Originally Posted by OptionZero (Post 3695859)

no . . . just . . . no.

Entry level should call Powertrix. ($1500)

If you have more money, get Aragosta. ($2500+)

Highly recommend that in either case, you set aside another $1500 for SPL FUCA and rear toe, traction, and camber arms so you can do one install/alignment

if you can't afford that up front, wait and save up

Originally Posted by Jhill (Post 3695869)

I second the powertrix. I road and track them as well as some extended trips and am pleasantly surprised with what you get for what you pay. I wouldn't doubt fortune are in the same boat but after having 12k/11k springs I don't think I would want their stock 11/8 (I think you changed yours right hotrodz?).

In no particular order I would choose powertrix, Stance, fortune, aragosta and let's not forget they may be late to the party but ohlins are finally available. I would take any of those over BC or d2.

Originally Posted by KamiSpeed (Post 3695883)

A great coilover that isnt too crazy expensive is the new Greddy X KWs that came out recently :

GReddy x KW Coilovers for the 2009+ Nissan 370Z | KamiSpeed.com

10k front and 9k rear spring rates will be great for daily driving. If that is what you are using the car for. Check them out.

Originally Posted by asapZ (Post 3695849)

Im looking for coilovers on my 2012 370z, and found some D2 coilovers i herd they're pretty decent? No

But are there any better ones? Pretty much everything else.

Originally Posted by MaysEffect (Post 3695941)

Lol what.......

Originally Posted by Hotrodz (Post 3695952)

What, what, what get out the way bitch...lol!

Not all spring at the same spring rate ride or rebound the same. So that being said it is my opinion that Swifts ride softer. You may think differently and that is okay.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by asapZ (Post 3695849)

Im looking for coilovers on my 2012 370z, and found some D2 coilovers i herd they're pretty decent? But are there any better ones?

Originally Posted by MaysEffect (Post 3695957)

That's not even remotely considerable as there are too many forces acting upon the suspension to isolate this principle alone. If each spring measures the same amount of force at a given compression level, then you can't logically guesstimate with your *** (literally speaking) that one may be softer or stiffer. Certainly when you have a damper added to the equation. There is no way you'd possibly discern a difference in rebound and compression between 2 springs accurately measured at a specific value. Either one or the other is wrong by several ibs/in or then spring is damaged. Either thay or the damper settings are not equal per suspension setup.

Originally Posted by Hotrodz (Post 3695975)

You crack me up, I guess all spring then are created equal and there no difference between Swifts or any other spring. I will agree that all springs are equal as far the rating of 10k or 8k or whatever, however I must be all wet in thinking that springs would respond differently based on the materials they are made of or the thickness of the spring or how tightly the sping was spun. :stirthepot:

Oh and I have a very sensitive butt!:icon23:

Originally Posted by Rusty (Post 3695978)

:icon23::icon23::icon23::icon23::icon23:

:rofl2:

You do have a point. Springs may be rated the same. But due to differences in alloy, coil spacing, coil diameter, spring diameter, wire diameter. May rebound differently. They will take the same amount of weight to compress. But to rebound could be different.

Originally Posted by Hotrodz (Post 3695975)

You crack me up, I guess all spring then are created equal and there no difference between Swifts or any other spring. I will agree that all springs are equal as far the rating of 10k or 8k or whatever, however I must be all wet in thinking that springs would respond differently based on the materials they are made of or the thickness of the spring or how tightly the sping was spun. :stirthepot:

Oh and I have a very sensitive butt!:icon23:

Originally Posted by MaysEffect (Post 3695983)

Are you guessing or do you know forsure these factors are different? All of those factors come into play to create the spring rate. So more times than not the dimensions are extremely close for any given diameter and length per rate measured. In the case where materials are different, the force acting upon it should be linear in both rebound and compression, if not, this goes back to what i said about damaged. Noticing a difference between a 10kg x 5 inch eibach or swift would mean one or the other does not truly hold its rate in linear fashion. There have been no recent test that show swift springs falling short of its rates. i doubt the rates and lengths are actually the same if you are saying you've determined a noticeable difference with these absolute back to back test. In any case, why would you even make this change? Unless you actually damaged your springs or dampers.

Originally Posted by MaysEffect (Post 3696124)

I was asking for clarification on the situation because you are the one making the claim about variations between companies claiming the same properties. There are too many variables in a suspension system that would render your analysis inaccurate. Certainly if the springs you claim are in actuality not the same in the first place.

There is a statement in the article suggest there are industry standards that allow estimated measurement values of 5% accuracy to the claimed rating. While this is true and the case between company and company, you'd still be hard pressed to notice a considerable difference here unless there were considerable design differences between the springs. Most linear springs from swift, hyperco and eibach use very similar design principles and dimensions, with materials and forming being one of the only open variable. Even still not different enough to change to overall behavior of the spring. If it's a linear spring we are talking about, it still needs to behave in such fashion. Now if you are talking about progressive springs, then of course they're will be considerable differences from the base spring ratings companies claim. There is absolutely nothing accurate about ratings for progressive springs, certainly when talking about dual rate springs. The differences can easily be above 200ib/in at 2inches of compression for instance.

With a 1000ib/in linear spring, a 5% variation is only 50ibs. In most cases 1000ibs is already greater than the corner load on most vehicles including the 370z and g37. So you'd need significant load transfer or bump aggravation to get those springs working. Add in damper force and tire compression, you're butt will need to be working at 200% to accurately measure what the spring is doing beyond supporting the weight of the vehicle.

This is also another reason why kg/mm is such a horrible measurement in any form. It allows a variable average of 55*ib/in both ways between ratings. Hyperco, Eibach and even swift don't even claim those exact levels of accuracy on there site in ib/in form. Hyperco make springs in 25ib/in increments as does eibach. So again this goes back to what i said that in reality the two springs you are claiming are not actually the same and can be different over 2kg or so. So is the swift spring actually softer? Sure, but that's by the virtue of it actually having a different rating all together. Not it's difference to compression and rebound behavior.

You and the article are right in saying the springs may not actually have the same rating, but this is not the same thing as saying; for one rating (if accurately measured), two springs behave different enough for you to tell pants to seat. Even in the article they used a scenario when they changed springs with slightly different ratings and couldn't tell the difference.



You saying you could tell the difference with two springs with the SAME rating and noticing a significant difference draws skepticism. Sorry you don't see that. The test goes on to say, the springs were actually tested within 2ib/in of eachother in favor of the lower rated spring when rated only 1/2kg/mm(25ib/in) difference.

I don't know how you are reading my tone, but i haven't said anything with attitude or contempt. I was simply questioning the validity of your claims. Making claims like that suggests someone is lying about there products, and in a thread where people come to get information like this, that can be damaging to the reputation of the company you speak about. Making that claim alone can significantly shift someone's buying choice when the validity of the claim can't even be taken with face value. This is my reasoning for questioning it. I was not at all trying to belittle you, just trying to get an accurate depiction of the situation, so others can draw the right conclusion before changing their opinion. (seriously wasn't trying to rhyme there :icon17:)

I've literally been making the same questions and discussions since I've been here. My very first post almost gave Spooler an aneurysm lol. So sorry if i got under your skin. It's not at all personal

Originally Posted by Rusty (Post 3696134)

Next time. Include the whole thing. ;)


What it amounts to is. There was a spring that what tagged as a 375#. But was measured 385#. They changed to a 400# spring, but it was measured at 385# later. That why they felt no change.

I'm at the point of :horse: You haven't been around long enough in life to see everything that we have.

Originally Posted by Hotrodz (Post 3696133)

You protest too much! You don't know me and give yourself to much credit. I only have one feeling and you are not even close to hitting it!!!

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Rusty (Post 3696134)

Next time. Include the whole thing. ;)

a car had a 375# tagged spring in the rear, the driver felt that the car was loose on corner entry and the Hoosier tire temperatures supported his feel. After stiffing the spring to a 400# tagged spring the driver did not feel any changes. The tire temperatures still supported his feel. After the supposed spring change, the team then began to change shocks, sway-bars, and pan-hard bar heights. At the end of the day, the springs where rated. After viewing the data sheets we found that the 375# tagged spring was actually a 387# and the 400# tagged spring was a 385#. So the actual change in spring rate was not an increase of 25# as was intended but a decrease of 2#. This is why the driver and the tire temps showed no change.

What it amounts to is. There was a spring that what tagged as a 375#. But was measured 385#. They changed to a 400# spring, but it was measured at 385# later. That why they felt no change.

I'm at the point of :horse: You haven't been around long enough in life to see everything that we have.

Originally Posted by 2011 Nismo#91 (Post 3696156)

...Unless you have something high-end, like a Penske, and you've taken the time to clock the adjuster window on the shock dyno, the knobs on your shocks cannot be trusted to work. Most shocks of the same model DO NOT match each other on the same adjuster setting, and each click DOES NOT make the same change in force.

Originally Posted by MaysEffect (Post 3696457)

I'm not sure beat is the right terminology when you guys are not presenting valid or even accurate facts against my argument. I've asked hotrodz 3 times already if he can validate his testing other than the vague statement that swift springs are generally softer. All I've heard so far is that I'm being difficult, argumentative and/or wrong. The closest thing i can do to accurately proving the statement wrong is by going out and actually measuring one against another under dyno tests. I'm not sure winning this debate is worth 150 dollars.

I also stated my only problem with these statements is that it slightly tarnishes the reputation of the company by associating a non tested or inaccurately proven claim that there is something ingenuine of products ratings.

Jhill was so far the only one making valid claims about spring retention with his statements, and i believe i refuted it reasonably.