It just doesnt look right *update*

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Mon May 15, 2006 7:12 pm

I lowered my Ti on Jamex springs a few weeks ago supposedly with a 35mm drop all round.
However take a look at the pics and tell me if you think this looks right.

Front....

Rear....

Although it looks far better than it did standard,it has dropped the front far more than the rear.
The free spring length of the front Jamex are 2" shorter than the standard springs,whereas the rear springs were exactly the same length.
Anyone else had this problem with Jamex ?or have i got a dodgy set?

Jim

ves23_vessey · Post by **ves23_vessey** » Mon May 15, 2006 7:15 pm

How many miles have you covered mate...

Ususally they'll bed in with use

shaggy · Post by **shaggy** » Mon May 15, 2006 7:27 pm

Looks a bit strange

When i lowered my ti it was fairly even all round!

T4SWE · Post by **T4SWE** » Mon May 15, 2006 7:34 pm

i've used jamex springs on my 25 but i've had the opposite problem...my front is higher than the back lol its not as noticable as yours though i'd get in touch with them!!

Sheaf · Post by **Sheaf** » Mon May 15, 2006 8:10 pm

Nose down looks

if you ask me... should help reduce understeer and also rubbing when the back's loaded... so it's not all bad

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Mon May 15, 2006 8:43 pm

ves23_vessey wrote:How many miles have you covered mate...

Ususally they'll bed in with use

TBH i have hardly used it as i put it on SORN at end of April(hence the rusty discs

)
But even if they did bed down wouldnt it be all 4 springs? and then the front would be positively "slammed".

Sheaf...yeah i suppose it does have advantages of being able to load it up without fear of it riding on its backside and from the front it does look pretty aggresive,but its certainly not a stance i was expecting.
The camber on the front wheels is also noticeably different ,dunno if its negative or positive but the tops are angled into the arches.

will-220GSiTurbo · Post by **will-220GSiTurbo** » Mon May 15, 2006 9:50 pm

they wont settle that much though.i had this problem with my GSiTurbo,but with apex yellow springs.i bedded em in for 500 miles,got pissed off and cut 2 coils off the rears,it then sat spot on.if you dont want to cut the rears,get em off and get Gmax,they are the only spring ive never had a problem with, and they arnt mega bucks.

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:15 am

Is that a Ti kit???
Or a kit for the 620?

rover220 · Post by **rover220** » Tue May 16, 2006 6:14 am

Grant620 wrote:Is that a Ti kit???
Or a kit for the 620?

agreed, they are probably desinged for the honda engined 600's and not the heavier Ti

fluke · Post by **fluke** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:26 am

Well heres mine freshly lowered (A week and 400 odd miles) on AVO's from Steve B.

Jynx · Post by **Jynx** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:35 am

The rears always seem to take longer to 'settle' as they dont have much weight over them.

Do a few hundred miles and look again, get that bad boy back on to road!!

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Tue May 16, 2006 6:43 pm

Grant620 wrote:Is that a Ti kit???
Or a kit for the 620?

Although the Ti wasnt specifically mentioned in the fitment every other model was,including the diesel.
I was a bit undecided at first because of this,but i thought that if they are ok for the diesel then they should be ok for the Ti.
Is the Ti so much heavier on the front than a diesel that it would drop it an extra 30/40 mm?.
What i cant understand though is why the free-spring length is 2" shorter than the standard springs on the front,yet identical length on the rears

fluke ..yours looks nicely balanced there and probably 35 mm higher on the front than mine is,yet lower at the back.

Cutting springs!! is that a viable option to lower the back another inch or so? or is it a nasty bodge?

Jim

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Tue May 16, 2006 6:46 pm

Bodge!
Rears will be close to dropping out of seats already.
Send them back IMO

fluke · Post by **fluke** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:15 pm

DO NOT CUT THEM

Send em back they are the wrong ones.

rover220 · Post by **rover220** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:25 pm

cutting them is perhaps the most dangerous thing you could do with springs.

as above^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Steve B · Post by **Steve B** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:08 pm

I will double check the fitment with Jamex tomorrow, but the listing for Jamex is exactly the same as Avo. Avo springs are for all 600 as well, just they drop the diesel slighty more, and they fit fine.

They do need time to bed in , rears are probably progressively wound hence a similar length, but as I haven't seen the springs myself I can't say for sure.

Give them some mileage first, and I will contact Jamex. If they are still like it after some mileage, we will sort the issue out.

turboestate · Post by **turboestate** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:18 pm

my grey ti was exactly the same as your's, never did come down.
i used the same spring again on my red ti and it was spot on.

johno · Post by **johno** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:12 pm

just a random thought but are the springs sitting properly in their cups at the rear? were all the bolts tigtened up with the car sitting on the ground..shouldn't make much difference tho....looks to me like there is maybe too much drop at the front?

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:15 pm

Diesel engine is heavier than the T16.

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Fri May 19, 2006 10:18 am

Everything is as it should be,the springs are all seated ok.
The rears have dropped by about 30/35 mm but its the fronts that have dropped by about 60mm maybe even more.
There is about 2" of suspension movement left on the fronts and they are rock hard.
Thinking about it now,when i was fitting the front springs the lower end of the spring that goes in the retaining groove on the strut was a very very tight fit and i had to use a mallet to get them into the groove.
Seems the actual circumference of the springs ,at least at the bottom is slightly too small.The tops of the springs are ok though and fitted perfectly into the rubber cup.

Steve...the rears are progressively wound and are far more compliant than the fronts.
The springs have a number stamped on them and if its any help i can try and find these numbers to see if i haven`t got a mismatched set or something?

Jim

DaveR · Post by **DaveR** » Fri May 19, 2006 10:42 am

Looks wrong to me. Sure they need to bed in a bit, but the rear looks high and the front is sooo low!

Steve B · Post by **Steve B** » Fri May 19, 2006 11:10 am

Bikernut wrote: Steve...the rears are progressively wound and are far more compliant than the fronts.
The springs have a number stamped on them and if its any help i can try and find these numbers to see if i haven`t got a mismatched set or something?

Jim

Hi Jim

If you can get any numbers that would be very handy, I will then double check everything.

Steve

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:09 pm

Ok, Steve

front spring number is 100161 31/05
Rear spring number is 100144 20/05

Rears have dropped by more or less the stated amount as you can see from this pic before i put the rear jamex springs on:

Standard rear springs

Jamex Rear Springs

Jim

MG_Venom · Post by **MG_Venom** » Sat May 20, 2006 6:38 pm

Dose look good, straige why the front has dropped alot more than the rear...? cant really give a reason for that, but still nice though

Podman · Post by **Podman** » Sat May 20, 2006 7:15 pm

Shoudl handle well under acceleration at leat... I gotta put mine liek taht a bit on it's coilovers to aid teh handling, I'm kinda starting to like taht pose fo rthe Ti anyway.

s0ck · Post by **s0ck** » Sat May 20, 2006 8:37 pm

I think it looks pretty good, nose down

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:56 pm

Well i finally put the Ti back on the road last week.
However it quickly became apparent that it was decidedly dangerous with the Jamex springs so low on the front .
Apart from a lack of suspension movement and the fact it was running perilously close to the speed humps,it just didnt feel right to drive.

The castor effect of the steering had all but gone,it was also unstable at speed with a marked increase in the tramlining effect.Was also binding on the inner wing on full lock.

So i HAD to remove the front springs,i left the rear Jamex on as they are ok.
I put the standard fronts back on BUT i had to chop a coil of them to make the car sit right.I know this is against advice i have had on here but it was the only and easiest option available to me at the moment to make the car drive safe.

All said and done the car is now about 30mm dropped at the front and 35mm at the back.The steering is good and precise and the suspension doesnt feel much different ,maybe a touch harsher and harder.

Jim

Podman · Post by **Podman** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:56 pm

Looks good m8 but you seriouldy wanna get new springs on teh front befor ethey do damage to the seating. Bit dangerous now if you ask me.

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:41 pm

Surprisingly the seating is still fine,as the bottoms of the springs aren`t flattened like the tops.so they still locate perfectly in the retaining notch on the strut.
Obviously though its only a stop-gap measure because now the spring ratio to damping force will be way out.
Too much rebound damping and not enough spring recoil(as the springs have now been effectively weakened) can cause the suspension to "pump down" and bottom out.
This is a phenomena i have learned from the biking world where the rebound damping is to high it effectively stops the spring returning to the status quo in time for the next bump.The next bump then compreses the suspension even more,until it gets "pumped down " and bottoms out.
This does happen ...particularly under braking.Although i doubt it would happen in the Ti pootling down to the supermarket.

Jim

BlueRover · Post by **BlueRover** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:20 am

Not having done any spring mods before, I can't really comment but is it possible the springs have been swapped, front and rear ?

benji_ · Post by **benji_** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:22 am

Bit late now but..... Don't worry about springs being different lengths, it's the way they're wound that gives them their properties, you can't tell much by lookin at them. I had similar issues when I had my suspension fitted.

Did you get the geometry of the suspension re-aligned when you put the different set up on?

DaveR · Post by **DaveR** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:35 am

Looks better. Perhaps you can get a couple of front springs made up somewhere?

Steve B · Post by **Steve B** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:39 am

I did look into the problem and Jamex say there shouldn't be an issue, also I took a look at my Ti (SW Autodesign Version) and the front is lower than the rear on my Ti as well, by a couple of mm.

With the Jamex springs on, your car sits no lower than my Ti, and we don't really have many issues with speed bumps and the like, they are just taken slowly.

If ours does hit anything, it is the exhaust about half way down the car. I think if the tracking had been checked and adjusted the steering would have probably been fine.

Steve

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:17 pm

You may well be right Steve,but the fact remains that it was dropped possibly twice as much at the front than at the back.
For this reason alone i decided that they are not right,it didnt look right.
Its also perfectly feasable that the nose down/arse up stance has a negative effect on the castor effect of the steering centralisation.

Jim

Rovertech 2.0

It just doesnt look right update

It just doesnt look right update