I haven't received mine yet but they must be keeping with the stiffer rates but shorter shock body. Sorry if caused any confusion.

 

if anyone is looking to get some new Megans and want to compare prices with autoXcooper. Here is a link..
http://www.statracing.com/buy/megan-coilover-kit.asp
http://www.autoxcooper.com/megan.html

 

Plus AXC includes the rear damper adjusters for FREE.

 

AutoX also has great service and gets your order shipped at a great rate and it gets there quickly.

 

So i have the megans with only the new front spring rate 8kg megan sent me. they didnt mention anything about getting new shocks for them. should i call them and ask them before i install these.

 

They have been sending out new springs (62.150.008) 150mm/8kg's *WITH* shorter shock bodies. If you didn't get the shorter shock bodies, call Megan and ask for Cyrus. He should be able to take care of you.

 

Been there done that got the same shock bodies. and I don't think its the shock bodies its the McPherson bracket/height adjustment sleeve and why I say that I was looking through the suspension reference page and pauliekeys has a good example of what I am saying but here are the 2 pictures of 2 kits but you will notice the height adjustment sleeve is shorter on the cross and the megan is REALLY tall

 

That picture I took of the Megan's is with the OLD taller springs and shocks. After receiving the shorter springs and shock inserts from Megan, there was about two inches between the two top collars and the bottom lock collar. Something that also I believe comes into play with the way these two coilovers is that the Cross system has an "inverted" shock on the fronts which could be the reason for the height adjustment sleeve appearing to longer.

 

Possibly but the term inverted just means the dampers internally are inverted it makes the adjustment for the damper at the bottom instead of the regular top adjustment which really has no relation as to the height adjust ent sleeves height when in the carrier. Also what are the specs on the shorter springs? Did you compare the length of the shock bodies when you had the originals off and if so how much difference was there? I am on a quest to figure this stuff out because as I have thought about it and see other 3 way adjustable CO's megans have the highest height adjustment sleeves.

 

Hey checkmate,

Just wanted to throw my .02cents worth here. I was the original poster on this thread about the lack of travel in the front c/os.

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ent+help+megan

A while ago, I had a chat with Steve with Megan. He was the one helping us out correct the issues originally. I had studied the sytem and asked him if Megan had a shorter shock body that can be used on the fronts. At that time he said no. That there was no shorter shock. I know this would have other implications on the system (but lets not go there). I don't know if that has changed and they have introduced a shorter shock body.

Here are my findings from a while back. The amount of drop is limited by the damper body hitting the bottom of the sleve where it attaches to the hub knucle or carrier (see #6 in the link below).

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...40&hg=31&fg=10

At this point the sleve narrows and the damper body no longer fits down there.



Here is the Megan C/O pic. Notice how it narrows at the bottom of the sleve. So, you basically have 3 options. Get a shorter shock/damper body, reduce the circumferece of the shock/damper body at the lower end to allow it to fit the sleve, or change how the sleve attaches to the carrier hub (#6 above). M7 has done this with their C/Os in a different fashion.

Option 2 above could be done by eliminating the threads at the bottom of the damper body. However, based on my measurements (which they're more than likely inaccurate) that would still not be sufficient to allow the lower dampert section to fit the sleve.

As for shortening the sleves on the Megan's, not easily doable and would not give you any more adjustment. One thing you're not seeing in the comparative pic of Cross / Megan is the end link attachement point.

This was also discussed as a solution on that original thread. Notice on the pic I posted here, on the front c/o (bottom one) you can see the end link attachment point and it's very close to the end of the sleve and the adjustment nut. Therefore, if the sleve was shorter you would have to relocate the attachment point as well as get different size end links. Does the Cross offer a shorter end link with their kit? Where is the end link attachment point?

The issue is not the sleve but the length of the damper body.

Having pointed these, I must say that I'm very happy with my Megans after doing some fine tuning. But then again, I'm not dropped as much as some of you...

 

You are on the right track but I was sent the same shock body and springs that I already had. So someone must have not understood what I was asking for because I got the exact same thing again which was disappointing when having both fronts off and disassembled and to find out I already had what they sent me.

 

You make a very good point checkmate. I think we should be asking this questions:

Who in here has received the "shorter" shock body? and Can you please measure it so we can compare to ours?

There could be no shorter body, as I was told about eight months ago.

Is any body willing to pull their Megans off to measure...

 

YAY we are getting somewhere. Now the options are shorter springs or modification of the height adjustment sleeve.

1. Modification of Height Adjustment Sleeve - requires access to pipe saw or lathe which ever is readily available and need to be DEAD-ON ACCURATE when cutting. Using this method to go lower you have to start off with the shock body spun all the way down into the sleeve. The second step is to do what you would do on traditional coilovers that have no independent height adjustment which is spinning the spring perch down. Currently I still have the full length height adjustment sleeve but I have removed both locking nuts and only leaving the lower perch spun down to the top of the height sleeve. When I go through with the cutting of the height sleeves i will have to put the locking nuts back in so then I can keep the shock body locked in and the lower perch locked in. The only negative point in this is when you go lower you will reduce the travel to practically nothing.

2. Shorter spring length which is pretty self-explanatory.

 

Yes! you're absolutely right on both. But this is what I have always tried to avoid.

and then, what's the point in having a 3 way adjutable C/O?

Where would you relocate the end link attachment point?

This is an interesting idea. More on this please....

 

The most logical is to fabricate a new one that would mimic Cross's which is lower then the megan's which is the explanation of why Cross includes only front adjustable endlinks with the kit. I came to the conclusion that most coilover companies rather use stock endlink length attachment points rather than doing what Cross had done which is pretty nice because then you end up only needing to buy endlinks for the rear.

 

I agree that cutting down the lower shock mount tube is the only way to go lower while retaining all the intended travel. But like you guys mentioned, it's rather difficult with the endlink attachment point there.

So...I went the other route, just like the others in the FrankenMegans thread. I swapped the Megan front springs with a pair of 7kg/mm H&R 2.5" ID springs. Because of the lower spring rate, the front end droops more, resulting in a smaller wheelgap than before. Right now my fender to hub measurement is 12 1/4", which is almost perfect for my tastes. I've also preloaded the springs a tiny bit (about 1/8") to get the ride height to settle in about bottom 1/3 of the shock travel, so technically I could go even lower without preload.

Now, the shock bodies...
When I took apart my originals and compared them with the new ones they sent me, they turned out to be identical in length, but with different part numbers. Both bodies measured out to be 225mm in length, and both have 3.5" of shock travel (including bumpstop squishing). The only thing different about the new bodies was that they came with shorter bumpstops. Megan also sent me new springs (150mm, 8kg/mm), but they are just too short for their given rate and will likely bind horribly, so I didn't even bother to test fit them. I also feel that the car's balance suffers with the 8kg/mm rate up front.

Hope this helps!

 

The last few days of posts is very good info. It also points to why AXC and Megan have moved to 3.0 and why AXC always talks with it's customers about the goals of using C/O's and 25% of the time we encourage them to not use the system.
Megan C/O 1.0 was too short
Megan C/O 2.0 was too tall
Megan C/O 3.0 seems to be working well for most.

I welcome your call, PM or email

 

projekt7 is correct in stating that the shock only has 3.5" of travel.

If you get a 6" semi-barrel spring the travel should be about 3.6 to maybe 3.7" TOTAL at bind. This is more than your shock travel and should work nicely.
This is what I have done and have used a 440lb spring. That equates to 8lbs less than 8kg/mm. Bought from Ground Control to get the semi-barrel. I also have the V2 setup.

The balance, to me, does not feel off. If the 7" 8kg springs that were sent out from Megan are pre-loaded a half inch or more, this may the reason for it.

One thing that I have noticed is, the damping is not balanced front to back. At 7 clicks front and back the rear is over damped for a STREET ride ( ie. daily driver on semi-rough roads). Front seems to be ok. YMMV and I am still adjusting them to get a good "feel".

One other thing. If I lower the shock all the way into the sleeve, and put minimal pro-load on the spring, there should be about half an inch, or so, between the locking rings. This gives me about a thin finger width between the top of the tire and the bottom of the arch. This is with 215/45-17s.

I could go with the 7kg (391lb) spring as Projekt7 did to get more droop, but I was bottoming with 375lbs and didn't think it was good to invest in something that close in rate, just to have to buy more springs later.

I hope this helps......

 

I just found this picture from the BC C/O thread.



Notice how the end link attachment point is angled up (left c/o). That would be one way of doing it. I wasn't aware but seem like the BC also have the barrel springs up front now.

 

An angled endlink attachment point would allow some trimming of the lower shock mount tube. However, keep in mind that you will also need a shorter shock body to go along with it. The reason is that (at least in my case) the shock body has already hit the bottommost thread in the lower shock mount sleeve. Without a shorter body, the trimming done to the sleeve will be meaningless.

As brownflyer mentioned before, there could be no shorter body. And I tend to agree since both checkmate2006 and I both received new shock bodies that are essentially the same in length. So we're still stuck unless we purchase the bodies elsewhere. But if we go that route, we might as well look for another set of coilovers.

The BC's barrel front springs certainly has more spring travel. But given the 8kg/mm spring rate, I don't think it would be that easy to reach block height even if they were straight springs, would it? My 7kg/mm H&R's are straight springs, but the coils are a lot thinner than the Megan springs. That helps too. I have yet to hit the track with my new setup, but so far I haven't had any problems with bottoming out yet. I suppose the 1/4" spring preload that I have helps with that, and I think most people are running zero preload. My front damping adjustment is set at 15 clicks from full hard.

 

I fully agree with you on all your points Projekt7. The main issue is the shock body as I pointed in a post above. Same with the 8kg barrel spring, good point.

Also, the barrel spring will limit camber adjustment as that's were the tire gets closest to the c/o.

 

Does anyone else find this odd? Pauliekeys has 2 inches between the lock rings, while thatatvguy has 1/2 inch?

I'm assuming the new shorter springs that Pauliekeys has are 150mm (5.9 inches) long [that's what they sent me], and thatatvguy mentioned he's using 6 inch long GC-spec springs. There is only 0.1 inch differece between the springs. Given that we all have the same lower mount tubes, there are 2 possible explanations for this: 1) different shock body lengths, and 2) different total damper strokes.

Pauliekeys: you do have the shock body threaded in all the way, right? With shorter bodies and 10mm shorter springs, you went from having touching lock rings with your old setup to two inches between lock rings? That's counter-intuitive to me

 

It might not have been "exactly" two inches but, the collars were no longer stacked on top of each other and there was a fair amount of space between the bottom locking collar and the upper collars with the new springs and shocks. I looked like two inches to me !

I've since moved on to a set of Cross coilovers and am very very happy with them !

 

A few quick snaps to show the way my car sits now. About a half finger gap all around.

 

Looking good projekt7 !

Perhaps you could snap a picture of your front coilover set up without the wheel so we can see the gap between the three collars and maybe a close up of the tire and lip gap.