I've searched, but have come up empty handed...

I want to stiffen spring rate without reducing ride height. But all after-market (stiffer) springs also reduce ride height, albeit some less than others (JCW, TSW). I have wondered about machining some 1" thick donuts that would sit on the lower spring perch to give back some of the height lost to the spring, but I have no idea whether that is a good solution. These will be used with Koni yellows - do the Koni's even have enough travel to accomodate that?

(side question: does the spring perch on yellow sit at the same height as stock, or is there some contribution to ride height change from the Konis alone?)

I'm also looking at the Ireland fixed camber plates but it looks like they don't change the ride height relative to stock appreciably.

By the way, part of my problem is that I am running undersized tires (205/15/50 now and looking at going to F1's in 195/50/15). That's 1" to 1.5"
smaller in diameter than stock, so I'm already lowered 0.5" to 0.75". Right
now the plastic bumper section underneath the car is only 3.5" above the road surface (5" for front jack mounts). I'm already scraping on some driveways and definitely scraping snow.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

If there is enough interest, we can have these wound... I would need about 10 people to chime in and say that wanted them to make it worthwhile.

I would spec the same spring rate as our Sport Springs - 200 lb/in linear.

 

I heard that they used to do that on the MGB a while ago to make the headlight height compliant with regs. With bad result

 

I would be very interested as I want a firmer suspension yet the roads around here prohibit lowering much. I was looking at the JCW suspension but for the cost I had it down to the TSW but couldn't commit because of the lower ride height. Though not much of a drop with the TSW.

If interest does come on strong with this. Will they run around the same cost as the standard TSW springs being that less will be manufactured?

 

I'd be interested as long as there's shocks to MATCH the springs - no messing around, shocks and springs that are supposed to be together, stiffer springs, original or darn near close to original ride height.

Make those wishes come true, and I'm in.

mb

 

etalj, could you elaborate on the exact nature of the "bad results"?

txwerks, if the "donut" solution has any merit, do you have an interest in supplying those as a product?

mbcoops, is your concern with the damper matching strictly in terms of the spring rate or there some other concern in terms of ride height?

 

It's the rate - it would be nice if the people who made a stiffer stock height spring matched them to either a certain aftermarket shock, the stock shock, or their own that they had made (like Dinan did with their Konis).

mb

 

Clarkson on one of his videos said this (said the handling was catastrophic as a result of this), but i'm sure it's only pertinent to your situation if you make the donuts yourself. My opinion, go to a suspension place and ask their opinion. Or maybe someone here could chime in?

 

Coilovers with minimal drop??

FSD shocks with stock springs- probably the best compromise for stock height and street use.

If you are running tires with a smaller than stock outer tire diameter it won't make that much difference using lowering springs.

For poor roads you would have to slow down for bad conditions anyway.

I used H-sport springs and 205/50-15 tires and it was OK.
Now I have the same tires and even more drop with Bilstein PSS9 coilovers and it's fine. I don't have snow but I do have speed bumps and driveways to scrape.

 

Yes... price would be the same - $199 a set!

 

Folks still interested? I am, as mine is a four season Mini. As for mbcoops' question, the folks at TSW have mentioned the Mini is undersprung and the bump up in spring rate is a good match for the oem struts. Or plunk down another $700 for fsds, yellows, or bilsteins. Though there is a TSW strut (non-adj) in the works.

That's me and the OP. Eight more to go. Bueller?

 

...stiffer spring at same ride height = less spring travel; the coils are thicker. Just beware what you ask for. If travel is to be preserved with a stiffer spring, then the ride height must increase. The stock barrel shape spring can be a big help here...but I don't think we have enough room in the back for a barrel shape...?

 

JCW specifies a 0.5" lowering, but an actual before and after measurement on mine resulted in no difference. In fact, in actual driving, I now get less driveway scrape because of the heavier spring rate.

 

Doh! I've forgotten about travel and rate. Good thing I embarrassed myself in a public forum and removed all doubt. lol It's been a very long time since system dynamics.

 

Mine ended up just shy of 1/2" lower after a couple thousand miles settling. I think there were at least 3 different spring rates available for the JCW suspension - possibly you ended up with springs for a more "loaded" car.

 

I embarrass myself on occasion. Not to worry, we're all friends here

 

I've been watching this thread with interest- uprated springs while preserving ground clearance is a huge plus for me.

Lowering springs also reduce travel- do we know enough information at this point to know the extent of reduced travel due to the wire thickness, will it be comparable to say the standard TSW springs?

Is coil bind actually going to be the limiting factor or will the bump stop still be able to do it's job?

Jason

 

My car is fully loaded and the spring set was determined based on the factory recommendations, so I am certain I have the stiffest of the JCW spring sets.

 

Lowering springs with a stock type strut will reduce spring travel...as well as stroke length in most cases. Adjustable coilovers should not have this problem...but some do...ask how I know Spring length should be based upon the desired rate, and the corner weight in question. The corner weight will tell you how much a given rate spring will compress when the weight of that corner is on it. The remainder is spring travel...if you also look at Block hieght, you will know the complete compressed length of a spring...a heavier spring has a taller block hieght and therefore less spring travel. So in the case of adjustable coilovers, the length of the spring can be adjusted in sinc with rate and the car's natural stroke length...which is pretty darn short on the mini. Eibach has a great spring chart and I suggest everyone take a look and get comfortable with these. Just play a game with rates and length.

As an example, one corner weight for the front end of my mini is 852 lbs. Divide the corner weight by the selcted - lets use a 469# spring. We get 1.816". This length needs to be subtracted from the spring's length and the remainder is the amount of travel left. This spring, if I remeber, needs to be at least 7" long.

spring rate is devised based upon Hz or the natural frequency of a given car and its mass distribution. 1.5-2.5Hz is the range for sporting to near track stiffness, but not track stiffness. The Mini's front end weight and natural vibration with a 469# spring places it, if I remember at about 2Hz...or just above. The rear spring rate will be much less given the lack of mass in back.

 

I am a vehicle dynamics lover myself, so I agree with what you are saying for cases where installation ratio =1 (spring rate = wheel rate), but that is not really where I was going with my original question.

What I would like to know is, with the uprated stock ride height springs, will we actually see block height on the spring or will the bump stop prevent this from happening?

Jason

 

Hey, didn't Mini change springs on the early model cars because too many people had complained the ride was too stiff? Pretty sure I read that somewhere....I have a 2002 regular cooper (non S) and my car is really stiff..(I came from VW's with every different suspension under the sun....cup kits, coilovers...)....and it's not soo stiff your teeth come loose but it's pretty close....still running stock shocks/springs.....anyways, check to see if there are different part numbers for mid 2003 cars.....if your close to Wash DC area you can drive my car to see how the ride is.....

Good luck on your search

 

Depends on the increase in rate...and also, the stock spring is a barrel shaped spring so it has more travel than a traditional linear rate spring of the same rate! So, a hard question to answer, but an important question.

...a barrel shaped spring allows the coils to essentially fold into one another - almost. FYI - Ground Control hired Eibach to develop a semi barrel shaped spring for the mini...I cannot remember what the rate is, but you can call Ground Control and ask...you will see that this spring has more travel than its traditional counterpart of equal rate. I'm not sure of these work with the stock strut design???

 

The springs remained the same, but the shocks were changed about 5/2003
to softer ones. Same shock body, but different viscosity oil in the shock.
I forget if the valving of the shocks was changed as well or not.

 

I had an 03 MCS and enjoyed the ride quality much more than I do in my 06 MCS. That is why I had interest in stock height springs yet firmer. I'd rather not spend $800 to have my 06 feel like my old 03.

I'm sure if one were to purchase OEM shocks from MINI for an 03 they would end up with the newer style shocks.

If these don't become available

 

I have early 2003 MCS so I concur in stiffness of the vehicle. I like that. I also have the Webb camber plates so there is a bit of harshness, plus front end is up about a half inch. The rear stiff with Alta 22mm (set soft). Very trucky! more go-kart like.