916 GTV rear shocks suggestions

[Craig_m67]

For a V6 unfortunately.. https://www.shop4parts.co.uk/?name=store&op=Details&ProdID=1530&sku=37489

[ugame]

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.

[johnl]

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.

[ugame]

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.

[johnl]

"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.

[ugame]

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

[poohbah]

I'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.

[Citroënbender]

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.

[poohbah]

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 ...

[johnl]

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).

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.

[johnl]

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.

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.

[poohbah]

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.

[poohbah]

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.

[johnl]

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.

[warsch]

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.