Please help a confused man

[GTV4EVR]

I plan on upgrading the suspension on my 74 GTV this spring. I want to use it primarily on the street, but it will also be used for some AutoX and track days. I have been looking at my choices and find the recomendations confusing:

Alan Ward.... springs and stiffer rear sway bar
EB Spares... springs and stiffer front sway bar
Dave Rugh... springs only

The only thing they seem to have in common is to use Bilstein shocks.
I have also heard the recomendation to remove the rear sway bar.
I think I understand the affect the various components have on oversteer and understeer which makes me wonder why the recomendations are so different for the same car.

[turbolarespider]

Ken
From personal experience, unless you plan on doing heavy track and autocross work, I would avoid the W&D set up. We have it on our GTV, and while it's wonderful to drive on any competition course, the system pretty much reqires R1's to work properly.

With street tires, it's not quite the same, and VERY stiff.

Eric

[emr5503]

Eric,
Are you running W&D street or race springs?
Ed

[GTV4EVR]

Thanks Eric,

Any suggestions (I was leaning toward W&D based on ??). A friend has a set and likes them, but he has had them a long time. He said when he bought them, they had three choices of spring rates, now there's only 1.

[turbolarespider]

Ed,
From what I know, the only difference between the street and race versions are the base lenght. Rate is the same.

And I think it's because Alan expects the race cars to start life a few hundred pounds lighter than a street car.

My car does have the streets- I bought them from Dana Loomis who runs a 1750 in vintage racing. He put them in his race car, and it sat way too high. On my car, they are perfect.

I spoke with Alan when I installed them, and he basically told me how to set them up. Using the non damaged jacking points for refrerence, the rear should be 1.5 in higher than the front. My front height is somewhat dictated by the horrible roads found in SE MI, BUT I understand that a lot of vintage drivers are going with the higher settings so that the suspension works properly.

Now I am rambling....

Eric

[justcallmefred]

Eric is right the W+D springs are all the same rate-a little too stiff for the street espc. if you run a low profile tire (anything less than 60 series) I would go with the Rugh springs try that and then go for a bigger front bar and eventually an adjustable rear bar so you have some tunability. I can sell you the Rugh springs powder-coated (any color you want-I usually use semi-gloss black like oem) for some reason Dave sells them bare only.

[aafoon]

How much are the Rugh springs you carry and what are the spring rates.I am also looking for a set of springs for my 74 GTV, and can I get them powder coated in yellow.

Adrian

[justcallmefred]

I am going to say the fronts are in the 650 range (stock@500) rears I will have to confirm but I am going to say 180 vs. 150 but I will confirm tomorrow price p.coated around $400.00 a set (plus freight) but this I will also confirm after making sure of my p.coating rates for this year. Yellow no problem that is Alans color at W+D but I am sure he will not mind (we are very good freinds) To give you an idea his rates on the front are in the 1000 range (force needed to compress the spring 1 inch in #s) Dave Rugh will also supply stiffer springs as well.

[djone101]

Interesting to note that the highly rated Harvey Bailey Engineering spring set up sold in Europe uses very similar spring rates: 600 front, 180 rears. Though I was told the fronts are 400 as standard. I've had my own springs made to this spec and find them a great compromise for track and street use. (in combination with a 27mm front bar and no rear bar)

Unfortunately mine only came in black.....

[turbolarespider]

That sounds like an excellent compromise for a car mainly used on the street.

Ken, were you planning on running race tires or street tires when you autocross/ track the car?

Eric

[GTV4EVR]

Quote:

Originally posted by turbolarespider That sounds like an excellent compromise for a car mainly used on the street. Ken, were you planning on running race tires or street tires when you autocross/ track the car? Eric

[bill_bain]

Thought I' toss my $0.02 in here.

I have the W&D street springs in my '83 Spider, along with the W&D rear sway bar, on 14" 195/65 Dunlop Sport A2s. Handling is very good, but the ride is stiff -- not intolerably so, but stiffer than stock. Ride height is about 1" lower. I use Koni reds -- settings about 1/2 on front and full soft on rear. Alan indicated he prefers Bilsteins, but he didn't throw up when I told him that I'd likely keep the Konis since they were nearly new. Personally, I think the Spider doesn't benefit from any additional boost in spring rate in the rear, so I'll stick with Koni reds.

The debate over whether to use stiffer springs or sway bars to control body roll is a long-standing one. The sway bar has the advantage of pemitting softer springs on the straightaway and therefore more ride comfort, since sway bars only come into play when the suspension is loaded in turns. Each suspension tuner tunes to his preference, which may not be yours, so you should try to drive cars that have been set up with the systems you're considering. When I was redoing the rear suspension in my '83, I corresponded with a number of folks who raced Alfa 105 coupes in Europeand their consensus was that stiff front, soft rear was the fast setup, including disconnecting the rear sway bar. Again, these were race cars, so ride comfort wasn't an issue, so "soft" rears needs to be kept in context.

The Spider's basic problem from a handling perspective (compared to the GTV or Berlina) is that the rear is relatively light and the engine does not have gobs of power to plant the back end a la Corvette. Rear springs that are too tall exacerbate the problem of getting weight transfer to the rear to keep it planted. The GTV and Berlina are somewhat diifferent, one because their respective wheelbases are longer, two, they have greater suspension travel (particularly in the rear), and three, they have more weight in the rear. Because of that, sweeping gneralizations about all the 105/115 cars should be consdired carefully -- the generalization will be right (it is, after all, the same basic suspension and drivetrain), but at the margin, the devil's in the details, so don't assume that the set up from a hot 105 coupe is the right set up for a 115 Spider. And it's best to remember that we're talking about performance at the margins here -- the stock suspenson set up on a new Spider makes for a very good handling street car right out of the box. The problem now is that very few of us have driven a *new* 115 Spider as a frame of reference. Comparing a clapped out stock suspension to one with new go-fast parts is a somewhat misleading exercise, to say the least. In fact, for a street car that doesn't see much track time, I'd advocate the stock setup with new stock springs (and urethane bushings and a rebuilt steering idler). The stock setup is more car than most of us are drivers (and I include myself in that statement), plus it will be a very enjoyable ride on the street.

Ironically one of the best things I ever did for handling on the Spider was to put roll bar in it. Stiffening the body twist helps a great deal and I'm told that a roll bar with the brace from the roll bar down into the passenger footwell is more effective than the chassis stiffener and legal in the autocross/racing classes to boot. The other thing that really tweaked the handling was to put a trailer hitch on my Spider -- hanging the extra weight out there pulled my corner weights to within 3 pounds of each other on the diagonals, so now the car *is* just about perfectly balanced, and that's another legal modification.

YMMV.