legacycentral bbs

Well. its finally up to about 6.5 -7 psi. And way too much torque for the stock suspension to handle in hard cornering. Meaning that where I used to be able to keep the pedal to the metal through a corner without losing traction or gettting to a G-force strong enough to mess with the stock suspension, now all the bad stuff happens. I took it through an "old" corner that I was always able to floor it through on the way to a nice long on ramp. Except today the rear end broke free, then the front broke and I wiggled, I waggled, but I didnt fall down. But I did semi crap my pants.

So... onto the new sway bars, and I am very glad I picked up those stock turbo legacy springs for $5 the other day. And new front struts. I wont be a race car, but at least I will keep it out the curb a little longer.

Oh, one more note. I wish I could yank the front sway bar off my van! I measured it today and it was a nice beefy 26 mm.

douglas vincent wrote: Meaning that where I used to be able to keep the pedal to the metal through a corner without losing traction or gettting to a G-force strong enough to mess with the stock suspension, now all the bad stuff happens.

You weren't entering hard enough .

Turbo springs = na springs

Solid struts are key.

Big swaybars make the car "step out" more easily; i would hesitate to go bigger than 20 unless i had really struts to support it. That implies that its a road or better yet, a track car.

I was joking about the 26 mm sway bar.

Are the turbo springs really the same as the NA springs? Darn. Out some money.

douglas vincent wrote:I was joking about the 26 mm sway bar.

Are the turbo springs really the same as the NA springs? Darn. Out some money.

I thought you were, but the "bigger bar is better" notion irks me. Most wrx people don't belong on 20's.

No, man! Just weld them all in line and stick your mailbox on top! it's funny as hell!

I don't think turbo springs are the same as non-turbo springs.

The part numbers seem to be different: http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~v/springs/

same spring rate, what else really matters?

I'm not confident they do have the same spring rate. I'm aware the factory service manual seems to indicate they're the same, but it does also seem to indicate that the rest of the suspension is the same. And we know it's not.

Actually, Douglas, if you do swap them you'd have a chance to measure the approximate spring rates... Just stand on the spring and measure how much it shortens. Your weight divided by that distance is the spring rate.

Hmmm...

Too much power for the stock suspension would mean you are twisting a subframe or lifting your nose off the ground.

You now have enough power to break your tires loose is more PC I would think . Do you need better tires? Suspension helps the contact patch and corner weighting and all that, but the tires determine whether the car will wiggle like that or not. Just making sure you get all the semantics correct . The amount of turn in body lean and such are effected by the suspension. Understeer/oversteer characteristics are a result of the driver, suspension settings, and the suspension itself. My Legacy did just fine at BeaveRun with blown struts and stock suspension, but the tires were decent (and the instructor was getting freaked out by the body lean in corners ).

But congratulations on now officially having enough power that you can't use it all - all the time I get the same feeling everytime I go from my Hatch to the Legacy. Triple the power and only 36% more weight, can't use WOT nearly as much .

Yah, so I don't know all the right terminology

But basically enough power to go accelerate fast enough in corners that the suspension now is the weak point. As well as the stock Potenza RE92's not being that good a tire supposedly.

Brat4by4 wrote:Too much power for the stock suspension would mean you are twisting a subframe or lifting your nose off the ground.

This is entirely possible. Remember the age of our cars......

on the 91 my chassis was significantly more flexy than on the 92, i'm guessing based on the dry rotted sway bar bushings and 200+k miles...

My first mods have been suspension, tire and brake related for a reason. Safety is key in cars, your car's suspension is only as good as your tires, but you seem to feel the tires a whole lot more with new suspension, So... suspension came first, then tires. Come tax return time, i'll probably have a slick little engine setup as well, I finally feel that the car is safe enough to throw more power at.

Best way to know whether or not you're ready to start modding your engine is to go balls out on an autocross track, if you easily lose control, it means it's time to start looking into tires or suspension

I started out with the engine first as my goal was to get my NA into the 14's at the drag strip by the end of the summer. And I did it. Not that it was NA anymore.

So now I have to get the suspension and brakes up to par as I want to do some track days this coming summer, not to mention some autocross. At the rallycross I don't notice the lack of suspension as much. And I definately have the tires for that!

I'd fix the RE92's first. Junk tires. Well they are not so bad they just have no feedback, they just go without warning. So if it's dry and warm and you don't push them they are ok.

I got Kumho ECSTAs in 205/50 16 for $53 ea at Tire Rack and am very pleased. Even kicked ass in the little snow falls we've gotten so far and in heavy rains. Predictable, good grip, well balanced, seem to wear very well, pretty quiet - unbeatable for the price!

Steve

RE92's are FUN!

I can slide on command and break loose in 1st in the dry from a roll

HORRIBLE performance, but fun, that's for sure.

Like the Jeep guys, they always have the most fun on the trail with all-season tires.

It's relishing in what the car CAN'T do (because of tires) instead of what it CAN do (with good tires).

Thread title-
Finally, too much power for the stock suspension.


Hmm.... i have the opposite

Too much stock for the power suspension.



Well i thought it was funny.

scottzg wrote:Thread title-
Well i thought it was funny.

It's entirely funny, in -your- head.

Douglas, *COUGH*coilovers*cough*withlightersprings*cough* Man, i've got some sorta type-cough-when-i-actually-cough disease today.. hmmm wonder if it's contagious.

I think I caught your *cough*coilover*cough* Jason.

Well I thought the RE-92's weren't so bad...until Wednesday. I took a spin around Roger Williams park, one of those Olmstead-inspired parks with swooping curved roads (off-camber, often), and terribly efficient stone walls for guard rail.

I was driveing a bit, ahem, spirited and lost the back end a little on a sweeper. Right into one of the stone walls, lightly. I knocked a basketball-size dent into the left rear quarter panel, with scrapes to go along with it.

I didn't see it coming at all. My other car would have been wailing a warning and I'm pretty sure I could have controlled it, but that would be on Potenza RE730's zr rated which I can assure you are an entirely different ballgame.

Bridgestone definitely makes some great tires, the RE-92's just aren't it.

That's the first time I've damaged a car on the road in 23 years of driving. To much reading y'all's wreck stories, it somehow got to me

Dear Santa,

All I want for Christmas is my two front coilovers.

and some rear ones two while your at it.