The plates, the trapezoidal peices only fit in one side i thought...at least that seemed to be my experiance. it does sound like they may be switch though. It also looks like the pieces right below that are switch too on one side.

 

A couple of pics...

In this one, the cap bolts are spread out because these are 1st gen IE plates... Note, though, that the slots are oriented like =, parallel to the motor, and perpendicular to the car.



In this one, you see the final position of the bolts in the two outermost holes in the capture plate. Oh, and the AST adjustment *****...

 

for the new lower front springs, is this an option or do all sets have this now? just want to make sure if I order from the site I'll be getting the lower front spring set. Thanks!

 

Good question! All sets are now shipping with the shorter front springs...

We have a handful of the original length springs set aside for anyone that might want them, but they would be on special request only.

So, if you order off the website, you'll get the springs from the new batch!

 

WOOOT! Just got the new lower front springs in. The original TSW front springs measured 8 3/8" on the bench and the new one's measure just a little less than 7 7/8" on the bench, a solid 1/2" shorter! Can't wait to get them on!!!

 

So, to open a can of worms - how much more would cutting one coil off the rear TSW springs drop the back end? My car sits with a pretty even wheel gap front and rear with the original TSW springs. If I got the new lower fronts, it would just give the car a big(ger) rake. Of course, if a cut coil would drop the back end another whole inch, that would be just a bit too much.

 

There's more to it than just wacking off a coil, you'd get more than inch and it would ride like s.....

 

Not necessarily. The springs are linear rate, so it's not like you'd be removing a "softer" coil. Now if it dropped the rear enough to where you were constantly hitting the bumpstops or bottoming out the shocks, then that'd be a problem.

Just wondering how much shorter the spring would be minus one coil. Mine are in the car, so I can't look at 'em.

BTW, I want to see how your car looks after you get the new fronts in.

 

You have to make sure the spring doesn't bind - reach block hieght. But that's a function of the spring rate, spring length, and, diameter of the coil.

For example, if you have two identical spring lengths, one a 200# spring and the other a 500# spring, the heavier rate will have less travel because the coils are thicker.

So when you cut a coil off, you are changing one of the three major dimensions of a spring. Essentially you've altered the spring's maximum rate because you have removed a potential working coil. A 200# spring requires 200lbs of force to compress it one inch and additional 200lbs for the next inch or 400 lbs. This goes on for each coil. So if you remove a coil...Understand?

And you need to be careful about how your dampers work with a shorter spring...among other things.

 

Agreed - do NOT cut the springs or you will affect both the free length and the spring rate. These are engineered to ensure 200 lb/in based on the spring material, spring diameter, diameter of the wind and pitch of the wind...

To answer the question about rake - some rake is okay. If you wanted to swap in our lower fronts now, you would get a bit more rake. Based on our testing using coilovers, a slight rake to no rake yields the best handling dynamics (vs. the OEM rake, which is considerable).

 

Is it correct that the earlier R53 had more rake (tail sat higher) than the later models?

 

MINE definitely did. I had hoped that the JCW springs would bring it down to a bit more level stance, but they didn't. It ended up looking stock in back and dumped in the front. With the original TSW springs (more drop in the rear) my car sits with pretty even wheel gap front and rear. The rear TSW springs brought my car down quite a bit from where it was with the JCWs, and I've sill got about an inch gap from the top of the tire to the plastic arch.

Something interesting, I thought, is that when Randy was installing my exhaust at AMVIV back in March, he commented that the rear subframe (or some similarly placed component bolted to the underside) sat really low, like it was spaced away from the floorpan more than what he was used to seeing, to the point that he couldn't snug the pipe up as close as he normally does. If something in the rear that carries some of the suspension parts is mounted "low" on my car, that might explain some of the extra height in back.

 

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that the spring rate was partly affected/determined by the spring length. I thought it was a constant derived solely from the thickness and stiffness of the wire.

I definitely don't need more rake. If I put in your new front springs without doing something in the rear, my car would look like a dumped '57 Chevy.

 

That's what I thought. On my '06 the TSW's dropped the car to almost level, the new fronts will put back in that little bit of rake I want. Going to Bristol race today but hope to get the new fronts installed in the next couple days. I'll try and post some before and after pics when done!

 

I understand this, any insight into why they come from the factory with so much rake? ie what is the benifit/trade-off that comes with more rake, if there is one?

 

I've gone from stock to M7 springs. I liked the look but after about a year I decided I wanted a linear spring - until I drop big $$ for coilovers later. I went with TSW springs and added the (new) H-Sport adjustable camber plates. The rake was nearly level but the front looked a bit strange as the wheel gap was much larger than the rear. It was about this time that the difference in stock front spring lengths between the '04 and older MCS, and the '05/06 MCS was determined. I got a new set of the shorter TSW fronts and couln't be happier. Just enough rake and the change closed up the front wheel gap for me

 

Any pics of the car with the new springs?

 

Yeah Mine dont fit like that. then again, I coulnt get them to fit into the holes like that. I thought they only fit in one side.

 

Nope, you can swap the tops inadvertantly and they will work fine... I've done it! I caught it before installing, though. When installing the IE's, I still take them out of the package and sit the on top the the towers on the correct side.

If your IE plates don't look like that, they are installed incorrectly, hence the reason you can't get much negative camber. The struts are being forced rearward and in when you're trying to get negative camber - this will cause the springs to bind against the strut tower and all sorts of issues.

 

Good question, and I have no idea!

 

Probably a buillt-in margin of error, so to speak, for those who will regularly have backseat passengers and/or haul a lot of stuff in the back. That way the rear end won't be dragging if the car's full. Same reason pick-ups are a bit higher in the rear.

 

Just got my new "lower" front TSW springs installed; thanks Jeff for your GREAT customer service.

 

So, was the change to the "lower" springs done for performance reasons or customer demand? Obviously, a vast majority of the customers prefer the lower version of the springs, but I thought back when the original springs were released there was talk about how the small drop in the original springs was done for performance.

Ignoring looks, which spring height is better for handling?

 

I haven't installed the springs that I won at the Dragon yet (I know, I know, it should have been done the next week ) so does anyone have any pics comparing the old fronts vs the new "lower" ones? If I want the newer fronts, it'd be better to decide BEFORE installing the ones I have

Thanks

 

To be honest, there's no appreciable handling difference between the slightly lower front spring vs. what was originally spec'd. The rate is most important, and the rates are the same... But, to the vast majority of people it looks a bit better. Because the dynamics didn't change and yet there was more demand, well - easy choice for us!

There's still less rake than it came with from the factory...