First height adjustment with the H&R Coilovers (and a funny pic I made) LONG
. Thx LORD!
03-05-2004, 08:09 AM
#12
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had my alignment done and it was wayyy off after the inst, now I'm running -1.6 left/-1.9 camber!
Personally for a non-track car I think this is a bit excessive and would rather dial some of it out. Say back to -1.0 or so left/right. What are you running?
03-05-2004, 08:20 AM
#14
New Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've just contradicted yourself
regarding both settling and alignment. See the link below.
https://forums.audiworld.com/a6/msgs/323372.phtml<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/a6/msgs/323372.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/a6/msgs/323372.phtml</a</li></ul>
https://forums.audiworld.com/a6/msgs/323372.phtml<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/a6/msgs/323372.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/a6/msgs/323372.phtml</a</li></ul>
03-05-2004, 08:32 AM
#16
AudiWorld Uber User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 42,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realize this...
...and when I asked my mechanic, he said, generally coil overs do not settle, but you have a 2 ton car. His statement is generally directed on lighter automobiles. 4.2 weighs in at 4025lbs. When asked about the alignment, it was an error in the original post, should have read 3 quarters to an inch, but only if the car is showing characteristics of needing an alignment (pulling, uneven tire wear, sudden road noice, etc.).
I was expecting someone to ask that, forgot to revise and include it in my initial post.
I was expecting someone to ask that, forgot to revise and include it in my initial post.
03-05-2004, 09:12 AM
#18
Former Vendor
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 15,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H&R's take on shock material..
Taken from an interview off VWVortex.
<i>We asked H&R to give us their take on the material they choose to use for their coil-over shock bodies. While some manufacturers are using stainless steel as their material of choice, H&R prefers to continue to offer the quality of steel they've been using for years. They told us that stainless steel is somewhat less rigid than other types, and as such, in order to maintain the integrity necessary for this heavy-load bearing component, it is necessary to make a thicker and heavier shock body to compensate. In addition to added weight, a thicker strut body will not dissipate heat as effectively as a thinner structure, and therefore, H&R chooses not to use stainless steel for these applications. They suggest that with proper maintenance and care, their coil-overs will last as long as any on the market, even in areas where road salt is used in the winter.
</i>
<a href="http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/vortex_news/article_671.shtml">Full Story</a>
<i>We asked H&R to give us their take on the material they choose to use for their coil-over shock bodies. While some manufacturers are using stainless steel as their material of choice, H&R prefers to continue to offer the quality of steel they've been using for years. They told us that stainless steel is somewhat less rigid than other types, and as such, in order to maintain the integrity necessary for this heavy-load bearing component, it is necessary to make a thicker and heavier shock body to compensate. In addition to added weight, a thicker strut body will not dissipate heat as effectively as a thinner structure, and therefore, H&R chooses not to use stainless steel for these applications. They suggest that with proper maintenance and care, their coil-overs will last as long as any on the market, even in areas where road salt is used in the winter.
</i>
<a href="http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/vortex_news/article_671.shtml">Full Story</a>
03-05-2004, 09:43 AM
#20
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect it has more to do with cost than anything else.
As a mechanical engineer I would have to dissagree with the notion that they couldn't find a stainless steel as ridged as non-stainless steel. There are stainless steels with extremely high modulus of elasticity (stiffness), just as much so as non-stainless. In fact many very high modulus steels end up being "stainless" due to the alloying needed to make them stiff.
There are issues with machining some stainless steels that make them more expensive to work with in additon to the higher material cost.
As far as thermal conductivity being a problem from having to use thicker steel I would make this analysis. The thermal resistance to the air is going to be so much higher than the resistance of the shock tube that it would be insignificant. If they hade substantial heat sinking on the shock body, perhaps in the form of many many deep aluminum fins, then the conductivity of the shock tube might begin to enter into the picture.
There are issues with machining some stainless steels that make them more expensive to work with in additon to the higher material cost.
As far as thermal conductivity being a problem from having to use thicker steel I would make this analysis. The thermal resistance to the air is going to be so much higher than the resistance of the shock tube that it would be insignificant. If they hade substantial heat sinking on the shock body, perhaps in the form of many many deep aluminum fins, then the conductivity of the shock tube might begin to enter into the picture.