Topic: Suspension upgrade

[kwtoxman]

So you still couldn't answer the question.  You tried to make it look like you did while trying to discredit me by insinuating I said a bunch of crap that I didn't say.  See how I weeded that out?

Personal experience with the devices in question on the the platform in question is, in my opinion, more valuable than say some generic internet source about some other product that may or may not be made by the same manufacturer and fitted to a completely different platform.

So believe it or not KW your personal experience is more valuable to me than most of the general forum links you post that is so long as I don't end up deciding your experience is, to use your words, "the crap" I weed out.

Need some salt TS?

Whatever, I can't follow your logic it seems. I didn't try to say or insinuate that you said those things. The quotes are a separate statement of considerations, and not meant to be attributed to you. Even to a person solely focused on personal experience, there is more to personal experience than number of the number of set-ups tried, which I was trying to get you to understand, and it appears you didn't follow my logic either.

I find it more important to acknowledge people who have setups that seem to work well and I strive to understand the details, rather than discount it out of hand for
those examples that don't work well (could be a setup difference from shock settings to swaybar differences),
those examples where there is a gross extrapolation from one set-up to another,
those examples where importance is placed upon some relative number of set-ups tried to validate a suspension choice,
those examples that say one recommendation is best and use, feel, preferences, etc. don't change suspension choices.

It sounds like you're jumping on me with these posts. Is it because I said I guess this is hard to understand hard back a few posts ago to you? No subliminal dig was inferred or intended. It literally meant it seems the way I explained it originally appears to be hard to understand. Then I explained it out. It was meant to provide a premise for the reason I further explained things out. After that I said I "guess" we have different methods for examining evidence.  That's fine. People have different opinions. The statement was meant to highlight how we have come to some different conclusions is all. Again. No dig was inferred or intended. We can disagree, but I wasn't arguing with statements like a setup your way will be wrong, or "when you attempt to use that logic it results in a bad riding vehicle" .

[Sol Asylum]

What's not to follow?  You belittle someones experience, I assume because it was different than yours, by saying they have limited experience.  Then when asked what your experience was you evade the question, I assume because it would show you to have less than limited experience.  That's my logic on the matter.

By the way research and experience are not the same thing.  Things that should work in theory don't always work in reality.

[kwtoxman]

What's not to follow?  You belittle someones experience, I assume because it was different than yours, by saying they have limited experience.  Then when asked what your experience was you evade the question, I assume because it would show you to have less than limited experience.  That's my logic on the matter.

By the way research and experience are not the same thing.  Things that should work in theory don't always work in reality.

There you go. You ASSumed all-right, making an a** out of you and me, so they say. I did not belittle anyone. I did not say experience has no merit. And my position actually embraces the different experiences discussed, instead of the other position that ignores it.

All I was was a person had limited experience. It isn't code for me having more experience, or hiding less, for having different experience, or whatever other Machiavellian thoughts come up. I guess there is just a love here to wildly associate negative connotations when someone characterizes evidence using a broad weight of evidence approach. I said weight of evidence before, I also mentioned the internet, theory, and other platforms as additional reasonable evidence I use to draw my conclusions. So I find it plain to see that the limited experience observation I made was in reference to and a comparator with that overall info and data set, which would be very large.

With a broad weight of evidence approach, personal experience obviously has merit, but pretty much most every individual's experience in this case will only be a few data points among thousands of people's experience that get's considered. Then adding the theory and knowledge to consider (which is substantial) on top of that results in a huge overall data set. Such a single person's experience becomes a very small part of the overall weight of evidence (or a very small part of a big picture, or a small piece of a large puzzle so to say), and thus can be described as limited. It doesn't mean anything else, let alone something nefarious.

Beyond limited experience, contradictory outcomes in the evidence need assessment in a good weight of evidence evaluation. They are worthy of more than blanket dismissal if it doesn't fit a person's experience or paradigm. I've tried to provide potential explanations why some people may have had negative outcomes with lower rear spring rates. No one has pointed out any problems with my explanations. But I haven't even seen any attempt at an explanation why my positive outcome with a lower rear spring rate (and others with similar experience) should be discounted out of hand. At the start I've even asked questions to try to get other's to explain their positions in reference to that.

Actually, it is theory versus practical application. All of that is taken into account with a reasonable weight of evidence approach.



This thread started off with some interesting info and discussion. Unfortunately things went off the rails and the discussion has gone nowhere. I see dogma rather than reasonable discussion and no answers to my questions. I'm over it. Maybe someone will come in and start a good discussion again. I'm always open to other information I'm not aware of (and I'm sure it's out there) and my opinion may even change from such.

[wspohn]

Personally, I like the BC option, but like I said - what happens when a shock fails? 

To return momentarily to the original subject (ahem) these shocks did have a replacement policy after warranty for a modest charge ($95 each) and a rebuild facility in North America, so I doubt there will be any issues - they sell a lot of shocks for a lot of different cars here.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled diatribes.....

[roxer]

So I've never gotten a straight answer on running two spring seats.  Is that a no-no or ok?  I would think GM would not have added that clause if it was considered damaging to the vehicle. I know it is a CYA clause, but still...

[elff]

The second spring perch is supposed to be removed immediately upon delivery as it was only put on to allow the vehicle to have the necessary height/clearance to proceed down the assembly line.
From that recommendation, and from just thinking about having 2 perches on a shock, I would not recommend using 2.

[roxer]

The second spring perch is supposed to be removed immediately upon delivery as it was only put on to allow the vehicle to have the necessary height/clearance to proceed down the assembly line.
From that recommendation, and from just thinking about having 2 perches on a shock, I would not recommend using 2.

Good enough - thanks much for your input.  Still on the fence and I have a week to decide.  If I do the CAT install at DDM, might just have him do the BCs too.  Not sure yet.  I hate budgets, really do..   

[LatinVenom]

Just want to reiterate the drop from the ZOK setup is not big, just 0.78.
Our cars (GXP) with the OEM FE3 suspension has bit of clearance between the tire and the fenders, changing to the ZOK just drops it 0.78.
It is really not that noticeable if that is what you were asking.

[Critterman]

Get a room you two!

[roxer]

Just curious, but I found the FE3 Z0K crossmember/brace (25877302) for $199 shipped free on line.  Is it worth it to get that at that price?  I know most are selling for around $450+.

[TomatoSoup]

How much is the DDM probeam now?  Easier to install than the GM one, and just as stiff.

Answered myself, cheaper at $170.  http://www.ddmworks.com/SolsticeSky-Pro-Beam-by-DDMWorks_p_85.html

The only reason to get a GM one is if you need "stock" components for higher-level Autox competition.

[elff]

I agree 100% with TS.

[Sol Asylum]

I agree 100% with TS.

Based on your limited experience?   

[elff]

That would be TS's limited experience, I am just agreeing.

[Critterman]

you do have limited experience agreeing with people

[Gentleman Jack]

I agree about limiting experiences. At Critters age, experience is the LAST thing he needs more of.


Oh- and once again- TS is 100% correct.

[Sol Asylum]

At his age hasn't he seen and done it all?

[elff]

If anyone should everything about suspension,
It would be the person who was around when the wheel was invented

[Gentleman Jack]

If anyone should everything about suspension,
It would be the person who was around when the wheel was invented

Did Critter type this for you?

[roxer]

Brutal, simply brutal.   

[Wartie]

Did Critter type this for you?

It's the meds.

[roxer]

Ok, so pulled the trigger with Tom at CED and got the Z0K stuff and brace bundle from DDM.  Looks like a wrench party is in order.    

[Sol Asylum]

Sweet!  Mod meet at Roxer's!

[elff]

Congrats!

[roxer]

I am assuming I will need a new alignment after I install of of these parts?  Is that right?  If so, anyone know of a good alignment shop in Charlotte area?