Hi all.
I know that one of my rear shocks has a leak so it's time to replace them both.
Dont want to spend more than I need to given the car was only $3K to buy, but I'm also open to take the opportunity to upgrade.
Something slightly stiffer than stock? But not bone shaking?
Been looking at the Koni offerings but I read people talking about "yellow, red, blue?" or something being the different rates.
Just wondering what shocks people recommend.
Did some more internet trawling and looks like Koni sports is a convincing upgrade that wont brake the bank or the back :D
http://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/alfa-gtv-andamp-916-spider/170695-koni-sport-shocks-or-alfa-origional.html
"The trick with the Koni Sports is to put the rears on the softest setting before fitting, as you can't adjust them once fitted. The softest setting is good enough for the rear, quite firm and compliant but also giving a much more assured ride, even over broken services. " - Spider95
I put Koni Yellows on my 159. Very happy with the result. They are presently set at about 65% stiff front and 50% stiff rear - on standard Ti springs. The front yellows as fitted to the 159 are adjustable when installed. Not sure about a 916 GTV though. If you can access the front shock upper mount at the strut tower all should be good.
Quote from: Colin Edwards on June 29, 2017, 02:22:25 PM
I put Koni Yellows on my 159. Very happy with the result. They are presently set at about 65% stiff front and 50% stiff rear - on standard Ti springs. The front yellows as fitted to the 159 are adjustable when installed. Not sure about a 916 GTV though. If you can access the front shock upper mount at the strut tower all should be good.
Cheers mate.
Only doing the rears at present as they "need" doing.
I know it would be better to do the whole set, but I'll save that kind of expenditure for when I get a V6 :) or when the fronts also "need" doing.
So yeah, just the nice easy rears for now. Which is great as they are a 2 bolt easy DIY job.
Thanks again. Think I'm pretty much settled on Konis.
Did you get yours online or from an Aussie supplier?
That said, I'll be tripping to the UK shortly so I could even go with Alfaholics or EB spares and bring them back on the return flight.
Has anyone here used Koni streets on the rears?
I ask as there is a considerable price difference, and most people run the koni sport on the "soft" setting anyway.
I would be gun-shy about bringing shocks as accompanied baggage. Most contain both oil and pressurised nitrogen, this takes them (per my reading of the current IATA rules) solidly into the grey area and IMO not worth the risk it may bring to you as a traveller.
My most recent shocks purchase was with Demon Tweeks, customer service required some applications of heat but they arrived in about four weeks total elapsed time. And - DT sent them via normal air freight, not Dangerous Goods! Their choice and risk, not mine...
Quote from: Citroënbender on June 30, 2017, 11:11:31 AM
I would be gun-shy about bringing shocks as accompanied baggage. Most contain both oil and pressurised nitrogen, this takes them (per my reading of the current IATA rules) solidly into the grey area and IMO not worth the risk it may bring to you as a traveller.
My most recent shocks purchase was with Demon Tweeks, customer service required some applications of heat but they arrived in about four weeks total elapsed time. And - DT sent them via normal air freight, not Dangerous Goods! Their choice and risk, not mine...
Ah good point. Thanks for raising that. Hadn't even thought about the contents and pressurisation being an issue.
Was blinded by the "small and light for a car part" side of things. I always travel light so would easily fit them within my allowance.
Thanks for the headsup.
Just found a little thread on that topic in the US:
https://forum.miata.net/vb/archive/index.php/t-459065.html
So even on internal flights, as checked baggage, they are turned away.
I like some of the points made though ;)
Like the fact that the planes own shocks seem fine (but they'd be specifically designed) but also the fact that, that's how FedX ships them anyway lol
But rules are rules.
Again, thanks for the heads up. I'd have lost my shocks in London or Singapore :(
Shipping is only about 35 pounds to Aus anyway.
EDIT:
https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/us/travel-info/baggage/baggage-restrictions/
Not listed or anything like it, however I'd still seek writen clarification if I were to bring them back myself.
But for the sake of purchasing peace of mind for as low as $60, I may as well ship them IF I can't find them locally at a good price.
So back to the questions....anyone used Koni Streets? Are the comparable to Koni Sport in soft setting?
I purchased the Koni yellows locally from Top Performance in Vermont.
Last time I used Koni "reds" was over 30 years ago when tuning Toyotas. Back then the main diference (apart from price) was the red was not gas pressuised. Also, the reds had to be removed from the car for adjustment. Never had any problems with them on a road car. Always found a suitable setting with them on standard or higher rate springs.
Well struck a bargain and I wont quite believe it until they arrive.
Koni Streets....in stock..... from EB Spares....
For 88 pounds for THE PAIR!!!!
http://www.ebspares.co.uk/parts/EB4/EB8498.cfm
Snagged a pair and I'm told they should be with me next week.
I couldn't get anything close to that locally and everywhere would have to order in.
Shipping was 38 pounds on top.
It's good to see a relative bargain had now and then. :-D Keen to hear your opinion once they're bedded in.
Quote from: Citroënbender on July 09, 2017, 09:32:51 AM
It's good to see a relative bargain had now and then. :-D Keen to hear your opinion once they're bedded in.
Yep from what I read, and the response from Koni themselves, the streets (str.t), are generally get to a similar setting to the sports on "soft".
However they did also point out that, they are not duel pressurized.
So what I'm anticipating is a feel very much like the Sports on "soft" (which is what most people say to set the rears to anyway) and I just hope I dont find that my springs are shot too lol.
I'm expecting an improvement on my aged originals so I'm sure it will be fine.
Well I ordered them last Thursday evening our time.
To my surprise they were waiting for me at home when I got in from work TODAY!!!
Awesome :)
Fitted these on sunday arvo.
Easy job thanks to this thread.
http://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/alfa-gtv-andamp-916-spider/266715-how-to-guide-front-andamp-rear-suspension-change.html
4 bolts and your're done. And I'd already done a very similar job on my beetle which is the same setup, except torsion bar instead of springs. But the shock is separate, just like on the 916.
Hardest part tbh was working out how to jack the car up so that I could also put stands under the car as there was no way I was going to be using some of my persuasion tools with the car not on stands.
Opted for trolley jack on the alloy bar across the back end of the car as detailed at the bottom of this thread:
http://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/alfa-gtv-andamp-916-spider/951889-jacking-up-a-gtv.html
(Note: This thread also details scissor jack failures that I was not aware of, which was very helpful to know)
ProcedureAs my trolley jack is a smaller one, my method was as follows:
1) With car on ground, begin the persuasion of the 19mm bolts at the bottom of the shocks.
2) Loosen wheel nuts
3) Jack car to full extent of trolley jack from centre of the bar which was JUST enough to raise the wheel off the ground, but not enough for the high setting on my stands.
4) Carefully remove wheel
5) Drop car onto stands on 2nd height setting
6) Place scissor jack under end of control arm to take pressure off shock bolts (tip from threads above)
7) Loosen bottom 19mm bolt
8 ) Persuade top 17mm bolt and loosen
9) Remove bottom and top bolts completely
10) Persuade old shock out of place
11) Insert net shock and persuade into location.
12) Insert bolts. Adjustment of the scissor jack for the bottom bolt is key.
13) Raise on jack, refit wheel, and drop to floor.
14) Repeat for side 2.
See pic of shock installed :D
I'm not one to go gaga over car parts but I think it's the sexiest shock ever....coz I installed it :D
Pop QuizAlso see other pic of an odd part that was rattling around at the base of the spring on the drivers side. What the hell is that? And .....do I need it? lol
Comparison between old and new shocksIt's early days and they need to bed in, but first impressions are best summed up as "noticeable difference".
I'm not going to claim to have a racing drivers butt, that can feel everything the car is doing. I dont. But the ride is stiffer, has less roll, and less bounce.
It's solid but still comfortable.
The only issue is now I want to do the fronts, which now feel vague in comparison.
Bench test comparison videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhyGYQ7_H3o
mate just noticed at lunch time that the car is still sitting lower on the driver side gggggrrrrrrrr
So we assume that because the shock on that side was more worn, that spring has taken the weight over time and compressed more than that of the other side.
That's the theory anyway.
So I guess new springs are in my future lol.
Hi ugame,
Broken part looks like it broke fairly recently given the color of the old / new surfaces. If it was inside the spring and therefore a smaller diameter than the spring its unlikely to be a spring shim or part of the spring seat. Spring seats are usually rubber and a shim wouldn't be plastic. Is it part of the bump stop?
Whats the difference in ride height left to right?
Quote from: Colin Edwards on July 18, 2017, 06:17:25 PM
Hi ugame,
Broken part looks like it broke fairly recently given the color of the old / new surfaces. If it was inside the spring and therefore a smaller diameter than the spring its unlikely to be a spring shim or part of the spring seat. Spring seats are usually rubber and a shim wouldn't be plastic. Is it part of the bump stop?
Whats the difference in ride height left to right?
Difference in ride height is about 1 finger.
Not the most technical measurement I know, but it brings back fond memories of a great drinking game at a stag night many years ago lol.
So to translate.....I'd say about 20mm if that.
OK....just went outside and did some measuring in the dark.
The difference in height is about ~18mm
Guess what? ...the part is...... ~14mm
So maybe I don't have a sagged spring after all. Seems too close to be coincidence.
If the broken plastic part is a similar diameter to the lowest coil of the spring maybe it sits between the spring and the pan in the lower control arm. It would probably account for the difference in ride height. Whats in the control arm pan on the other side? Just seems strange to use material like that under those type of loads.
Quote from: Colin Edwards on July 18, 2017, 10:31:57 PM
If the broken plastic part is a similar diameter to the lowest coil of the spring maybe it sits between the spring and the pan in the lower control arm. It would probably account for the difference in ride height. Whats in the control arm pan on the other side? Just seems strange to use material like that under those type of loads.
And that's why I dismissed it as such originally.
Will check when I next get time to pull it apart, which sadly wont be for about a month now.
just on another note re the new shocks though.....
Ultimate test today as I had to use the GTV to take my lads to school.
ON the old shocks, this is where the rear right tire would sometimes contact the inner guard when i hit a bump.
Not a single knock/scrape this time.
So they've fixed that problem. :D
Quote from: Colin Edwards on July 02, 2017, 08:30:21 AM
I purchased the Koni yellows locally from Top Performance in Vermont.
Last time I used Koni "reds" was over 30 years ago when tuning Toyotas. Back then the main diference (apart from price) was the red was not gas pressuised. Also, the reds had to be removed from the car for adjustment. Never had any problems with them on a road car. Always found a suitable setting with them on standard or higher rate springs.
My understanding is that on any given car 'reds' are generally just a bit stiffer than stock dampers, and 'yellows' are usually significantly stiffer.
When I fitted 'yellows' to my old Accord I found them disappointingly soft on the softest setting, and substantially stiffer when adjusted to be stiffer (surprise...). Koni recommends using the softest setting and to use the adjustment to account for wear as they age. Yeah right, that was never going to happen, from new they were much much better when set toward the stiffer end of the range.
The reds and yellows are only supposed to be adjustable for rebound (i.e. the adjuster only acts on the rebound valve), but subjectively and by the scientific 'push down hard on the fender' test I found the yellows to be significantly stiffer in bump as well when the rebound stiffness was cranked up. I suspect some backflow through the rebound valve that is less when the valve is closed up...?
I've never heard of 'reds' not being pressurised, though they may not have been back in the distant past. They are only adjustable off the car, not very convenient (to understate it). Given my experience with the intrinsically stiffer yellows on the Honda, my guess is that the reds would likely work best at 'full hard'. I've heard it said (well, read it in the internet, so it must be true...), that Konis shouldn't be adjusted to 'full' stiff as this can close the valve so much that momentary internal pressures in use can become so high as to damage the damper. I've run them at full stiff with no obvious damage issue, but not for long because the ride was just a bit too harsh (even for me...).
I had yellows on the Accord for years, and eventually they lost their gas pressure, as well as started to leak a bit. Still worked really well though...
Some yellows are adjustable in situ, some aren't. The ones that aren't need to be adjusted off the car in the same way reds are. I suspect this is due to Koni considering that an on car adjuster (fitted at the top of the damper rod, as Koni does it) would be inaccessible with a particular application. With my Accord this was the case with the rear dampers, though by removing a couple of pressed metal braces behind the seat (four small easily accessible bolts per brace) the top of the dampers were relatively easy to reach, and it would have been a lot easier to do this than being forced to remove the dampers (and dismantle the strut...) in order to adjust them. Apparently the 'top of the rod' adjusters can be retro-fitted, but the Konis can only be serviced by a Koni authorised shop (Koni won't supply parts to anyone else), and any 'official' work on Konis is expensive (to the point that having worn Konis rebuilt isn't really cost effective vs buying a new set...).
A friend fitted a set of 'orange' Konis to his Civic, and they were quite disappointing. No adjustment at all and basically just a soft 'stock replacement' damper.
Regards,
John.
'A friend fitted a set of 'orange' Konis to his Civic, and they were quite disappointing. No adjustment at all and basically just a soft 'stock replacement' damper. "
The Str.t is orange and non Adjustable.
And at 88 pounds for the pair, probably why they were perfect for my scenario.
Didn't have to spend much.
Better than worn stickies.
Fixed my rubbing issue.
Perfect.
Well, if the stock dampers are in fact stiff enough for the job, or suit the preference of the driver re stiffness, then the orange Konis should be fine. If the stock damper is relatively stiff then so too should be the 'orange' Konis, but if not then they won't really be an 'upgrade' beyond being better than worn dampers.
I wasn't saying they are a bad damper, just that my friend was disappointed because he expected they would be somewhat 'sportier' than they were on his car. Perhaps it was a matter of reading something into the name 'Koni' that was not really applicable to this their cheaper end product...?
Regards,
John.
There seems to be reasonable accord on the proposition that OEM Alfa shocks have not been much chop in recent years.
One thing I reckon you get with a "name" like Koni or Bilstein is some certainty of consistent quality in manufacture; a build that equals or exceeds OEM (and frequently cheaper than OEM). The other potential benefit is that fitting such a type of product may assist in prosecuting a claim that involves the ascribed value of the vehicle.
Quote from: johnl on July 21, 2017, 04:19:21 AM
Well, if the stock dampers are in fact stiff enough for the job, or suit the preference of the driver re stiffness, then the orange Konis should be fine. If the stock damper is relatively stiff then so too should be the 'orange' Konis, but if not then they won't really be an 'upgrade' beyond being better than worn dampers.
I wasn't saying they are a bad damper, just that my friend was disappointed because he expected they would be somewhat 'sportier' than they were on his car. Perhaps it was a matter of reading something into the name 'Koni' that was not really applicable to this their cheaper end product...?
Regards,
John.
I guess it's hard for me to compare as I've not owned a GTV from new, or one with new OEM shocks fitted.
I went mostly on the knowledge that.....
Most of what I read on using Koni Sports on a GTV rear said the best setting was "soft" for a stiff but compliant ride.
The STr.t's (orange) are said to be like the Koni sport but between "soft" and "medium", leaning toward soft.
Koni themselves, when contacted, said
"It should be noted that although base Sport and STR-T damping rates can be the same, the KONI Sport 30-1608SPORT damper is constructed in a mono-tube high pressure gas design and such a design can add to the spring rate and feel firmer on the road. The 8050-1068 STR-T is constructed in a twin tube low pressure gas design."Armed with that, for my application, it was a no brainer. What I'd be getting would be as good as stock, if not a smidge better, but for less cost. :)
To me then, in contrast to what I've been driving with, yes, it feels "sporty" to the point of me now looking at the fronts and contemplating the same treatment. But I totally understand that this is because I am not comparing it to new, but to old OEM setup.
When I bought my 147 (Twin Spark TI) I knew from the test drive that the rear dampers needed immediate replacement (totally shagged), and the fronts weren't great either, assumed to be on the way out but not as far gone. I replaced all four with new TRW stock rated dampers. The new rear ones were OK, but the new front TRWs were barely any better than the old original (Boge?) ones I took off (i.e. pretty hopelessly under-damped). Bit the bullet and replaced the still effectively new fronts with B6 Bilsteins (mono-tube 'sports' rated), which were a huge improvement. I'd like to get B6 dampers for the rear too, but the stock ones work well enough that I can't justify the expense.
Eliminating my 147s soft rear lateral control arm bushes has resulted in the rear suspension feeling as if the dampers have been stiffened, even though they haven't been.
I have no experience with the GTV, so no idea how stiffly damped (or sprung) the stock suspension is. If the stock damper is fairly stiff then so too should the Koni 'orange' be, I would expect. My friends Civic would have been fairly softly damped stock, so the orange Konis were too. My guess would be that the GTV is likely to be significantly more stiffly sprung and damped than the 147 is...? The 147 seems to be very under-damped stock, at least the front end.
The Koni 'Sports' (yellow) that I had on my Accord were all twin tube dampers, and most 'Sports' for other applications seem to be the same. This doesn't mean that all 'Sports' are twin tube, I've heard that some are mono-tube in some applications.
Regards,
John.
I think you'd be right in saying the 147 is softer.
I own both (both in TS).
The 147 however is a family hatch back and does that job well.
The GTV is a sports car (of sorts) so I'd hope it would be stiffer than a family hatch :)
That said, I'd be interested to know how a GT compares to a 147, as they are the same base?
Just to update,
The ride is still nice and tight, however soon after installation i developed a squeak. I first thought this was from the front but I now think it's rear driver side as it's got progressively worse.
Still hard to track down exactly where from, and there are no visible splits in the bushes.
I dont think it is the shocks themselves, but I do wonder if the hard bush at the top of the shock (unlike the OEM soft bushing on the old shock) is a potential issue.
I'm planning on hitting various places with silicon spray as a trouble shooting step.
I'm wondering if I should remove the shocks, and grease up the related bushes and re-install.
I could even temporarily re-install the old shocks I guess. That would tell me for certain if the squeak is related to the new shocks and related bushes.
Creaking is coming from the front driver side suspension as I originally thought so not related to the konis at all.
Spent some time with it in my garage today and most its 100% the front.
Mostly right behind the top of driver side wheel where the spring is.
Time to upgrade the front I guess :D
Upper wishbones would be a good guess, if it's like a 147/156/GT.
Agreed.
To check, get some silicone spray, bounce up and down on the drivers guard to make the squeak/creak. Then spray the rubber bushing of the upper arms in the inner pivot point between the arm and the upper arm mount, bounce the front up & down again and if the creak disappears you have confirmed its the upper arms that needs replacing and not something else.
cheers guys. Will give that a go tonight.
I was trying to hit anything I thought was creaking, or anything that looked like a bushing with silicon spray yesterday, but the squeaking persisted.
Will have a look at an exploded diagram and hit the upper wishbone tonight.
So wishbone a smaller job than shocks and springs?
This the part?
https://www.alfaholics.com/parts/gtv-spider/suspension-3/wishbone-133/
And if it's creaking, how close to the car exploding and destroying the planet am I? Pasta Run is in 2 weeks :/ (street event NOT track event).
EDIT:
Found this how-to for the 147
http://www.alfaworkshop.co.uk/alfa_wishbone_replacement.shtml
So Hoping that the 916 GTV is of similar "ease".
I had a look at ePer, the Spider apparently uses different upper suspension to the 147/GT/156 and doesn't have the dinky little wishbone. So I led you and Bazz up the garden path unintentionally.
Creaking without noticeable slop in things, is frequently the upper strut mounts. Creaking at low speed manoeuvres plus vagueness at road speed can be either that or worn inner tie rod ends (rack ends)... These latter comments are general across marques - not Spider specific.
Quote from: Citroënbender on November 06, 2017, 12:54:38 PM
I had a look at ePer, the Spider apparently uses different upper suspension to the 147/GT/156 and doesn't have the dinky little wishbone. So I led you and Bazz up the garden path unintentionally.
Creaking without noticeable slop in things, is frequently the upper strut mounts. Creaking at low speed manoeuvres plus vagueness at road speed can be either that or worn inner tie rod ends (rack ends)... These latter comments are general across marques - not Spider specific.
There's no slop at all and no vibrations either so I'd not suspect tie rod ends (I've had that before so know what that slop feels like).
And the creaking is most definitely coming from the top of the wheel area.
I assume there is still an upper wishbone on the GTV with related bushes?.....well the part I posted above would make it seem so. So I'll have another good look and see what else I can hit with the silicon spray.
In relation to the upper strut mounts, am I safe to remove the rubber cover under the bonnet, and spray silicon from the top, and will that penetrate through to the area in question? (not as a fix, but to see if that is what is making the noise).
If you're going to use silicone spray, only treat one article at a time.
The wishbone you pictured, is fixed at the bottom of your hub carrier. On a 147/GT/156 it's called the lower wishbone.
The link is for a Fleabay front leg off a 147. You might see the differences with what is in your Spider.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/122303239100
Cheers mate. Yep I'll have a good look tonight. And yes I am spraying 1 thing at a time. Spray, bounce, listen, repeat :D
Hard to see on the GTV up the top. Turned the wheel full lock both ways but still hard to get to stuff and see what is what.
Will be easier with the wheel off but then....
Jack up
Remove wheel
Spray
Replace wheel
Lower
Bounce
Listen
Repeat
lol no thanks :D
Hang on, sorry, I forgot we were talking GTV here.
The front suspension is VERY different from 156/147 setup, there are NO upper arms to speak of. this photo will show it better.
(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1363/13635981/24789969/413635819.jpg)
Also the link here as to how to remove the lower arms of a GTVwill also assist -
http://www.alfaworkshop.co.uk/alfa_lower_wishbone.shtml
Cheers bazz.
To update, I've hit everything in sight with silicon spray now and no change.
Sound as much as I can pin it down is right back within the spring, perhaps within the shock itself.
Not coming from any bushes on the lower arm.
So worn spring itself perhaps? Or the shock? Or as already suggested, the top mount or strut mount bearing?
Who knows.
Think from here it'll be a trip to the specialist but that may have to wait till the new year.
For now she's on light duties until the pasta run. The perks of having 3 cars lol.
Think I'll take the beetle to work tomorrow.
My money is on worn strut actually.
As when I lifted the rubber boot on the side in question, the shaft was oily.
Now....that "could" have been the silicon spray I'd been hitting things randomly (by that point) with, however it was more black oily/greasy.
Didn't give it much thought beyond "That's the silicon spray probably" until this morning when I watched this........
https://youtu.be/uPh75zckPWE?t=1m (linked to correct time).
The boot on that side was all torn as well.
So I think what I need to find now is a good set of front shocks and springs, and may as well do the top strut mounts and related bushes as well?
Yup, it will be the shock.
Silicone spray is like water in viscosity and the carrier fluid evaporates quickly and leaves behind the silicone. So if there is oil on the shaft, its from the shock, and a shock shaft should always be basically dry to the touch.
The good news is removing and replacing the shocks is pretty straight forward. Just make sure when you disassemble the struts you replace the upper mounts with new ones.
Quote from: bazzbazz on November 07, 2017, 04:09:49 PM
Yup, it will be the shock.
Silicone spray is like water in viscosity and the carrier fluid evaporates quickly and leaves behind the silicone. So if there is oil on the shaft, its from the shock, and a shock shaft should always be basically dry to the touch.
The good news is removing and replacing the shocks is pretty straight forward. Just make sure when you disassemble the struts you replace the upper mounts with new ones.
Cheers bazz.
Will double check again tonight but given the location the sound is coming from also, it's starting to add up (in my head anyway).
Now I'm on to the new challenge...... finding shocks for a bloody TS 916.
Seems Koni dont do them from what I can tell (not for the TS), so I'll be looking at OEM if I can find them or perhaps Bilstien B6's
http://www.europerformance.co.uk/pages/products/product_info.mhtml?product=290933;car=alfagtv
I'm guessing the B6's will be a closer match to the Koni's I have on the rear.
May as well do springs while I"m at it, but all this will have to wait until the new year TBH. Wrong time of year lol. Am I'm trying to convince the wife that old ALfa's (or any aged car tbh) can be enjoyed without spending money on them all the time.
sssshhhhhhh dont tell her the truth ;)
I have B6 Bilsteins on the front of my 147 TS (with standard springs). They are a big massive improvement on the 'stock replacement' TRW dampers that I fitted shortly after buying the car. The new TRW dampers were not much better than the old dampers I took off assuming they were knackered, but now I think the stock damper rates are just way too soft (on the front at least). I couldn't live with the front TRWs, they were only on the car for a few weeks before I bit the bullet and got the B6s.
Having said this, I do think even the B6 dampers are not quite as stiff as they could be in rebound. They still have trouble properly controlling the suspension on rougher roads, in particular corrugated surfaces. In a perfect world (i.e. one where I had more cash), I'd send them off to be revalved a bit stiffer in rebound, maybe 25% or 30% stiffer (just gusssing here, I'd need to be guided by the Bilstein revalver, who I hope would know better than I would...).
The impression I have with the B6s is that Bilstein (may) have just taken the stock rates and added X% stiffness to both bump and rebound, which still leaves them with too little rebound relative to bump. The problem of weak rebound still seems to exist (which is I think the major problem with the stock rates, i.e. rebound in particular is way too soft), just not nearly as bad.
I had four Koni 'Sport' on my Accord, and they were much better set well toward 'full stiff' on their rebound adjustment (of course the 'Sport' adjuster supposedly only works on the rbound valve, but I strongly suspect there is significant 'cross talk' with the bump rate because the bump stiffness also seemed to increase significantly when the rebound valve was set stiffer). Set stiffly the Konis had no pronblem even on roughish dirt roads. Anyway, comparing Bilsteins on an Alfa to Konis on a Honda reminds of apples and oranges (though the front suspensions are quite similar...).
Oddly, the new rear TRW dampers are not nearly so bad as the new front TRWs were (and massively better than the original rear dampers, which were truly shagged). I'd like to also fit B6s to the rear, but the rear TRWs are not so bad that I can justify the cost (and rear B6s are significantly more expensive than the front ones are).
About springs; if the springs are not sagged then there is no reason to replace them, unless you want a different rate, and / or to change the ride height. The spring rate is determined only by the physical shape of the spring, i.e. its physical dimensions. The specific steel alloy has almost zero affect on the springs stiffness, nor does the heat treatment (if any). Metal fatigue doesn't affect rate either, unless the metal is starting to crack (which affects the 'shape' of the wire from which the spring is made).
Despite common assumption, even if they are a bit sagged springs will still retain their original rate, unless they are developing a crack (not all that likely). If a spring pair is near to being sagged to a more or less equal degree, but you are happy with the ride height and stiffness, then you shouldn't really need to replace them (unless they are so sagged that the suspension is hitting the bump stops).
Regards,
John.
Thanks for your excellent input john.
My thoughts on springs is that I'd hate to pull and replace thew shocks, only to find that the springs were the thing creaking lol. But I'm guessing that is not very likely?
I guess re cracks, if when it's all pulled out, if wear is discovered then I could make the purchase.
But if it's all being pulled apart, and given springs are not expensive, so I just buy them and have them to hand, so that if they ARE needed, then both jobs can be done at once.
hmmm.
I'll still get a quote for stock shocks as well but really appreciate your thoughts on the B6's.
It's hard because most of us have not experienced the stock shocks from new, so we're comparing old and worn OEM, to brand new after market, and making the assumption that OEM = junk.
However the price factor comes in and if OEM costs more than trusted after market options, then of course AM is the way to go.
Like John L, I found the "upgrade" of front shocks to B6 in a 147, very worthwhile. While part of me would have liked to play with Koni Yellows and their tweakable damping, I came to the conclusion that every project has its practical cost limits and I probably tweak enough already.
Breaking coil springs in an English phenomenon. If your car is Oz delivered, you have no reason to worry. I've measured standard front coils of a 147 from three different cars, and despite varying mileages there was SFA difference in length. If you want to get the struts right first time, make sure to replace the hats with either genuine or known OEM/better, and also replace any spring seats (pads) upper and lower.
Ugame,
I do have back to back experience between new 'stock replacement' dampers (albeit not the actual OE dampers) and the B6 dampers. It's no contest, at least on the front end the Bilsteins are way better, in comparison the stock rated units are complete junk, even when new. This is mostly because the stock front dampers are unusually poorly rated (very underdamped IMO). Rears are not so bad, but a bit more stiffness wouldn't hurt.
If you hunt around you can find stock rate dampers at surprisingly cheap prices (try Arese Spares). Even so, still a waste of money in my experience. It was very disappointing to purchase and fit the new front TRWs only to find them unacceptably soft.
Springs don't make creaking noises, unless they are rubbing on something, or something is rubbing against the spring.
I think fractured springs are quite rare, especially on modern cars. Many springs will lose at least some 'free length' over time / use, and if so then the ride height will lower to some degree from new. Good quality springs are typically 'scragged' at manufacture, whereby the completed spring is momentarily compressed to full coil bind in order to 'pre-sag' the spring. This lessens later sagging in use.
An argument could be made that a brand new spring might create a higher ride height that may lower somewhat over time. The same argument would go on to say that a used but servicable spring might be more stable in length / ride height than a brand new one, because it has already sagged as much as it's going to. Personally I wouldn't spend my money on new springs unless I knew there was a problem with the old ones (I'd invest that cash into the $ needed for better dampers). If both springs in a pair have the same free length to within a few mm, then I'd be happy to keep them on my car, so long as the ride height was OK.
Regards,
John.
Most importantly of all DO NOT try and use claw type screw spring compressors to take the struts apart if you are doing them yourself. A proper Strut Compressing Rig should be used, other wise you risk sever injury if anything goes wrong.
1/ The front struts are under much higher tensions than the rears
2/ They use a much narrower and tighter coil configuration and the screw-claw type compressors will slip
3/ I believe from memory the GTV struts are like the 147 & 156 front struts and are the "Offset" style, where the shaft does not run down the centre of the spring but along the back of it, making it near impossible to get even and straight compression of the spring.
Take the word from someone who knows what he is talking about here!
Check Six
Baz
For a V6 unfortunately.. https://www.shop4parts.co.uk/?name=store&op=Details&ProdID=1530&sku=37489
Hi Guys.
JohnL, Once again, thanks for your input. Looks like B6's if I can source them correctly for the TS are the option to go with then :)
BazzBazz, Oh I hear ya and I recall seeing your photo and hearing your story.
I was happy to play with the back shocks but fear the front.
My plan would be to source the correct parts at a good price, and then approach either our local Alfa specialist or a reputable suspension specialist.
Some jobs are best left in the hands of the pro's and I think just from a safety aspect, this is one of them.
Plus then I can have them check properly for any other points of issue, and give the car a proper alignment.
Ugame,
Keep in mind that all I've said relates to the 147 double wishbone front suspension, and not to the (inherently inferior) MacPherson struts on the GTV. The stock damper (and spring?) rates may or may not be similar, so what I've said may or may not be directly transferable.
I've disassembled / re-assembled the 147 front 'coilover' struts using the 'claw' type compressors that bazzbazz has warned against using. It can be done, but bazzbazz is right to be concerned about it. My compressor claws needed some modification to fit, and it is still a somewhat awkward procedure that is potentially dangerous. All care should be taken to keep ones body out of harms way, in case anything does go amiss. I held my struts vertical in a vice (held at the bottom of the strut), and did all work standing to one side with the spring (and potential projectiles) pointing upward. I wouldn't attempt this without securing the struts in this way.
Note that I'm not recommending using this type of compressor, just saying that it is possible. I wouldn't attempt it on these struts if I were not confident and experienced in using these compressors.
Regards,
John.
The great thing about your input Johnl is that I ALSO have a 147 TS, so I am sure I will one day return to this very same thread when the 147 is exhibiting front end issues.
For now though, the 147 is solid :)
This week i opted to give the GTV a good rest in the garage so as to minimize further wear, I and I drove the beetle to work 3 days straight, which was entertaining. My God the policeman was right. The exhaust is far too loud lol.
But today I returned to using the GTV and what a joy it was.
I love the contrast between cars like this. Both enjoyed for every different reasons.
"For now though, the 147 is solid"
For my part I'm somewhat mystified that other people seem to find the 147 'stock rated' front dampers to be OK, given how awful I found them to be...
"I love the contrast between cars like this. Both enjoyed for every different reasons."
It's the same when I drive my wifes' Saab 95, a massive contrast. The Saab is by far the better car for travelling long distance in relaxed, effortless comfort, the 147 far more entertaining to 'drive'...
I have to say that I find the 147 in standard form to be a rather disappointing vehicle, a fudamentally appealing car let down by a number of niggling faults. The front damper rating is probably the worst thing, but fixable. The poor shifter is also fixable (given enough determination and lateral thinking...). The driving position has the steering wheel too far away (at least for me, but I fixed this). The rear lateral control arm bushes are way too soft and 'mushify' the handling, especially in warmer weather (fixed...). The rear anti roll bar is so thin it does almost nothing (I couldn't feel eny difference when it wasn't installed), sorted.
Still on my 'to do' list is a pair of better rear dampers ($!). I think the steering and handling would benefit from some stiffer front lower wishbone bushes. I'd like to lower the chassis, just a bit, maybe 20mm or so as the car just looks too high. Were I less cash constrained it might be amusing to supercharge the engine...
Regards,
John.
hehe yep I think from reading your posts, you have the kind of arse that can feel a car.
I (and most others) do not.
My story is this..... in order to find a cheap manual for my kids to learn in, I kind of ...erm....accidentally purchased a cheap Silver GTV.
Fun for me....still not the best option for the kids.
So now that Alfa had my attention, 1 week later I now ALSO had a 147 TS to match the GTV.
NOW..... my daily car at the time was my beloved Chrysler 300C with 5.7 V8, which would have to be sold.
As soon as I sat on the leather in the 147, I knew it was a car I would be "happy" with even though it meant kissing good bye to my personal limo.
For me, the comfort and ride matched, and even though of course it was a smaller car, you could be fooled into thinking it wasn't.
And believe me, mine has been used for family trips up and down the cost and does those runs perfectly.
And yet I find it equally fun on a twisty run on a sunday afternoon.
And I've even used it on a track day just for the fun of it (and to contrast it with the beetle).
You're right about the shifter though lol. Cheap piece of tat and mine was vague at time of purchase but hasn't worsened and hence hasn't been fixed.
Fishin for gears is good practice for my kids, so they wont know any better when they're driving around in $800 Hyundais lol
QuoteI'd like to lower the chassis, just a bit, maybe 20mm
For what its worth John, the factory-fitted "sports" set up on both my 156s included dropping the car by 25mm, so I imagine a similar factory set up was available for the 147. (And definitely for the GTA)
I reckon all 147 and 156s ride way too high on standard suspension, and having driven a couple of unlowered 156s I can attest their handling is almost unrecognisable compared with that of my lowered cars - Floaty-boaty comes to mind.
A lot of the 147 "nauticality" is those rubbish shocks; my '02 TS Sele has standard rise height and B6 F/R and it's visually high but doesn't feel roly-poly. The '01 TS manual has standard shocks and springs, newer wishbones and is soggy/underdamped by comparison. The Sele doesn't grate its nose coming off the same speed bumps where the manual car does.
Yep, I definitely have to be careful to avoid scraping its chin every time I go over a speed hump or enter/exit a driveway. But my GTV is even lower - often have to crab walk it ...
Quote from: ugame on November 11, 2017, 02:10:32 PM
hehe yep I think from reading your posts, you have the kind of arse that can feel a car.
I (and most others) do not.
Maybe, at least I'd like to think that my arseometer is bit more sensitive than avearage. My first car was an old Nota Sportsman (not dissimilar to a Lotus Seven, Google will show you), not far from being a road registered racing car (which I used to drive way too fast on Sydney streets, young and dumb). I more or less learned to drive in this, a very responsive chassis, stiffly sprung with a very low CG and all masses between the front and rear axles (front of the engine was several inches behind the front axle line, making it front / mid engined). It had an 1800cc engine from a Fiat 124 Sport, and weighed about 200kg less than a Mini (BMC). Yes it was quick. Then I raced karts for years.
Having said that, I think that if most drivers were to fit my rear ARB (modified Holden Rodeo front ARB) to their 147, then they would feel a substatial difference to the wimpy stock rear ARB. Anyone would feel the difference between the stock dampers and the Bilstein B6. Many would feel the difference between the stock rear lateral control arms (soft bushed) and my Toyota derived control arms (stiff bushed). Most of these these things don't make subtle differences, it's fairly pronounced. Even the lateral control arms make a big difference if you know what you are feeling for, though possibly some drivers may not notice.
The rough test (well, my rough test) for dampers having too little rebound stiffness involves speedhumps. With stiffer damper rates, when the car is driven at reasonable speed over a speedhump the chassis will just go up one side and down the other side of the hump, i.e. the sprung mass will go up and down with a degree of fidelity to the shape of the hump. The springs won't excessively compress on the rising side, then won't excessively 'decompress' on the downward slope of the hump.
With a too soft rebound damping there is less fidelity to the shape of the hump, the sprung mass will tend to continue rising after the wheels have crossed the highest point of the hump, the wheels going into rebound while the springs continue to push the sprung mass further skyward. Soft rebound damper rate allows the spring to push the wheels down quickly and hard on the downward slope, often you can hear / feel the damper 'top-out' as the suspension reaches the limit of droop travel. The sprung mass will then nearly 'freefall' toward the ground, until the springs (compress past static ride height) and the damper bump resistance work to stop the suspension bottoming out (hopefully...). A stiffer rebound rate lessens this, depending on how much stiffer the rate is.
Every car I've ever driven that I have considered to be a particularly sharp handling car would traverse speedhumps with considerable 'fidelity' to the hump. This isn't necessariuly a good thing for ride comfort...
The 147, even with the B6 front dampers, does not really pass the speedhump test as well as I would like. It's not bad with the B6 front dampers, but could be a bit better. This is I think born out with the manner in which the B6s cope with rougher surfaces, in particular corrugations on dirt roads. The stock rate front dampers were just hopeless at this (well, just hopless at everything). The stock rate rear dampers are OK, but only just. I strongly suspect that stiffer rear dampers (i.e. stiffer in slow rod velocity damping) would substantially sharpen up the handling.
If I knew then what I know now about the B6s, I think I would have spent the extra $ on a pair of Koni Sports (i.e. 'Yellow') front dampers. I'm not saying that Koni are inherently a better damper than Bilstein, just that the Konis give the scope to adjust the rebound rate with ease, whereas the Bislteins need to actually be revalved (a major deal). IMO the front B6 rebound rate needs to be adjusted for the 147 (my one at least).
Quote from: ugame on November 11, 2017, 02:10:32 PM
You're right about the shifter though lol. Cheap piece of tat and mine was vague at time of purchase but hasn't worsened and hence hasn't been fixed.
Fishin for gears is good practice for my kids, so they wont know any better when they're driving around in $800 Hyundais lol
A shifter in a 'sporty' car shouldn't feel like a shifter in a clapped out Hyundai. Yet Alfa has a history with less than wonderful shifter action. My old Alfetta (Rust In Peace) had a an awful shifter, and I vaguely recall Alfasuds having a very poor action. Alfa seemed to have problems designing (or justifying the cost of) remote shifter mechanisms, I can recall driving a 105 (many years ago) that had a nice shift action, but then that wasn't a remote shifter.
Regards,
John.
Quote from: poohbah on November 11, 2017, 02:19:41 PM
I reckon all 147 and 156s ride way too high on standard suspension, and having driven a couple of unlowered 156s I can attest their handling is almost unrecognisable compared with that of my lowered cars - Floaty-boaty comes to mind.
My car is a TI, which I vaguely recall reading somewhere is supposed to ride slightly lower than the non TI. Seems very high to me, especially for a car that doesn't have all that much ground clearance to the sump...
Since some of my driving is on three km of dirt road that isn't always particularly flat, I'm a bit cautious of the idea of lowering the chassis, especially as I've also fitted a lateral brace under the subframe that reduces clearance even further. Were I to lower, 20mm would be the limit I think, given the road I live on.
Quote from: poohbah on November 11, 2017, 02:19:41 PM
I reckon all 147 and 156s ride way too high on standard suspension, and having driven a couple of unlowered 156s I can attest their handling is almost unrecognisable compared with that of my lowered cars - Floaty-boaty comes to mind.
Do your lowered cars also have uprated damping? Did the unlowered cars have dampers still in reasonable condition?
Regards,
John.
Good question John, I'm guessing no. Pack included Eibach springs, but I suspect that is as far as the upgrade went - would also explain why they still thump a bit over bumps. But there is very little body roll compared with unlowered cars with standard set up.
I can also confirm the V6s go through upper arms reasonably quickly due to the added weight. Replaced upper arms on both my 156s around 115-120,000km.
Actually have to make a correction - factory lowering on the 156 with Eibach springs was 20mm not 25mm. Given that I had to do some rolling of the inner wheel arch lip to stop the occasional contact with the tyre I wouldn't risk going any lower. Though I have 17" rims with slightly wider rubber fitted (215/45/R17) - never had any rubbing issues on my first 156 with standard 16" teledials.
Quote from: poohbah on November 12, 2017, 03:22:54 PM
Good question John, I'm guessing no. Pack included Eibach springs, but I suspect that is as far as the upgrade went - would also explain why they still thump a bit over bumps. But there is very little body roll compared with unlowered cars with standard set up.
Keep in mind that the shorter Eibach springs are probably significantly stiffer than the stock springs. Just looking at roll motion, the affect is similar to fitting stiffer ARBs.
For X lateral acceleration, the lowering itself will decrease weight transfer, so the outside springs will compress less and the inside springs extend less, i.e. roll will be less.
With both of these factors there should be a noticable decrease in body roll.
"Thumping" over bumps is I think likely to be soft rebound damper stiffness.
Regards,
John.
While it crosses my mind, something I recall reading somewhere went something like this; in response to complaints of 'crashy' front suspension AR reduced the stiffness of the front springs for later model 147s.
If so then it's a very strange approach IMO, as the actual problem seems to me to be inadequate damper rates. The sensible thing to address this would I'd have thought been to adjust the damper rates to suit the spring, not change the spring rate to more suit the damper rates. Perhaps AR had big stocks of dampers of the wrong rate, and it was cheaper to change the springs than change the dampers...??
Regards,
John.
Quote from: johnl on November 12, 2017, 03:05:30 PM
My car is a TI, which I vaguely recall reading somewhere is supposed to ride slightly lower than the non TI.
My wife's car is a facelift 147 Ti. It's definitely lower than other 147s by a little bit. The suspension is factory fitted as far as I can tell, but I really like the way it works. I wouldn't say that front is underdamped. Facelift Ti's also have the lightest factory wheels so that might also help a bit.
Mine is a pre-facelift 147 TI, it sits pretty high. Whether it was only the later TIs that were a bit lower I don't know.
As I said before, I have read (on the internet so it must be correct...) that later 147s had softer front springs (and rear?). I assume this means the 'facelift' versions. If so then (with no changes to the soft damper rates) this would theoretically place the spring somewhat more toward a stiffness that the damper could better cope with.
Less unsprung mass (in the wheel, or wherever) certainly wouldn't hurt, but I'd estimate that it would need to be substatially less to make a significant improvement (?). I tend to doubt the lighter wheels would be lighter enough to make much difference, but I've been wrong before...
Regards,
John.
Quote from: johnl on November 12, 2017, 02:52:57 PM
Quote from: ugame on November 11, 2017, 02:10:32 PM
hehe yep I think from reading your posts, you have the kind of arse that can feel a car.
I (and most others) do not.
Maybe, at least I'd like to think that my arseometer is bit more sensitive than avearage. My first car was an old Nota Sportsman (not dissimilar to a Lotus Seven, Google will show you), not far from being a road registered racing car (which I used to drive way too fast on Sydney streets, young and dumb). I more or less learned to drive in this, a very responsive chassis, stiffly sprung with a very low CG and all masses between the front and rear axles (front of the engine was several inches behind the front axle line, making it front / mid engined). It had an 1800cc engine from a Fiat 124 Sport, and weighed about 200kg less than a Mini (BMC). Yes it was quick. Then I raced karts for years.
Having said that, I think that if most drivers were to fit my rear ARB (modified Holden Rodeo front ARB) to their 147, then they would feel a substatial difference to the wimpy stock rear ARB. Anyone would feel the difference between the stock dampers and the Bilstein B6. Many would feel the difference between the stock rear lateral control arms (soft bushed) and my Toyota derived control arms (stiff bushed). Most of these these things don't make subtle differences, it's fairly pronounced. Even the lateral control arms make a big difference if you know what you are feeling for, though possibly some drivers may not notice.
[etc etc]
Regards,
John.
Yep I hear you. I have a good enough arse to at least tell how much better my GTV feels with Koni's at the rear for example.
However I'm not sure I have the same expectations of the 147, as I don't see it as "sporty". I see it as Practical. It's a family hatch back. Not a GTV.
I guess that's where I'm coming from.
Is it meant to be sporty just because it has an Alfa Badge?
Now if it were the GTA, then that is of course different as that is designed to be a "hot hatch".
A bog stock 147 TS though? It's an i30 with slightly more prestige (in terms of it's target task).
I'll probably be removed from the club now :P
Quote from: ugame on November 13, 2017, 05:14:00 PM
Is it meant to be sporty just because it has an Alfa Badge?
Now if it were the GTA, then that is of course different as that is designed to be a "hot hatch".
A bog stock 147 TS though? It's an i30 with slightly more prestige (in terms of it's target task).
It's funny how you say that 2.0 with 150 bhp is not a hot hatch. Mind you, it was released in the late nineties when 2.0 16 valve with ~150 bhp was actually a hot hatch territory. Think Golf GTi, SEAT Ibiza Cupra, Opel Corsa GSi, and many others.
I'd not be too surprised if a well-preserved 2.0TS didn't outperform a newer i30.
Returning to the front shocks/springs debate - at least with aftermarket performance shocks there is usually more scope for varying stroke length than OEM spec, so if one starts with standard springs but then goes lower, the shock will cope.
Chris, the 147 GTA wasn't designed as a hot hatch. It was designed as a MENTAL hatch...
Quote from: poohbah on November 14, 2017, 01:13:05 PM
Chris, the 147 GTA wasn't designed as a hot hatch. It was designed as a MENTAL hatch...
I wonder if people at Alfa designed 156 GTA and then were like "hmm...147 is the almost the same car anyway so why the hell not" and went with 147 GTA
(http://www.artizans.com/images/previews/KRI725.pvw.jpg)
Quote from: ugame on November 13, 2017, 05:14:00 PM
Yep I hear you. I have a good enough arse to at least tell how much better my GTV feels with Koni's at the rear for example.
However I'm not sure I have the same expectations of the 147, as I don't see it as "sporty". I see it as Practical. It's a family hatch back. Not a GTV.
I guess that's where I'm coming from.
Is it meant to be sporty just because it has an Alfa Badge?
Now if it were the GTA, then that is of course different as that is designed to be a "hot hatch".
A bog stock 147 TS though? It's an i30 with slightly more prestige (in terms of it's target task).
I'll probably be removed from the club now :P
I don't think you'd fit those front seats if you were not intending a sporting flavour. Why bother with double wishbone front suspension when simpler / cheaper Mac Struts are more than OK for a shopping trolley?
I think the 147 TS is a bit confused. It's like a car that may have been originally designed to be one thing, but then changed to something a bit different. My feeling is that the engineering team who designed it may have wanted it to be a practical sports car, but that later maybe the marketing department wanted it watered it down so as to more broadly appeal to a wider propertion of the potential more mainstream market(?).
I wonder why the spring rates are significantly on the stiff side (for a trendy shopping cart), but the damper rates are quite soft? Could it be that the marketing dept wanted a softer ride, so the engineers just specced some crap dampers and walked away in disgust? (walked toward the GTA?).
At any rate, there are a number of things wrong about the 147, but a lot of things that are right about it. The wrong things can be fixed. No cars are perfect for every owner, at least I've never owned a car that I didn't want to improve in some ways.
Regards,
John.
"No cars are perfect"
Now THAT is very very true.
And perhaps you're right in that it is confused.
Given the pratical nature and comfortable interior, I'd argue though that it was intended as a normal hatch, but when they went to drop an engine in it, they only had 2 options.
2.0 TS or V6 Busso.
Which at the end of the day, is awesome!
EDIT: (actually were there more options in Europe? I think perhaps there were)
Yes there were. As low as an i30 comparable 1.6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_147
/edit
Given I I was moving from a 5.7 V8, and a 350Z before that, believe me that "performance" was not what I was aiming for when choosing the 2.0 TS.
It's all relative, and to me, both the GTV and the 147 felt absolutely gutless (to me) for quite a while.
Now I appreciate the "fun" of both.
And as many others have said before me "It is more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow".