Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi All,

Really debating at the moment whether or not to buy the Eibach roll bar kit for my 156, although I am not sure if the Eibach kits really live up to the price - £311.99 delivered with VAT direct from Eibach.

I need a new front bar for my 2.5 V6 either way and am interested in upgrading the bar, so thought maybe the GTA bars are perhaps nearly as good, and they also cost a little less than the Eibach kit, has anyone got any advice on this?

Many Thanks,
Tony.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,673 Posts
I had a 1.6 Twinnie 147 and I went through this quandry myself, I chnaged the ARBs for GTA ARBs and was very impressed with the increased stability, My original review is here.

http://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/tuning-and-upgrades/107119-review-147-gta-arbs-upgrade.html

I have done a similar thing on the GTA but gone from standard GTA ARBs to Eibach and found the difference in a same order as going from standard on the twinnie to GTA ARBs.

Pascs also has some experience with different ARB setups on his 156s so good idea to get some input from him.

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,079 Posts
I'd go for the GTA bars, but make sure you do front and rear to keep the balance.
If you just change the front it will make it understeer more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,063 Posts
If you are going to change the ARB's then I'd recommend going for the Eibach's if you can afford it - the change is not huge but the car is definitely flatter through the corners......also the rear Eibach is 'adjustable' so in theory you can alter the setup to give more or less rear stiffness

If you dont have a good set of dampers then I'd recommend you do this first as a change in dampers has a far bigger improvement than a change in ARB's

The GTA bars are only 1-2mm thicker than standard and the Eibach's are 4mm thicker than standard so there is quite a significant difference
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Thanks for all of your replies.

I have the adjustable Koni Sport Kit (yellow dampers and blue lowering springs). Not sure how these compare to the Eibach/Koni spring and damper setup, although compared to what I had (standard springs and dampers) is a vast improvement, so Koni shocks and springs coupled with the Eibach bars would be a good choice you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,063 Posts
The Koni kit is pretty low right -40mm ? how do you find that?

I'm very happy with the Eibach bars, you'll need to fit new genuine front drop links at the same time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I feel the Koni setup is pretty good really, I think it is -30mm, and has the benefit of being adjustable. I haven't touched this yet as the ride is still quite hard, but not spine breaking!

Thanks for your advice, I think I may go with the Eibach bars and I will fit new drop links at the same time. May I ask though, why genuine drop links?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,063 Posts
I bought a set of non genuine Alfa drop links and the ball joint sticks out about 5mm more than the genuine ones. This is fine for normal ARB's but the Eibach's being a bit thicker or something, cause the non genuine ball joint to run very close to the suspension and appear to knock / rub against it.

Also I think non genuine ones can have a dubious quality and the Eibach's do put more force through the drop link
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Hang on, that is exactly the problem that I have. One of my droplinks (nearside I think) is actually rubbing on the front suspension fork. So maybe this could be my problem? I can, with extreme pressure, move the anti roll bar from side to side, about 1/2 inch - would this be normal? The anti-roll bar I have has been fitted to the car for around a year and has covered hardly any mileage, so my thought in the roll bar bushes wearing out maybe wrong, as I have pattern droplinks (made by Firstline I believe).

Maybe if I was to try buying some genuine Alfa Romeo links and fit them prior to changing the bar, would this be an idea ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I'd go for the GTA bars, but make sure you do front and rear to keep the balance.
If you just change the front it will make it understeer more.
I have concerns about the balance of the Eibach ARBs for a 156 SW 1.9 JTD16V. Those bars were for sure developed for optimal performance for a GTA which is more heavy at the front. The Eibach ARBs have 4mm more both at front and rear than the original ones. Isnt 26mm too much for a 1.9 JTD. I want less roll but also want the car to understeer less (which i already worked on raising the front tyres pressure a bit to decrease understeer, but i prefer to do this the right way with some arbs).

I'm with Bilstein B12 Pro Kit suspension and as some probably already know this suspension change the rake angle of the car. The rear gets a different front / rear height ratio than the original suspension. With B12 the rear gets lower in comparison to the front and that means that there is more weight on the rear, making the front lighter and of course making the rear more planted but the front gets more understeer. I want to reverse this effect a bit, so i'm worried that keeping the F/R stiffness ratio wouldnt work so well on a 1.9JTD due to the engine being lighter than the one on the GTA.

In the case of installing GTA ARBs the front as a 1mm improve and the rear 2mm improve meaning that the rear will get stiffer, which also means that the car will get more oversteer in comparison to the original setup.

Which are your thoughts about these variables?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
If you have a Bilstein B12 kit, for a SW, I'd make up some spacers for the bottom of the rear springs to raise them 15mm from the strut spring perch. I think simply making spacers from a fibreglass paste should be strong enough. Just make a few drainage channels in the bottom. That should sort the aerodynamic angle of attack.

As the SW is heavier at the rear, use the holes for the rear ARB closer to the bushes. The JTD has more weight at the front so won't be significantly different from the V6. (the V6 is heavier overall but the JTD has a greater forward weight bias). The handling should be balanced at that as the variable rate rear coil springs should effectively self adjust the handling. As with any kit, the greater the roll angle, the greater the understeer effect. Therefore, if the rear is too loose in the wet or greasy roads, fit the rear ARB links to the outer holes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
If you have a Bilstein B12 kit, for a SW, I'd make up some spacers for the bottom of the rear springs to raise them 15mm from the strut spring perch. I think simply making spacers from a fibreglass paste should be strong enough. Just make a few drainage channels in the bottom. That should sort the aerodynamic angle of attack.

As the SW is heavier at the rear, use the holes for the rear ARB closer to the bushes. The JTD has more weight at the front so won't be significantly different from the V6. (the V6 is heavier overall but the JTD has a greater forward weight bias). The handling should be balanced at that as the variable rate rear coil springs should effectively self adjust the handling. As with any kit, the greater the roll angle, the greater the understeer effect. Therefore, if the rear is too loose in the wet or greasy roads, fit the rear ARB links to the outer holes.
So in your opinion i could stick with the Eibach ARB and just change from the softest to hardest setting according to driving conditions? I will have to change the front ARB for sure because mine got bent in a very hard pot-hole. We've take some time to find out what is making the front lean more to the left side than the right side, till the moment i've got the idea to unlink the ARB to see if the height gets leveled. And... surprise, it gets fully leveled, linked the droplinks again and it got uneven. So i will have to change it. Considering the labour cost i find out that is a good idea to make the upgrade of course with front and rear to keep everything balanced.

I have another concern that is the Xenon headlight leveling pieces. Hope the new ARB doesnt mess with those.

Raising the rear end seems a great idea.

The other issue with the Eibach ARB is that some guys seem to lose grip in tight corners. The thing is... how tight are those corners...? I love to do some twisties. My concerns is that i end up with a FWD car that gets much less progressive in terms of throttle control during corners.

Thank you for your input :rotate:
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
45,796 Posts
On my 2.4 JTD I use GTA front anti roll bar and Eibach rear anti roll bar on the hard setting. It drives wonderfully on the narrow, bumpy roads of Cumbria. No understeer at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
There was a question on here about the bracket for the Xenon self levelling. Apparently the Eibach front ARB doesn't have it but I think that some drilled and bent stainless steel and a stainless steel motorcycle exhaust clamp would sort that.

Yes, @Pud237, I'd expect no understeer with that set up. That said, the torque of the JTD is why the Q2 was created as it will always be able to spin the inner wheel.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
45,796 Posts
Yes I have Q2 on it as well, and 17" GTA wheels with 225/45/17. Everytime I drive it the grip & nimbleness blows me away. Feels like it has the grip of a 159 and the handling of a TS.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
I have concerns about the balance of the Eibach ARBs for a 156 SW 1.9 JTD16V. Those bars were for sure developed for optimal performance for a GTA which is more heavy at the front. The Eibach ARBs have 4mm more both at front and rear than the original ones. Isnt 26mm too much for a 1.9 JTD. I want less roll but also want the car to understeer less (which i already worked on raising the front tyres pressure a bit to decrease understeer, but i prefer to do this the right way with some arbs).

I'm with Bilstein B12 Pro Kit suspension and as some probably already know this suspension change the rake angle of the car. The rear gets a different front / rear height ratio than the original suspension. With B12 the rear gets lower in comparison to the front and that means that there is more weight on the rear, making the front lighter and of course making the rear more planted but the front gets more understeer. I want to reverse this effect a bit, so i'm worried that keeping the F/R stiffness ratio wouldnt work so well on a 1.9JTD due to the engine being lighter than the one on the GTA.

In the case of installing GTA ARBs the front as a 1mm improve and the rear 2mm improve meaning that the rear will get stiffer, which also means that the car will get more oversteer in comparison to the original setup.

Which are your thoughts about these variables?
You should read the following as yours is a SW. Your issue is the rear springs, thats whats causing your low rear ride height. https://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/alfa-147-156-andamp-gt/1177875-suspension-upgrade.html#post17427601
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
With B12 the rear gets lower in comparison to the front and that means that there is more weight on the rear, making the front lighter and of course making the rear more planted but the front gets more understeer.
Lowering the rear ride height (relative to the front) won't cause the rear end to carry significantly more weight. Don't be confused by the fact that forward acceleration causes rear end squat as well as rearward weight transfer, the two aren't inextricably linked, rather they are two somewhat seperate affects of the acceleration.

Statically raising or lowering one end of a car relative to the other will move weight (represented by the CG of mass) forward or rearward, but only to a relatively small degree (even if the change in relative ride heights were to be quite substantial). It will be measurable in single digit millimetres, and of itself I can't see that this small change in static longitudinal weight distribution will have a significant effect on the handling or steering etc.

Out of curiosity (and to quantify my assumptions...) I made a CorelDraw diagram. According to the diagram, if we assume a chassis with a wheelbase of 2595mm (156 sedan wheelbase), with a CG height at 600mm (about the same as the top of the tyres, generally a reasonable rough approximation of CG height), and a 60% forward weight bias determining the longitudinal CG location (typical FWD), then a 30mm lowering of rear ride height causes the CG to move backward by only 7mm (note that the CG also lowers by 12mm). This represents only a 2.7% change in the front / rear static weight bias (with a 30mm rear ride height lowering).

This is not to say that changing relative front / rear ride heights won't affect handling and steering, but I can't see that it would be as a direct result of altering the longitudinal weight distribution so slightly. The change in CG height will be more significant, as will the associated change to the height of the rear vs front geometric roll centres.

Lowering the rear GRC (as will occur with a reduction in rear ride height, quite possibly significantly more than the actual decrease in ride height), will decrease geometric rear roll stiffness, so will reduce lateral weight transfer at the rear (while causing lateral WT to increase at the front even if front roll stiffness is unaltered). This will tend to increase understeer, especially initial understeer because geometric weight tranfers are 'instant' as opposed to 'mechanical' weight tranfers which are 'slow' ('geometric' being the % of weight transfer which occurs via the suspension geometry, and 'mechanical' being the % of WT which occurs via the springs and ARBs).

IMO it is probably counter productive for the rear ride height to be reduced if the front ride height isn't (likely to be understeer inducing, as well as degrading responsiveness to steering inputs and change of direction), so I do agree with you that you should try to avoid it happening. I just don't agree with the notion that it is a product of any change in static weight distribution...

Regards,
John.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
You should read the following as yours is a SW. Your issue is the rear springs, thats whats causing your low rear ride height. https://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/alfa-147-156-andamp-gt/1177875-suspension-upgrade.html#post17427601
The rear is higher than the front. Its just the ratio that changed and i'm okay with that in fact, aesthetically i like it this way and supposedly the Eibach ARBs should work optimal with my suspension, as said by Eibach (if that is credible enough), now the thing is, all of this should work "optimal" on the car they tuned, which i think should be the GTA. But i think i will go with the Eibach.

The rear height even when i carry people and luggage is still okay. The B8's with the springs can handle the added weight. But most of the time i drive alone and when i'm with the family just carry my kid and sometimes the dog, so a max of 50kg at the back.

I'm a bit off to change the rear springs.

At this moment there isnt much understeer, its quite balanced. I use to feel understeer with the original tyre pressures. 2.4 Front and 2.4 Rear with the 215/45/17 on Toyo Proxes T1 Sport. Now i'm with Continental Premium Contact 6 (great btw) and since i've raised the front tyres pressure the understeer gone and the car is now balanced. I just need to change the front ARB because mine just got bent, so i'm considering upgrading both front and rear, but dont want to end up with a car that is less fun to drive. At this moment the car has a progressive handling and very good throttle control to lift off on the limit. My concern is to lose that and ending up with a car that refuses to loose the rear or with a car that oversteers too easy.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top