Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:24:37 -0800
Reply-To: steve@SYNCRO.ORG
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Steven Schwenk <steve@SYNCRO.ORG>
Subject: Re: [Syncro] Re: Syncro Springs and the correct way of lifting
your Syncro
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
PLEASE NOTE: The betts springs are not, and never were
intended to be, "lift springs." The goal was to design
a spring for the westy, the spring VW would have
designed for it had they spent the time and money. I
think we got pretty close. When I drive my van now,
the one thing i love is the feel it has, the suspension
feels great, and it's responsive. (Which is why the
specs are not being changed on this run.) It used to
be the one thing I hated was the suspension, felt like
a mush pod. And the CVs are not strained to some
absurd angle they were never designed to handle.
On the OMEs, the words "marginal improvement" do not
seem accurate to me, unless you have read accounts I
have not. I believe Jim Davis reported a "significant"
improvement, as have numerous others. Bear in mind
that the price on the OMEs is close to the Boges. The
custom Bilsteins cost about $900 a set plus a pair of
donor Boge fronts. The top of the line OMEs with
external reservoirs cost about $1100 a set. If you
want great improvement, the options are and have been
there, if you don't mind parting with the cash and
putting in the time, a lot of time.
Anyway, see you all at the Hollister event! Maybe we
can do some comparison testing there and put the
speculation to rest. Perhaps during the obstacle
course challenge! We still have 2 openings. To
register (a must to secure a spot), go to
http://www.concentric.net/~Sxs/hollister2001.shtml
steve
Derek Drew wrote:
>
> What David is saying is that he now feels it is better to change the
> lifting of the vehicle more to the shock rather than the spring. This has
> always been a plausible and interesting method. The main reason I did not
> encourage it in early lifting thinking (e.g., 1996 or so) was uncertainty
> about what it might do to the CV joints and other suspension components to
> allow the lower control arm up there to drop down so much further, which is
> what would happen if you installed a longer front shock. It is possible
> that to make this work, one would want to purchase and install 16" front
> axles which apparently have the 108 CV joints and can therefore comfortably
> operate at a higher angle without harm. One might also need to install
> something like the new upper control arms now in development by John
> Wessels that allow an angled mounting of the upper ball joints. Wessels has
> gotten busy, however, so this project is slow go right now. Possibly David
> could pick up some momentum on this latter project as it might help,
> provided that the engineering passes muster with us, which is another
> story. Altering suspension components like this is very dicy because if it
> breaks on the highway, you are likely to crash.
>
> The addition of a shock that has adjustable ride height to our family of
> options sounds very welcome indeed, and provides an alternative to the OME
> shocks that seem like a marginal improvement over stock by all accounts.
> That is, in David's post one can find a definite and important potential
> advance.
>
> Somebody should probably volunteer to edit further postings between these
> two fellows to get the invective out and sort of sanitize them before they
> go to the list. Notwithstanding that much of the criticisms between them
> have an element of truth to them and are therefore amusing, it is
> ultimately distracting. Possibly David will label his next post "Adjustable
> Ride Height Shocks In Production," or "Fast Forward Switching From Spring
> Raise To Shock Raise", either of which headline should be more efficient at
> penetrating the real news into our consciousness.
>
> At 10:54 PM 2/6/01 -0800, you wrote:
> >I have stopped selling my springs due to the
> >fact that after a lot of education on the subject from a lot of fine list
> >members it is really the wrong way to lift the Syncro.
> >My next generation lift kit features springs with the SAME ride height as
> >the stock Syncro on most vehicles and up to 2cm taller on Syncros that are
> >on a diet - or you can use the stock springs and save a few bucks. They
> >will be not as stiff for better articulation when crawling over rocks and
> >other items where it is important to keep all wheels on the ground - for
> >those of us who do not have differential locks on both ends this will help a
> >lot! The shocks that I am using have a threaded body that will allow for an
> >adjustable ride height from 0cm increase up to 6cm on my prototypes - I
> >might be able to get 7cm on the production models, but this will start
> >introduce alignment problems. The fact that you can adjust the height in
> >front will also assist in making the vehicle more balanced as you can lift
> >one corner more than the other for better weight distribution. The shocks
> >that I am using also have 5.5cm more travel than the Boge / Monroe / OME
> >shocks. The other added advantage is user adjustable valving from a little
> >soupier than new Boges to ultra control for the racetrack if you want them
> >that stiff. It all comes down to user adjustable to taste or lack there of.
> >Mine is set to +5 cm and I have as much suspension decompression as I did
> >when it was stock. The valving is set to 4/10 for off road to 7/10 for
> >highway cruising - usually they get left at 4 or 5/10. I can compress
> >everything as much as stock too! The rears are not quite as fancy, they
> >feature adjustable valving but no adjustable ride height due to the fact
> >that it is too complicated to make an adjustable spring perch for the rear
> >springs - I just using some excess 4cm shims that I had here. These have
> >been over 1 year in development and I must say that I am truly impression
> >with how much better a real lifted suspension is!
> >
> >Just some food for thought here... comments and criticisms are welcome and
> >very expected! :)
> >
> >David Marshall
> >
> >Fast Forward Autobahn Sport Tuning
> >4356 Quesnel Hixon Road
> >Quesnel BC Canada V2J 6Z3
> >mailto:info@fastforward.ca http://www.fastforward.ca
> >Phone: (250) 992 7775 FAX: (250) 992 1160
> >
> >• Vanagon Accessories and Engine Conversions
> >• Transporter, Unimog and Iltis Sales
> >• European Lighting for most Audi and Volkswagen models
>
> _______________________________________________
> Derek Drew New York, NY
> CEO & Co-Founder
> http://www.ConsumerSearch.com/
> ===========================
> "Best Expert Review Site"
> for product reviews on the Internet
> Jan. 2001, PC World Magazine
> ==========================
> 80 South Street, 2nd Floor
> New York, NY 10038
> derekdrew@rcn.com
> 212-580-6486
>
> Alternate numbers for the industrious phone caller that wants to try every
> avenue: 917-848-6425 (cell); 202-966-7907 (Work), 212-580-4459 (Home),
> 202-966-0938 (Home), 978-359-8533 (fax [efax]), 212-269-3188 (Seaport
> office), 212-269-3188 (Seaport main number).
>
> If you would like to modify your subscription settings (including unsubscribing), visit:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro
> Please remember that rude or offensive language is not allowed on the Syncro list. Please try your best to resolve differences privately and keep them off the list.
| 
