Bilstein Alternatives?
#46
01-04-2010, 03:58 PM
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fastlane USA
Posts: 2,319
Rep Power: 244 
I've had lowering springs (Cargraphic made by H&R). I do not recommend other than for looks. Makes the car real bouncy and jittery.
I've also had the JRZ's. Great handling(if you're on a smooth road). The ride is extremely stiff even at a 400 front 500 rear spring rate. For mostly track use or if the roads around you are smooth, this is an awesome setup. It was way too much for our roads here in California.
I currently have the KV V3's (all other parts constant from the JRZ setup.. sways, droplinks, toe links, and top mounts). It is a great compromise between the stock setup and the JRZ setup. The ride quality is greatly improved over the JRZ's, but you don't lose much in performance at all. The dampers work real well over uneven and rough surfaces. I think the primary reason for this is the progressive rate springs used in the KW's. I highly recommend the KW coilovers to anyone.
You do have to disable the PASM function though. IMO, that was a useless function for me anyways. I don't miss it at all.
I've also had the JRZ's. Great handling(if you're on a smooth road). The ride is extremely stiff even at a 400 front 500 rear spring rate. For mostly track use or if the roads around you are smooth, this is an awesome setup. It was way too much for our roads here in California.
I currently have the KV V3's (all other parts constant from the JRZ setup.. sways, droplinks, toe links, and top mounts). It is a great compromise between the stock setup and the JRZ setup. The ride quality is greatly improved over the JRZ's, but you don't lose much in performance at all. The dampers work real well over uneven and rough surfaces. I think the primary reason for this is the progressive rate springs used in the KW's. I highly recommend the KW coilovers to anyone.
You do have to disable the PASM function though. IMO, that was a useless function for me anyways. I don't miss it at all.
#47
01-04-2010, 04:03 PM
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fastlane USA
Posts: 2,319
Rep Power: 244 When the car is lowered, the stock Bilstein front drop links have been reported to fail. The exact incidence is not known, but I would say it is a fairly rare event. It might be an issue that occurs with excessive lowering or maybe not?? I believe the stock 997TT front drop links are too long for the Bilsteins, the stock rear drop links work just fine.
Kinda makes one pause and think about leaving it stock doesn't it?
Kinda makes one pause and think about leaving it stock doesn't it?
#48
01-04-2010, 04:29 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York, USA
Age: 54
Posts: 536
Rep Power: 54
Unless you will be touring the world circuit you will NOT probably be manually setting on a lift, under the car with a wrench, each independent coilover, and then corner balancing often, if at all ever; after a satisfactory preferable suspension tune gives you the best tight overall balanced suspension to your liking driveability. But with PASM and the push of a button from your ****-pit, a pot hole-laden stretch of road way may still keep your molars in-tact...as you drive home from your Saturday track day......
#50
01-05-2010, 10:46 AM
hey folks interesting discussion here and I just wanted to throw my two cents (or less for what it's worth heh). First and foremost there's clearly an issue with the current Bilstein drop link set that come with the PASM Bilstein Damptronic kits. We saw the VERY same thing with the 996TT/C4S PSS10 kits. The PSS9 kits _never_ had any failures as the design of the drop link had a metal insert/end. Fast fwd a bit and they chose to use plastic ends on the PSS10s. After many complaints Bilstein did indeed fix that issue and we started getting drop links with metal inserts again. This has not yet happened for the PASM Damptronic kits and you guys are still seeing failures, whether you're running stock or aftermarket sways (this isn't the issue). The issue is the end of the drop link is weak and needs to be like the stock unit which does have a plastic cover and metal insert. That'll solve the problem... When you guys have a failure (and it's usually only a matter of time) I think the best course of action is to contact the vendor that you bought the coil overs from and have them warranty the problem through bilstein. I think eventually this issue will get fixed just like on the 996TT PSS10 side. I think what you're seeing here is that RSS got caught in the cross-fire trying to help solve a problem with an interim solution. I don't believe RSS' ever intended it to be a product (nor is it sold as one). I think the fix is an easy one but one that Bilstein needs to make.
#51
01-05-2010, 11:28 AM
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fastlane USA
Posts: 2,319
Rep Power: 244 hey folks interesting discussion here and I just wanted to throw my two cents (or less for what it's worth heh). First and foremost there's clearly an issue with the current Bilstein drop link set that come with the PASM Bilstein Damptronic kits. We saw the VERY same thing with the 996TT/C4S PSS10 kits. The PSS9 kits _never_ had any failures as the design of the drop link had a metal insert/end. Fast fwd a bit and they chose to use plastic ends on the PSS10s. After many complaints Bilstein did indeed fix that issue and we started getting drop links with metal inserts again. This has not yet happened for the PASM Damptronic kits and you guys are still seeing failures, whether you're running stock or aftermarket sways (this isn't the issue). The issue is the end of the drop link is weak and needs to be like the stock unit which does have a plastic cover and metal insert. That'll solve the problem... When you guys have a failure (and it's usually only a matter of time) I think the best course of action is to contact the vendor that you bought the coil overs from and have them warranty the problem through bilstein. I think eventually this issue will get fixed just like on the 996TT PSS10 side. I think what you're seeing here is that RSS got caught in the cross-fire trying to help solve a problem with an interim solution. I don't believe RSS' ever intended it to be a product (nor is it sold as one). I think the fix is an easy one but one that Bilstein needs to make.
#52
01-08-2010, 07:12 PM
Mike, thanks for the report on the very nice KW setup in your car. You now have excellent knowledge and experience with all 3 methods of suspension tuning, from casual to nutty-as-could-be! 
So now I understand the KW setup more; the springs in the KW V3 are all progressive? Is that why they list that rear spring rate as 950? It starts out smaller than that then progresses to that final rate?
So now I understand the KW setup more; the springs in the KW V3 are all progressive? Is that why they list that rear spring rate as 950? It starts out smaller than that then progresses to that final rate?
I've had lowering springs (Cargraphic made by H&R). I do not recommend other than for looks. Makes the car real bouncy and jittery.
I've also had the JRZ's. Great handling(if you're on a smooth road). The ride is extremely stiff even at a 400 front 500 rear spring rate. For mostly track use or if the roads around you are smooth, this is an awesome setup. It was way too much for our roads here in California.
I currently have the KV V3's (all other parts constant from the JRZ setup.. sways, droplinks, toe links, and top mounts). It is a great compromise between the stock setup and the JRZ setup. The ride quality is greatly improved over the JRZ's, but you don't lose much in performance at all. The dampers work real well over uneven and rough surfaces. I think the primary reason for this is the progressive rate springs used in the KW's. I highly recommend the KW coilovers to anyone.
You do have to disable the PASM function though. IMO, that was a useless function for me anyways. I don't miss it at all.
I've also had the JRZ's. Great handling(if you're on a smooth road). The ride is extremely stiff even at a 400 front 500 rear spring rate. For mostly track use or if the roads around you are smooth, this is an awesome setup. It was way too much for our roads here in California.
I currently have the KV V3's (all other parts constant from the JRZ setup.. sways, droplinks, toe links, and top mounts). It is a great compromise between the stock setup and the JRZ setup. The ride quality is greatly improved over the JRZ's, but you don't lose much in performance at all. The dampers work real well over uneven and rough surfaces. I think the primary reason for this is the progressive rate springs used in the KW's. I highly recommend the KW coilovers to anyone.
You do have to disable the PASM function though. IMO, that was a useless function for me anyways. I don't miss it at all.
#53
01-09-2010, 11:33 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County Socal
Posts: 1,621
Rep Power: 157 Mike, thanks for the report on the very nice KW setup in your car. You now have excellent knowledge and experience with all 3 methods of suspension tuning, from casual to nutty-as-could-be!
So now I understand the KW setup more; the springs in the KW V3 are all progressive? Is that why they list that rear spring rate as 950? It starts out smaller than that then progresses to that final rate?
So now I understand the KW setup more; the springs in the KW V3 are all progressive? Is that why they list that rear spring rate as 950? It starts out smaller than that then progresses to that final rate?
Here is my understanding Can. Only the front springs are progressive on the V3's for the 997tt. The rear springs are linear. The rear spring rate is stated as 970, but I find that way too high to be lbs. Most JRZ's or Motons aren't even sprung that high. I don't think KW states their spring rates in lbs. I think they state their spring rates in NM and I haven't really looked up the conversion to lbs.
#54
01-09-2010, 01:14 PM
Here is my understanding Can. Only the front springs are progressive on the V3's for the 997tt. The rear springs are linear. The rear spring rate is stated as 970, but I find that way too high to be lbs. Most JRZ's or Motons aren't even sprung that high. I don't think KW states their spring rates in lbs. I think they state their spring rates in NM and I haven't really looked up the conversion to lbs.
My "theories":
1. The rebound and compression dampening curves, both shape and values, are specific to the spring rate of 970.
2. If there is a second spring, is it possible the second spring is "tender," and not "helper" like Bilstein? That is, uncompressed at static height and contributes to the rate and makes the stacked springs behave like a progressive spring?
I remember vaguely and old post in rennlist discussing this. Someone was asking about changing spring in KW and was advised that KW system is different, or something to that effect.
Regardless, KW's quality is without doubt and the system very much an alternative to Bilstein. Congrats.
(BTW, anyone interested in JRZ/Moton: Send Mike a PM for opinion before proceeding.
)
Last edited by cannga; 01-09-2010 at 01:19 PM.
#55
01-09-2010, 02:13 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County Socal
Posts: 1,621
Rep Power: 157 Mike, discussing just for fun here. The conversion factor is the other way around: it's lower in N/mm (conversion factor 1 N/mm = 5.71 lbf/in) so likely that is 970 lbf/in.
My "theories":
1. The rebound and compression dampening curves, both shape and values, are specific to the spring rate of 970.
2. If there is a second spring, is it possible the second spring is "tender," and not "helper" like Bilstein? That is, uncompressed at static height and contributes to the rate and makes the stacked springs behave like a progressive spring?
I remember vaguely and old post in rennlist discussing this. Someone was asking about changing spring in KW and was advised that KW system is different, or something to that effect.
Regardless, KW's quality is without doubt and the system very much an alternative to Bilstein. Congrats.
(BTW, anyone interested in JRZ/Moton: Send Mike a PM for opinion before proceeding.)
My "theories":
1. The rebound and compression dampening curves, both shape and values, are specific to the spring rate of 970.
2. If there is a second spring, is it possible the second spring is "tender," and not "helper" like Bilstein? That is, uncompressed at static height and contributes to the rate and makes the stacked springs behave like a progressive spring?
I remember vaguely and old post in rennlist discussing this. Someone was asking about changing spring in KW and was advised that KW system is different, or something to that effect.
Regardless, KW's quality is without doubt and the system very much an alternative to Bilstein. Congrats.
(BTW, anyone interested in JRZ/Moton: Send Mike a PM for opinion before proceeding.
)
Can, you are right. I just looked up the conversion and 970 N/mm in lbs would be astronomical. It sure doesn't feel like it's got that much spring rate out back though.
#56
01-14-2010, 10:25 AM
For those who might be interested, have you driven a Bilstein Turbo and if so is the KW V3 somewhere between Bilstein and JRZ as far as comfort/stiffness level? Closer to Bilstein or closer to JRZ?
#57
01-14-2010, 05:56 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County Socal
Posts: 1,621
Rep Power: 157 I have driven a Bilstein turbo and I can confidently say that the KW is in between the Bilstein and JRZ, both in ride comfort and stiffness. I dont' think it leans one way. It really is a true compromise in the middle.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TOGWT
Detailing
0
09-29-2015 07:05 AM
