| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
King springs
|
Fri, 20 May 2005 03:11
|
 |
I've got king low/kyb setup for my car yesterday. From what I can see they are no lower than the stock suspension I had on before. I though they were suppose to be lower by 30mm or something, do they varies that much? better yet anyone got a pic of a sprinter with low king spring?
Also anyone got superlow Lovells on their car? on Lovells cataloge they said that its for looks only. I'm just wondering how they are in real life. Anyone have any experience with them?
Thanks
|
|
|
Location:
Gawler, SA
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Fri, 20 May 2005 03:23
|
|
I got some info on Low Lovells (not superlow)
TFL-33 - 145lbs/inch (2.64kg/mm) - 1 1/2" (38mm) drop
TRL-34 - 170lbs/inch (3.1kg/mm) - 1" (25mm) on the rear
Dunno if thats any good.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Fri, 20 May 2005 05:45
|
|
|
Wait a little bit and the springs compress a bit more under the car, and it will get a bit lower still.
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Fri, 20 May 2005 06:27
|
|
how about Lovells superlow will it be too low and make the car handle like crap?
Anyone have them in their car?
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Fri, 20 May 2005 06:32
|
|
It's likely your original springs had "lowered" themselves as they sagged over the years. If you compared your Kings springs to new original springs you'd find they're much lower.
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Fri, 20 May 2005 06:37
|
|
|
you should of seen the difference when i put new HD standard ride heights in my corona, the front was only a little higher, but it raised the back and the car had an angle like a dragster for while, still there but not as bad. Just goes to show how much the 400k km springs had sagged, it used ot bottom out with 5 in the car but no more. I reckon it raised it at the rear between 1-2 inch lol.
|
|
|
Location:
Vic, AU
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Fri, 20 May 2005 12:48
|
|
| Norbie wrote on Fri, 20 May 2005 16:32 |
It's likely your original springs had "lowered" themselves as they sagged over the years. If you compared your Kings springs to new original springs you'd find they're much lower.
|
What he said. The old springs would've taken a beating, and would have lowered the car from standard. The springs won't really 'settle in' much from what they are now, they pretty much settle in the first time you drive it.. It'll only look higher if it's been jacked up and not moved.
|
|
|
Location:
S.E suberbs, Vic
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 12:30
|
|
|
I agree with the guys, from what i estimate my car had sagged about 30mm. Also kings are way too high if you ask me.
|
|
|
Location:
S.E suberbs, Vic
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 12:33
|
|
|
oh and I forgot to say, i dont think you can go too low in a sprinter in a way that it makes the handling bad. That is provided that you take care of the bump stops and also have enough travel. My car is 80mm lower than standard I think at the back right now.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 12:46
|
|
kings are too high?!
I got king standards on mine, and they've lowered the car overall. Not by much, but noticable.
|
|
|
Location:
S.E suberbs, Vic
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 12:56
|
|
some people have different standards of what low is...
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 12:57
|
|
I just have a practical idea on what low is 
king super lows = intercooler removing springs
|
|
|
Location:
Hobart, Tas
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 13:11
|
|
| Sam_Q wrote on Sun, 22 May 2005 22:30 |
Also kings are way too high if you ask me.
|
I'm not convinced you can make blanket statements like that - they may be too high for your particular car, but can you say the same for every model car that King Springs make springs for?
|
|
|
Location:
Hobart, Tas
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 13:13
|
|
| Sam_Q wrote on Sun, 22 May 2005 22:33 |
oh and I forgot to say, i dont think you can go too low in a sprinter in a way that it makes the handling bad. That is provided that you take care of the bump stops and also have enough travel. My car is 80mm lower than standard I think at the back right now.
|
Hmm.. what about roll centres etc? 
|
|
|
Location:
S.E suberbs, Vic
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 13:19
|
|
|
as far as I know incorect roll centers on a macpherson front end only interfeers with bump steering not the actual handling itself, I might be wrong but I speak from what I have experienced myself here and what I have heard. Also traction is lost at the back too but technally speaking thats not handling either. Luckily RCAs on all 4 sides are easy to correct in an 86.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 13:20
|
|
I think the height of the springs differs from car to car.
On the topic of height, and the recent mention of roll centres... would loweing a car with IRS have the same negative effect in regards to roll centres as lowering a car with a live rear axel? I mean, if you keep the ratio between the front and rear roll centres the same when the car is lower surely it'll be better off cornering since there is a lower centre of gravity.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 13:21
|
|
|
how much do you value your rear tyres? you get neg camber pretty quickly when you start lowering IRS
|
|
|
Location:
S.E suberbs, Vic
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 13:23
|
|
| Stefan wrote on Sun, 22 May 2005 23:11 |
| Sam_Q wrote on Sun, 22 May 2005 22:30 |
Also kings are way too high if you ask me.
|
I'm not convinced you can make blanket statements like that - they may be too high for your particular car, but can you say the same for every model car that King Springs make springs for?
|
yes your so very right, I made the dumb mstake of assuming it was another guy asking a sprinter question after reading Callifo's post, I better get some more sleep now. I know that in an ae-82 for example king lows go to a height that I personally think is the minimum that a street car should be. Let me correct myself: I think king lows for a sprinter barely lower the car.
thanks for the correction, I dont like making uneducated comments
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 13:23
|
|
|
Yes well... I know all too well how easy it is to chew up rear tyres But there are modifications that can be done to correct this enough. The rear camber can only help in corners however.
|
|
|
Location:
Tassie
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 14:49
|
|
I've got regular king springs on my car they give a really firm ride and i have to push the car really hard to get understeer.
Without skirts my car looks like and off roader it's that high but i would think of lowering it as it bottoms out on my driveway.
Comparing them with standard toyota springs and pedders springs IMHO king springs are the best.
I've seen pics of XA6X supras with king super lows and they look shocking. I've also heard alot of ppl who buy them swap them out soon after.
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location:
Lwr Templestowe, Melbourne
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 15:35
|
|
| Mookie wrote on Mon, 23 May 2005 00:49 |
I've seen pics of XA6X supras with king super lows and they look shocking. I've also heard alot of ppl who buy them swap them out soon after.
|
Didn't think they had super-lows for the supra. Lows are bad enough. 
|
|
|
Location:
S.E suberbs, Vic
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 20:54
|
|
|
got a pic of that celica supra mookie? I am curious how it sits
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Sun, 22 May 2005 23:28
|
|
| HyDrA wrote on Sun, 22 May 2005 23:23 |
Yes well... I know all too well how easy it is to chew up rear tyres But there are modifications that can be done to correct this enough. The rear camber can only help in corners however.
|
Kings lows = 3.8 degrees negative camber.  This is NOT good for cornering.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Mon, 23 May 2005 00:54
|
|
Hahaha shit i've never measured it!
Time to go see an engineer I think - that damn rear crossmember needs modification!
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Mon, 23 May 2005 01:29
|
|
| Sam_Q wrote on Sun, 22 May 2005 22:33 |
oh and I forgot to say, i dont think you can go too low in a sprinter in a way that it makes the handling bad. That is provided that you take care of the bump stops and also have enough travel. My car is 80mm lower than standard I think at the back right now.
|
I've been led to believed that suspension travel is important for handling on our less than perfect road. If you have your car that low, there can be much suspension travel left is there?
Also could someone explain the purpose of RCA, when would you need them, from what I understood they're like spacer to restore the original suspension geometry is this correct?
regarding the height of the car,I don't like the way king springs it makes the car sit so high, but I like the way it make the car handle. I guess you can have everything right? you can't have it looks good and handle well or can you??
|
|
|
Location:
S.E suberbs, Vic
Registered:
December 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Mon, 23 May 2005 13:01
|
|
I think on a sprinter theres still more than enough suspension travel even without a shortened strut, well that's if the bump stops have been taken care of anyway. I am running some GT4 celica shockers in my homebrew coil-overs so I have an additional 60mm of suspension travel from the stationary height. However I dont think I would have any travel problems even without it. Think of it like this, with hard springs at stock height it would push in 20mm if it was pushed really hard in my car, now if it was super low it would still be 20mm. I beleive my car would have about 30 to 40mm of travel if I used a stock strut, so I would pushing my luck but it should be fine.
As for RCAs your right they restore the original suspension geometry in a car. However I beleive its a common misconception that that's why they are good in the front, which I have been told is incorrect, and instead its the angle of the steering arm that really counts, so the RCA sets the steering arm back to being level which stops bump steer. For the rear of the car it changes the initial position of the roll center, in my car it helped get alot more traction which is important to me. I did this by modifying my diff housing, anyhow if you want to know more go to my worklog and start reading, the links in my signiture.
BTW my car handles awesome as it is and if I could gain an advantage in handling by raising it I would do it very quickly.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Mon, 23 May 2005 15:17
|
|
Anyone recogn Kgmm?
Is it a good brand of spring.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Mon, 23 May 2005 23:13
|
|
There's really no such thing as good or bad brands - a spring is a spring. Just decide on an appropriate spring rate for your application and buy them from wherever.
|
|
|
Location:
tas
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Tue, 24 May 2005 02:56
|
|
eh would i be a fool to buy stock TEMS suspension for an MA70 and stick with the old springs? I can't go much lower due to my JZA80 wheels.
I'm in the frame of mind that stock isn't so bad for normal driving. You don't want stiff low suspension for some of the roads here in tasmania, eg in the wet, dips on the road etc. i'd imagine the stock suspension is much better at keeping your car on the road with poor road conditions.
|
|
|
Location:
Tassie
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Tue, 24 May 2005 04:44
|
|
I can't remember where the pics are exactly but they are on this forums i know that much.
it was a light brownish MA61 with stanard wheels it looked like it had a load of bricks in the back and the rear camber was insane i doubt any of the tyre tread was on the rd.
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Tue, 24 May 2005 04:46
|
|
| dingaling wrote on Tue, 24 May 2005 12:56 |
eh would i be a fool to buy stock TEMS suspension for an MA70 and stick with the old springs? I can't go much lower due to my JZA80 wheels.
I'm in the frame of mind that stock isn't so bad for normal driving. You don't want stiff low suspension for some of the roads here in tasmania, eg in the wet, dips on the road etc. i'd imagine the stock suspension is much better at keeping your car on the road with poor road conditions.
|
replace with heavy duty standard ride height springs, stiffer than standard but still very compliant.
|
|
|
Location:
sydney
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: King springs
|
Tue, 24 May 2005 08:35
|
|
|
I had kings springs in my mr2 and it made the car sit so the tyre was just at the same hight as the guard. Wasnt too low and looked good.
|
|
|
