GI: YCW Reference Series Coilovers

[cybrphantom]

A couple simple ideas that would solve the castor adjuster-falling-apart problem... might work well on future batches of these and maybe your other platforms too if they are designed the same way:

• Use pressed-in studs instead of socket head cap screws.
• Put a couple small (like, 5mm wide) slots in the center section of the U shaped piece. Slot should be the same length as the slotted holes in the main strut mount.
• Use corresponding short M5 button-head screws & washers to lock the U-shaped piece to tapped holes in the camber plate.
• If you set this up with the base of the U facing outboard, you could easily access these small screws to loosen them when you want to adjust caster.
• Otherwise, they stay tight and your caster setting won’t change/things won’t fall apart when you remove your strut tower bar.

To prevent the falling apart problem on existing units, pushing a couple of these onto the top side between the body and your STB. would at least prevent parts from falling, although removing your strut tower bar could still result in an alignment change. https://www.fastenal.com/products/details/11264795 (not 100% sure this is the right size). Personally i'm just going to use two nuts (as i've always done anyway), one to secure the suspension to the car and a second set to secure the strut tower bar.

I think it makes complete sense that the center of the plate is offset. There is no reason why anyone would ever want less caster than the BG comes with stock (and if they do for some crazy reason, swap sides!). So, maxed out in one direction = centered = stock caster. All of your adjustability is in the other direction, yielding more adjustability than would otherwise be possible.

Back to the spring discussion

I stand corrected with picture project posted my apologies. But doesn't this basically make it a standard camber/caster plate? .

[MFactory]

Hey Jon,

thanks for the ideas. Well noted. For existing units, yeah, those bolt retainers are a good idea

for the front spring length, is no problem swapping them to the shorter spring as we have them in stock anyway, so it would just be a matter of us assembling the dampers with the required length of spring before shipping the orders out.

I just want to make sure James and projectb10 gives them some testing first just to confirm the theories

[projectb10]

A couple simple ideas that would solve the castor adjuster-falling-apart problem... might work well on future batches of these and maybe your other platforms too if they are designed the same way:........

Personally i'm just going to use two nuts (as i've always done anyway), one to secure the suspension to the car and a second set to secure the strut tower bar.

Back to the spring discussion

Yes I found that is the way the OEM Strut tower bar is mounted...on the Jap Import Eunos Presso anyway. I will have to check what the available (useable) stud length would be when the YCW parts are installed.

[therieldeal]

Yes I found that is the way the OEM Strut tower bar is mounted...on the Jap Import Eunos Presso anyway. I will have to check what the available (useable) stud length would be when the YCW parts are installed.

Since they've opted to use bolts you'd actually be able to swap them out for longer ones easily, if they end up being too short to use two nuts.

[KAinjection]

Still be far better off having a retainer with the bar on the tower instead of a strut bar on top of nuts...at that point it's nothing but an ornament adding weight.

So we good then on using shorter springs? Or upping the front rate or both?

How do you plan to implement a retainer on the existing sets?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[projectb10]

Still be far better off having a retainer with the bar on the tower instead of a strut bar on top of nuts...at that point it's nothing but an ornament adding weight.

So we good then on using shorter springs? Or upping the front rate or both?

How do you plan to implement a retainer on the existing sets?

James.

Correct. Again Mazda moved to that "tower" mounted Strut bar arrangement on chassis post the BG and EC. Much better in every way. Can I ask what the front ride height measurement was that you arrived at (clearance from road surface to lowest point on chassis rail/frame) for the test setup. Its very hard to estimate from the photos you posted. Do you have any "road legal" minimum clearance requirement where you live ?

[KAinjection]

Are you saying the tower mounted arrangement is better in every way?

No idea on ride height measurements, I just set it where I want it. We don't have any minimum that I am aware of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[projectb10]

Are you saying the tower mounted arrangement is better in every way?

No idea on ride height measurements, I just set it where I want it. We don't have any minimum that I am aware of.

What do you think? Two Mazda Lantis examples below. Mounted to the strut towers not to the suspension mounting bolts.





My intended use means the Presso must be road legal. The intended use is a fun"track day" car. I need to be able to be us it legally on the public road. Lots of rules here around modifications to OEM if the car is to be "road worthy".

I will need LVV (Low Volume Vehicle) certification on the coilovers as the springs and spring seats are not allowed to be height adjustable by any means unless the car has been inspected, tested and LVV certified.

Another of the rules deals with ride height. The requirement is a minimum of 100 mm ground clearance below any part of the vehicle structure, or any steering, braking, or suspension component.

The front 5K Sprint Springs work for me.

[KAinjection]

Oh, I already know mounting to the tower is better but just trying to get clarity on your statement.

Well if you have all those rules then you "may" not have the same problem I am but a shorter spring won't hurt just in case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[therieldeal]

I have no desire to go any lower than "control arms parallel to the ground" so i will probably be OK with the longer spring too.

[KAinjection]

Nobody should be ok with it. If you ever decide to go lower later then you will regret that decision.

It's not hurting anything to switch to a shorter spring, because if you end up needing it then it's already there and if you don't ever need then it won't affect you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cybrphantom]

I have no desire to go any lower than "control arms parallel to the ground" so i will probably be OK with the longer spring too.

Not everybody has the same intentions . Others might want to go lower. I know I'll be tucking wheels. And if I can't do that then It defeats the purpose of buying them.
I wouldn't mind the shorter spring or the upped spring rates

[therieldeal]

Fair enough, good point. As long as the spring isn't so short that the coils bind, the length shouldn't matter all that much.

I've been going back and forth in my mind as far as upping my front spring rate to 6K to match the front/rear ratio of my current setup (300#/200#) anyway. That rig handles surprisingly well despite the horrible dampers. A shorter 6K spring might be the best way to go.

[KAinjection]

If you follow the rating and measurements that I posted up then it's impossible for that spring to bind before you hit the bump stop.

If going to a 6K then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cybrphantom]

If you follow the rating and measurements that I posted up then it's impossible for that spring to bind before you hit the bump stop.

If going to a 6K then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6k front 5k rear ? I like sound of that