Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi.

I am looking at installing upgraded dampers along with Eibach pro kit springs on my standard suspension 147 GTA. However, I have read of low ride height issues with the front undercarriage for some users of the pro kit springs.

"black cat" has said the drop for a 156 GTA from OEM to Eibach pro kit is about 15 mm front and rear. My guess is this would be much the same for the 147 GTA.

For reference, my 147 GTA (unladen) wheel arch lip to wheel centre measurements are front (driver side) 360 mm, front (passenger side) 365 mm and rear (both sides) 385 mm. A 15 mm drop would give 345-350 mm front and 370 mm rear.

Could any 147 GTA owners with Eibach pro kit springs advise of their ride height measurements. Much appreciated.

Cheers, Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Just to update...

My local Eibach supplier has advised that the Eibach R & D data for the 147 GTA is :

OEM ride height 374 mm front, 380 & 385 mm rear

& on Eibach pro-kit springs ride height 350 mm front, 370 mm rear

about what I had guessed.....

Can users of the Eibach pro-kit springs advise if these springs are a significant suspension upgrade over OEM for a GTA? In other words, are they stiffer, do they have better control over squat, dive, wallow and body roll etc. Or would upgraded dampers such as Bilstein B6 or Koni Sport work better with OEM springs?

Any advice appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,551 Posts
I've got them on the 156 and they are very different to the standard springs. More compliant for small amounts of travel, firming up much more as the deflection increases; in other words much more progressive! It completely removed my cars tendency to bottom out over the yumpy bits. Overall control much better, but the shocks are important too - no experience of the ones you mentioned.

No idea what these are like with standard shocks, either, as I had Koni FSDs at the same time, which remove the crashy nature of the std susp..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks Oggy :thumbs:

Any comments from 147 GTA owners with pro-kit springs? Do you need to cut down the bump stops to allow more suspension travel?

I know Autolusso advise that pro-kit springs with Koni FSD's are the best suspension upgrade option for the 147 GTA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,063 Posts
I'm not 100% convinced about the Eibach / FSD combination. I have this on my V6 and at the moment have 340mm front 350mm rear from wheel centre to wheel arch.

The problem I have is that when going over normal flat roads then hitting a big dip, the damper seems delayed to stiffen up quick enough and this combined with the progressive spring allows a good bit of initial compression. On my car this allows the tyre to contact the underside of the arch liner........so there is a far bit of compression (I'm using GTA wheels and 225/45 tyres, so the same setup as the GTA)

Also the front of the car is a bit too low for my area, I have the Zender front spoiler which is probably longer and lower than the GTA bumper and this regularly catches speed bumps as does the CAT.

I'm planning to replace the front Eibachs with my original sport springs which are about 10mm higher than the Eibachs. Once this is done I'll see what combination of anti roll bar and strut bar to use to keep the understeer to a minimum.

Not much help for your 147 GTA but at least it might give an idea of limitations I've found with the Eibach / FSD combination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,551 Posts
Pascs, I don't know the details of your car's setup (thinking non-GTA geometry?) , but I've yet to bottom mine and I've gone over some "undulations " with this setup that were in danger of damaging my spine! It really does firm up after some initial travel. No signs of wheel arch contact. These are standard teledials with 225/45R17.

However, grounding does seem to happen more to 147s with this setup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,063 Posts
GTA's also have different wheel arch liners so they maybe have more clearance too. I'ver never bottomed out the car, just the tyre on the arch liner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Thanks Pascs :thumbs:

Your advice is a big help. The low front ride height and excess spring compression you described has been mentioned by other users of the pro-kit springs on GTAs and V6s so it is something I need to consider.

I am aware the pro-kit front spring rates for the 156 GTA/V6 and 147 GTA are the same, the only difference being the 156 GTA/V6 springs are about 15 mm longer.

Maybe your springs have settled a bit since installation, about 10mm. It seems a minimum front ride height of 350mm is about the compromise level to balance good looks with practicality.

Perhaps a quick-acting high pressure damper such as the Bilstein B6/8 would also help in resisting excessive compression.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,063 Posts
Its a hard choice. I had Bilsteins on before (not sure which type) with my sport springs but I fitted the bilsteins to my other V6 when I got the Eibach / FSD kit.

The FSD's are a great damper without doubt and when matched with the Eibachs really smooth out the ride.

There was mention of someone producing a 10mm spacer to fit under the front spring to raise it up but I dont think it made it into production otherwise I'd just fit that to my car and be happy :)
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
45,831 Posts
There was mention of someone producing a 10mm spacer to fit under the front spring to raise it up but I dont think it made it into production otherwise I'd just fit that to my car and be happy :)
That would not increase the length of the strut through, only the preload on the spring. So the weight of the car would not compress the spring as much as before. Technically its like having the same length spring with a higher rate. I'd much rather a spacer between the shock body and the ally fork to raise it up 10mm. Perhaps you could weld 10mm of tube onto the bottom of the shock and move the bracket that the pinch bolt goes through as well?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,063 Posts
That would not increase the length of the strut through, only the preload on the spring. So the weight of the car would not compress the spring as much as before. Technically its like having the same length spring with a higher rate. I'd much rather a spacer between the shock body and the ally fork to raise it up 10mm. Perhaps you could weld 10mm of tube onto the bottom of the shock and move the bracket that the pinch bolt goes through as well?
Maybe, I'm not that knowledgeable on the theory but I assume the ride height would be 10mm higher and thats all I really need :p

I did think about raising the strut in the fork but then I wasnt sure if there would then be possibility of flex at the joint because there would be less of the damper body clamped in the fork.

Anyway the springs will be coming out in the next week or so as I'm doing a complete suspension rebuild with new top and bottom wishbones, new rubber spring mounts, revised anti roll bar / or new bushes and refit top strut bar.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
802 Posts
That would not increase the length of the strut through, only the preload on the spring. So the weight of the car would not compress the spring as much as before. Technically its like having the same length spring with a higher rate. I'd much rather a spacer between the shock body and the ally fork to raise it up 10mm. Perhaps you could weld 10mm of tube onto the bottom of the shock and move the bracket that the pinch bolt goes through as well?
Sorry Dan

But how do think coil overs adjust the height of the car,by screwing the spring pan up

John:)
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
45,831 Posts
Sorry Dan

But how do think coil overs adjust the height of the car,by screwing the spring pan up

John:)
I know thats how coilovers doing it. I'm not saying that fitting a spacer between the spring and the top mount wouldn't raise the car, only that it does it by pre-loading the spring which affects its rate and therefore how much it compresses. Similar to getting a stiffer spring of the same length installed. But if it were my car I'd rather lengthen the strut and keep the spring rate the same if possible, I wouldn't want the car to feel any harder than it already does with the Eibachs. Maybe I'm getting old :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
I'm not sure on this.

As an example, if you added a 10mm spacer below the original spring or used a 10mm longer spring of the same spring rate, both would compress an additional 10mm (beyond the original length) when fastened to the strut. Under these two scenarios, as with the original springs, the spring is compressed and contained within the strut housing.

When the strut housing is installed in the car, the weight of the car of course compresses the strut housing a further distance in all three cases. So, wouldn't the load on the spring be the same (its the same weight being supported) and wouldn't the spring rate stay the same as the springs are all compressed the same length to support the same load. All that changes is the unladen height of the car?

Sorry for the garbled analogy as its late here and thinking is hurting...and please correct me if I'm wrong
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Just to update this thread....

I finally tracked down a 147GTA on standard dampers with Eibach pro-kit springs.

The ride height measurements are front driver side 335 mm passenger side 340 mm, rear 365 mm both sides. So the height had dropped from what Eibach officialy advise.....

My brief passenger seat impressions were that the ride was choppier than on OEM springs, with the car closely following road corrugations and imperfections. The upside was the car felt lighter on its feet with a reduction in squat and dive and general looseness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
I would measure up for you but don't have my car at the moment.

I've had the Koni FSD/Eibach Pro setup for a few years and the front end is very low, it has still not settled too as it seems to be getting lower. From what I have seen the 156 setup doesn't get as low on the front so it's not comparable and I would not recommend it to anyone for whom ground clearance might be an issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I would measure up for you but don't have my car at the moment.

I've had the Koni FSD/Eibach Pro setup for a few years and the front end is very low, it has still not settled too as it seems to be getting lower. From what I have seen the 156 setup doesn't get as low on the front so it's not comparable and I would not recommend it to anyone for whom ground clearance might be an issue.
Thanks, I would be interested to hear the measurements when you get your car back.

Your advice on ground clearance are wise words. The front spoiler on the 147GTA on pro-kit springs that I checked had 120 mm ground clearance and the owner had to remove the undertray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Don't know if this will help any but....

I have 2 cars:

147 1.9 Jtd - on FSd and Eibach pro springs - Its low and the undertray contacts most speed bumps, ride quality is firmed up and there is little body roll but, the ride quality at low speed around town does get annoying, and if you hit square edged bumps at speed it does jolt the ride. Its probably fine for the track but not for the road, don't really like it and will change back to the standard springs to see if this makes for a better compromise.

156 GTA SW - on Standard shocks and springs - much better compromise all round- with that splitter I wouldn't want to go any lower.

Also had a 2.0 TS SW on Eibach pro springs and HRB tuned Bilsteins - this was really nice

When the GTA shocks need replacing I'll probably get some Bilsteins

Just my observations from the cars I own/owned.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top