaker? Other options? coilover options? |
|
| Author: | CaptainTonus [ Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: dsm vs csm spring rates |
CSM springs are definitely weaker, but I have no idea what the stock spring rates are for either CSM or DSM's. I doubt anyone knows for sure. |
|
| Author: | j2dapo [ Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: dsm vs csm spring rates |
Search the gvr4 forum. The dsm/galant spring info is posted there. Edit: Found it, its hard to read and the format isn't great. Link On my sedan, I'm running the Galant AWD rear spring, (15.2" Len-112 lb/in). It's sits too high up with the extended top hats I made. I may try to get the DSM 1.8 (13.24"-112lb/in) or Galant SOHC (13.76"-117.6 lb/in). These should bring it down with a similar spring rate. (I don't want to cut the spring, they are in nice shape and getting hard to come by these days). Quote: Model Front Spring Length (in) Front Spring Rate (lb/in) Rear Spring Length (in) Rear Spring Rate (lb/in)
1g FWD 1.8 12.9 (M/T) 13.2 (A/T) 123 13.25 112 1g FWD 2.0 12.4 (M/T) 12.7 (A/T) 134 12.46 128.8 1g FWD 2.0T 12.7 (M/T) 12.9 (A/T) 134 12.46 128.8 1g AWD 12.9 (M/T) 13.1 (A/T) 146 13.1 140 Galant FWD SOHC 14.1 (M/T) 14.4 (A/T) 112 13.48 (High Line, 1989) 13.76 (High Line, 1990+) 13.76 (Premium, 1989) 14.04 (Premium, 1990+) 117.6 Galant FWD DOHC 14.8 (M/T) 14.8 (M/T) 112 14.04 117.6 Galant AWD 2.0 13.9 (M/T) 14.2 (A/T) 134 15.3 112 Galant AWD 2.0T 14.2 134 15.3 112 |
|
| Author: | Flying Eagle [ Fri Aug 15, 2014 4:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: dsm vs csm spring rates |
Tuners thread: http://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/spring-rates.213963/ That covered DSM values in OEM and some aftermarket. Still need GVR4. |
|
| Author: | Flying Eagle [ Fri Aug 15, 2014 4:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: dsm vs csm spring rates |
Got it: http://www.galantvr4.org/docs/suspension.asp From lilevo.com/mirage/ 89 turbo manual Front Colt/Mirage 89 1.5l 90 lbs.in 89 1.6NA + TC 106 lbs.in Rear Colt/Mirage 89 1.5 92 lbs.in 89 1.6L 104 lbs.in |
|
| Author: | CaptainTonus [ Fri Aug 15, 2014 5:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: dsm vs csm spring rates |
Damn, that's a lot of information that I straight-up do not understand!
|
|
| Author: | j2dapo [ Sat Aug 16, 2014 11:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: dsm vs csm spring rates |
Are the lengths listed too? Quote: Got it:
my sedan has the stock front struts and springs. I like the ride height. The back is all DSM/GVR4. Its pretty stiff (104 vs 112 lb/in). Image putting on the AWD DSM rear springs on a colt; (104 vs 140 lb/in) that's 40% stiffer... http://www.galantvr4.org/docs/suspension.asp From lilevo.com/mirage/ 89 turbo manual Front Colt/Mirage 89 1.5l 90 lbs.in 89 1.6NA + TC 106 lbs.in Rear Colt/Mirage 89 1.5 92 lbs.in 89 1.6L 104 lbs.in 
|
|
| Author: | Flying Eagle [ Sat Aug 16, 2014 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: dsm vs csm spring rates |
Now you need a shock that is valved to handle 40% more spring, and last any great length of time; measured in rebounds/jounces. Coil-overs with proper valving, will allow for height compensation, get a vehicle dialed in for the type of driving it is supposed to see. I'm reading through a bunch of early posts here on the board, and it seems most guys don't wan to lower the car more than 40mm or so, because the geometry of the front suspension changes considerably otherwise. I regret being almost 2" lower. I would like to get the car sitting higher, with a better shock absorber setup. 196/65 14 just isn't cutting it, performance wise, nor are old bushings. BUT I digress, as I would like to know if the OP has found what he needs, or not. |
|
| Author: | turbo=good [ Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: dsm vs csm spring rates |
cool, thanks for the links…hmm, what to do |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC-05:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|