lowering a 411/ 412
-
Bill K.
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:50 pm
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
Sorry Ray. I simply don't get it. I thought I did based on my quoted snip of your post and your other comments. I guess I'd have to try it or see it for myself to understand the principles. I'll probably just stick with what I do understand.
-
raygreenwood
- Posts: 11910
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:01 am
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
And there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. You have a very nice set-up ...similar to what Wally did if memory serves? Your set-up is also probably a much more stand-alone bolt-on product that anyone could use on a 411/412...even if you were not yet ready to do a lot of other mods.
Bill, One thing that you are 100% correct about ....or you will be 100% correct about if it happens....is if someone uses this stub method...and does not use the exact combo for which it was designed around. It gives you very little room to move with reference to tire sidewall profiles and bushing material....and any extra mods to ride height...before you will start getting adverse and possibly dangerous or destructive results. It is very worked out as it is....but by no means perfect.
And....this is the main reason why I have not opted to sell it and do not publicly post it. If someone wants it...I will send them the plans for the stub and the entire "prescription" for the combo....with a warning of why it works and why it does not.
But yes...seriously...you need to try the stub method...with the exact parts combo I built it to have. If you stray too far from the combo....you WILL...have problems...and probably fairly similar to some that you are thinking of....though wheel lift in cornering will probably never be one of them
It works very well. Its not only a combination of the stub and shock, its a combination of the way the geometry of the front end of the car is, the weight distribution and the inertial changes of the car when it is driven...that are characteristic of the 411 and 412.
I started on this path for some very important reasons...which caused me to use the method of using an adapter stub...instead of changing springs and lower spring mount locations. It might help to understand why I did this mod the way I did.
(1) The last company that produced replacement struts for the the 411/412 (KYB)...quit making them in 1990.
(2) All of the strut cartridges that were ever available for the 411/412 were very poor in valving. The object was...that if nothing else could be changed by finding a different strut cartridge to fit in the 411/412.....better valving was a must. Of course availability was also key. Cost was not a real issue because there were so few other owners of 411/412 in the late 90's that I was essentially making parts for my own purposes.
The serious defect in valving that all 411/412 cartridges had was that the rebound damping circuit was very weak. The spring on the 411/412 is very long, very progressive....and once it got into its load control area (the lower 2/3 of it)....was far stronger than the car ever needed. It was a bit of a bad experiment. It appeared that VW want the soft ride that was requisite in most places in the 1970's...but also had to make provisions for controlling the potential weight that might be loaded into the front trunk.
As you have found with the combo you have...with the right spring as a starting point....this is not that hard to do.
The thing that messed VW up with this design is that the control arms are pivoted from the center of the suspension carrier. Very few vehicles with strut front suspension were designed this way. It causes the leverage at the end of the control arms to be very high. That requires valving on struts to be very stiff...or the springs the struts are attached to...to be over-built. Add to this the deep huge trunk and you end up with strut tower mount points that are excessively high up..........so as not to interfere with the crumple zone designed into the front end just forward of the cabin firewall.....or the shear able, angled gas-tank shelf (one of the first of its kind).
All of this conspired for both the 411/412 and super beetle to create some of the longest strut cartridge designs made for any car. I can't remember the exact length....but the strut cartridge for the 411/412....not to mention the extended rod....is close to 30" in length. Considering the car only uses roughly 6" of rod travel.....it gets into some questionable valving to make valving correct within that short length in a long cartridge body. If you study the fluid flow of the original cartridge....you will find that it was not accomplished by normal valving in the valve head....it was accomplished by fluid volume transfer (not just the act of bypassing pressure). There were three sets of valving in the original oil struts.
Understand this: if you loaded the front trunk of a 411/412 with enough weight....it leveled out in appearance and gained enough static castor angle to actually no longer have wind wandering issues or tram lining issues with wider than stock tires. But....that amount of weight....typically over 450 lbs in the trunk...caused severe center of gravity issues....and also was beyond what the compression damping of the strut valving could handle. Driving with ballast or too much weight in the trunk for too long...destroys the compression valving circuit in the struts...because the bypass rate (the actual speed/velocity of bypass....not the volume) was too high.
(3) The strut mounts had numerous defects. It was a trial and error process for VW with continuous improvement. The early ones with symmetrical bolts from 68 through part of 71...had only friction bearings and rod bushings. Durable, but had numerous fine rattles in steering. The bonded bush typically got internal tearing by about 40k miles. Version #2 fro mid 71 to late 73...had symmetrical bolts with a real high quality ball bearing.....which got rid of the rattles...but had the same crappy bonded bushing. Again...death by 40k miles. Version #3 with asymmetrical mount, simple cartridge ball bearing and a floating rubber donut....is still not modern day excellent but solved all of the necessary problems.
(4) The vast majority of the inertial weight in a 411/412...and the biggest chunk of roll inducing lack of suspension control....is in the rear end. The type 4 steers with its ass around corners. When the rear lifts...it forces the front down (when it can). When the rear rolls...it forces the front to lift (when allowed to).
These forces combined...and added to the strange geometry of the front end....mean that spirited driving (on track or off) with the 411/412....can and will give you the "911" syndrome.
So in addition to anything else I would need out of a new strut cartridge....I needed to lower the front end to level...which not only brings the nose down but pre-loads the springs a bit to resist the forward inertial dive from braking.....and...control the combined roll rate of the front and rear end. Going to gas shocks with the blue series spring in the rear did most of this. Adding a thicker sway bar did the rest. Nothing else (roll control wise)...needed to be done to the font end be cause the stiffer pre load and slower valving (along with stiffer bushings) took care of that.
For the record, the wagon did not come from the factory wit ha sway bar because it usually came with thicker load control Yellow series springs and gas dampers... while the sedans came with blue series fast rate springs....but tighter valved oil shocks.
(5) I tried over a dozen different springs from Volvo, Audi, Golf, Jetta, Sirocco and a few I cannot even remember. Various strut cartridges....even using stock oil dampers with custom valving shim and spring packages.
I eventually got to the point where I was borrowing time on a strut valving tester/dynamometer at a local high end rice rocket tuner shop in Richardson....similar to this one http://www.spatechnique.com/dynamometers/pmd.cfm
Though I found combinations that could match what I tested on a stock strut....and then make adjustments to exceed the stock strut by various percentages.....I found that they would never performed as planned....be cause there is no way to mimic/duplicate the affects of the suspension geometry or the inertial loads and roll forces of the real car in a shock/strut dyno.
But it did tell me when the valving dynamics of a particular cartridge were similar to stock......which is how I eventually came to use the Audi 4000/Quantum cartridge. The decision to use low pressure gas was forced on me by parts breakage while using high pressure gas.
The one thing that was clear...in order to get any of the other springs to work....I would have to lower the bottom spring perch (at best) or make it adjustable at worst.
(6) lowering the lower spring perch was not an option that I wanted to go with very much......(even though as Bill and Wally have found it opens up the horizons of what springs you can use).....but it required welding skills I did not have...and required changing to a non-stock wheel. All of which added much more into the cost and equation than time and money allowed for a spirited daily driver vehicle.
I was within days of agonizing over the expenditure of a set of custom twin perch, dual spring Bilstein, fully adjustable struts (about $2300 at that time)......because without struts....my car was virtually off the road.
To finish this off.....I decided to find a simpler way of adapting the very nice valving and control I had discovered in the Audi 4000/Quantum cartridge...to the existing chassis.
As I noted....it took almost another year of various strut stub designs to get that cartridge to fit with only light mods to spring height....to accomplish all of goals that I set out f or.
The stub mod was not just a method to get some basic shock into the car to get me rolling for cruising on a Saturday night. This was my daily driver. I averaged well over 1000 miles a week covering 5 states (Texas, Ok, Ark, La, NB)....at speeds of 70+. It had to handle, be safe, durable, lower the front end, stop the dive and roll of stock valving.
It accomplishes all of that very well.
But....as I have said...be warned: If you use the stub and Audi strut method...it works exceedingly well. But.....it must have these other items to keep from causing problems:
(1) Bronze idler bushing
(2) Properly rebuilt or new centerlink
(3) upgraded control arm bushings
(4) Upgraded radius arm bushings and centering rings
(5) Late model assymetrical strut bushings
all of the above things...I think every 411/412 should have....but you can get away without them on stock suspension for awhile.
(6) High pressure gas rear shocks
(7) upgraded sway bar in rear
(8) upgraded outer links
(9) upgraded front outer links
(10) Tires with sidewall profile between 50 and 60 series. I found that lower profiles that 50 with this set-up have too little give and require a different spring or much stronger ball joints and are prone to crack the radius arm eyes in cold weather. The lower profile than stock is a big part of keeping the roll radius under control
(11) Going to at least 5.5 inch rims with any of these tire profiles is a big part as well.
What I am getting at is that the design and construction of this stub was very well calculated with.....the combo I list. Ray
Bill, One thing that you are 100% correct about ....or you will be 100% correct about if it happens....is if someone uses this stub method...and does not use the exact combo for which it was designed around. It gives you very little room to move with reference to tire sidewall profiles and bushing material....and any extra mods to ride height...before you will start getting adverse and possibly dangerous or destructive results. It is very worked out as it is....but by no means perfect.
And....this is the main reason why I have not opted to sell it and do not publicly post it. If someone wants it...I will send them the plans for the stub and the entire "prescription" for the combo....with a warning of why it works and why it does not.
But yes...seriously...you need to try the stub method...with the exact parts combo I built it to have. If you stray too far from the combo....you WILL...have problems...and probably fairly similar to some that you are thinking of....though wheel lift in cornering will probably never be one of them
It works very well. Its not only a combination of the stub and shock, its a combination of the way the geometry of the front end of the car is, the weight distribution and the inertial changes of the car when it is driven...that are characteristic of the 411 and 412.
I started on this path for some very important reasons...which caused me to use the method of using an adapter stub...instead of changing springs and lower spring mount locations. It might help to understand why I did this mod the way I did.
(1) The last company that produced replacement struts for the the 411/412 (KYB)...quit making them in 1990.
(2) All of the strut cartridges that were ever available for the 411/412 were very poor in valving. The object was...that if nothing else could be changed by finding a different strut cartridge to fit in the 411/412.....better valving was a must. Of course availability was also key. Cost was not a real issue because there were so few other owners of 411/412 in the late 90's that I was essentially making parts for my own purposes.
The serious defect in valving that all 411/412 cartridges had was that the rebound damping circuit was very weak. The spring on the 411/412 is very long, very progressive....and once it got into its load control area (the lower 2/3 of it)....was far stronger than the car ever needed. It was a bit of a bad experiment. It appeared that VW want the soft ride that was requisite in most places in the 1970's...but also had to make provisions for controlling the potential weight that might be loaded into the front trunk.
As you have found with the combo you have...with the right spring as a starting point....this is not that hard to do.
The thing that messed VW up with this design is that the control arms are pivoted from the center of the suspension carrier. Very few vehicles with strut front suspension were designed this way. It causes the leverage at the end of the control arms to be very high. That requires valving on struts to be very stiff...or the springs the struts are attached to...to be over-built. Add to this the deep huge trunk and you end up with strut tower mount points that are excessively high up..........so as not to interfere with the crumple zone designed into the front end just forward of the cabin firewall.....or the shear able, angled gas-tank shelf (one of the first of its kind).
All of this conspired for both the 411/412 and super beetle to create some of the longest strut cartridge designs made for any car. I can't remember the exact length....but the strut cartridge for the 411/412....not to mention the extended rod....is close to 30" in length. Considering the car only uses roughly 6" of rod travel.....it gets into some questionable valving to make valving correct within that short length in a long cartridge body. If you study the fluid flow of the original cartridge....you will find that it was not accomplished by normal valving in the valve head....it was accomplished by fluid volume transfer (not just the act of bypassing pressure). There were three sets of valving in the original oil struts.
Understand this: if you loaded the front trunk of a 411/412 with enough weight....it leveled out in appearance and gained enough static castor angle to actually no longer have wind wandering issues or tram lining issues with wider than stock tires. But....that amount of weight....typically over 450 lbs in the trunk...caused severe center of gravity issues....and also was beyond what the compression damping of the strut valving could handle. Driving with ballast or too much weight in the trunk for too long...destroys the compression valving circuit in the struts...because the bypass rate (the actual speed/velocity of bypass....not the volume) was too high.
(3) The strut mounts had numerous defects. It was a trial and error process for VW with continuous improvement. The early ones with symmetrical bolts from 68 through part of 71...had only friction bearings and rod bushings. Durable, but had numerous fine rattles in steering. The bonded bush typically got internal tearing by about 40k miles. Version #2 fro mid 71 to late 73...had symmetrical bolts with a real high quality ball bearing.....which got rid of the rattles...but had the same crappy bonded bushing. Again...death by 40k miles. Version #3 with asymmetrical mount, simple cartridge ball bearing and a floating rubber donut....is still not modern day excellent but solved all of the necessary problems.
(4) The vast majority of the inertial weight in a 411/412...and the biggest chunk of roll inducing lack of suspension control....is in the rear end. The type 4 steers with its ass around corners. When the rear lifts...it forces the front down (when it can). When the rear rolls...it forces the front to lift (when allowed to).
These forces combined...and added to the strange geometry of the front end....mean that spirited driving (on track or off) with the 411/412....can and will give you the "911" syndrome.
So in addition to anything else I would need out of a new strut cartridge....I needed to lower the front end to level...which not only brings the nose down but pre-loads the springs a bit to resist the forward inertial dive from braking.....and...control the combined roll rate of the front and rear end. Going to gas shocks with the blue series spring in the rear did most of this. Adding a thicker sway bar did the rest. Nothing else (roll control wise)...needed to be done to the font end be cause the stiffer pre load and slower valving (along with stiffer bushings) took care of that.
For the record, the wagon did not come from the factory wit ha sway bar because it usually came with thicker load control Yellow series springs and gas dampers... while the sedans came with blue series fast rate springs....but tighter valved oil shocks.
(5) I tried over a dozen different springs from Volvo, Audi, Golf, Jetta, Sirocco and a few I cannot even remember. Various strut cartridges....even using stock oil dampers with custom valving shim and spring packages.
I eventually got to the point where I was borrowing time on a strut valving tester/dynamometer at a local high end rice rocket tuner shop in Richardson....similar to this one http://www.spatechnique.com/dynamometers/pmd.cfm
Though I found combinations that could match what I tested on a stock strut....and then make adjustments to exceed the stock strut by various percentages.....I found that they would never performed as planned....be cause there is no way to mimic/duplicate the affects of the suspension geometry or the inertial loads and roll forces of the real car in a shock/strut dyno.
But it did tell me when the valving dynamics of a particular cartridge were similar to stock......which is how I eventually came to use the Audi 4000/Quantum cartridge. The decision to use low pressure gas was forced on me by parts breakage while using high pressure gas.
The one thing that was clear...in order to get any of the other springs to work....I would have to lower the bottom spring perch (at best) or make it adjustable at worst.
(6) lowering the lower spring perch was not an option that I wanted to go with very much......(even though as Bill and Wally have found it opens up the horizons of what springs you can use).....but it required welding skills I did not have...and required changing to a non-stock wheel. All of which added much more into the cost and equation than time and money allowed for a spirited daily driver vehicle.
I was within days of agonizing over the expenditure of a set of custom twin perch, dual spring Bilstein, fully adjustable struts (about $2300 at that time)......because without struts....my car was virtually off the road.
To finish this off.....I decided to find a simpler way of adapting the very nice valving and control I had discovered in the Audi 4000/Quantum cartridge...to the existing chassis.
As I noted....it took almost another year of various strut stub designs to get that cartridge to fit with only light mods to spring height....to accomplish all of goals that I set out f or.
The stub mod was not just a method to get some basic shock into the car to get me rolling for cruising on a Saturday night. This was my daily driver. I averaged well over 1000 miles a week covering 5 states (Texas, Ok, Ark, La, NB)....at speeds of 70+. It had to handle, be safe, durable, lower the front end, stop the dive and roll of stock valving.
It accomplishes all of that very well.
But....as I have said...be warned: If you use the stub and Audi strut method...it works exceedingly well. But.....it must have these other items to keep from causing problems:
(1) Bronze idler bushing
(2) Properly rebuilt or new centerlink
(3) upgraded control arm bushings
(4) Upgraded radius arm bushings and centering rings
(5) Late model assymetrical strut bushings
all of the above things...I think every 411/412 should have....but you can get away without them on stock suspension for awhile.
(6) High pressure gas rear shocks
(7) upgraded sway bar in rear
(8) upgraded outer links
(9) upgraded front outer links
(10) Tires with sidewall profile between 50 and 60 series. I found that lower profiles that 50 with this set-up have too little give and require a different spring or much stronger ball joints and are prone to crack the radius arm eyes in cold weather. The lower profile than stock is a big part of keeping the roll radius under control
(11) Going to at least 5.5 inch rims with any of these tire profiles is a big part as well.
What I am getting at is that the design and construction of this stub was very well calculated with.....the combo I list. Ray
-
Bill K.
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:50 pm
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
Thanks for the background and upgrade summary Ray. It's important to stress that these cars benefit from several modifications and upgrades. I'm really amazed how the changes I've made based on your recommendations have turned this car into a 911-ish handling vehicle.
Although I agree with your point 6, I'd like to clarify the comment...
).
Although I agree with your point 6, I'd like to clarify the comment...
The BMW springs do NOT require modification to the lower spring perch. Neither Wally or I have modified the perch. The BWM E30 series springs are the same diameter as stock 411/412 and are a direct replacement. The result is a shorter spring with a bit firmer spring rate that can be used with stock inserts or Audi 4000 inserts. Wally used M3 (or equivalent Euro non-M3 model) springs with 412 Koni inserts and stock bump stops. I've used 318i springs with 412 Koni inserts and stock bump stops as well as M3 springs with Audi inserts and non-stock bump stops.raygreenwood wrote: (6) lowering the lower spring perch was not an option that I wanted to go with very much......(even though as Bill and Wally have found it opens up the horizons of what springs you can use).....but it required welding skills I did not have...and required changing to a non-stock wheel.
I tested the lastest V2 config with 300 pounds of clay in the front trunk (my wife's a potter) and was surprised how well it handled. It still has 1+ inch of bump travel (not including bump stop compression) this way. Steering input was significantly increased and steering turns needs to be limited to prevent fender rubbing, but this setup can handle a full trunk of camping gear no problem (did it last week with my kidsraygreenwood wrote: Understand this: if you loaded the front trunk of a 411/412 with enough weight....it leveled out in appearance and gained enough static castor angle to actually no longer have wind wandering issues or tram lining issues with wider than stock tires. But....that amount of weight....typically over 450 lbs in the trunk...caused severe center of gravity issues....and also was beyond what the compression damping of the strut valving could handle.
).You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
raygreenwood
- Posts: 11910
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:01 am
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
Very nice. The real difference in the two set-ups...is that yours is actually set up to be lower than level...slightly raked...in the front end. Mine set-up is designed to just be level (lowering of about 1" in the front)...and all other lowering is by means of lower sidewall height.
The extra lowering is why you could use a shorter spring AND the Audi strut as is...without a stub.
The last version of stub I designed but have not made yet....is one that gets rid of the stock steel bump stop bushing. Since I no longer use the stop bump stops and boots ( I have after market ones)....getting rid of the steel bushing allows the step on the stub to be higher and makes it similar to the step found on the stock 1974 strut rod.
In that case....I could lower further than just level and it would be somewhere between what you have and what I have.....but would absolutely have to have a different spring because further compression of the stock one one definitely go past the ride control area and be too stiff for road control.
I realize that you did not have to lower the lower perch....but with the springs I was experimenting with back in the day...I would have had to. I am very averse to cutting springs. Good progressive springs are finely calibrated. I found that it was very difficult to know exactly where you were cutting and what you were getting. Even the strut Dyno could not really tell me much.
Progressive springs are a different animal than straight rate ones. With the VW springs...you have to be careful. At a glance they look like straight rate coils because the coils are evenly spaced. But on careful inspection, they flatten out and have greater cross section through the bottom area. The yellow series rear springs of the 411/412 wagon are very noticeable in this respect.
Back to the original conversation.....I think Sharkskinman may actually do better with your set-up. He's wanting to do more than lower to level...and then just drop sidewall. He "might" be able to get a little more out of the front end with the stub method....maybe 3/4"....but I'm not sure how the system would react when the trunk is loaded....and the spring has another 1" pre load. That 1" of first pre-load is very important on my system. As it is..when you fill the trunk....the front end only droops just barely.
You would think that there would not be enough give going over something like a speed bump...but I generally take them at about 30+
and its dead smooth. The damping is pretty tight on the Gr-2's
As it is set-up, there is still plenty of bump stop room with the stub mod even with a full trunk.
Ray
The extra lowering is why you could use a shorter spring AND the Audi strut as is...without a stub.
The last version of stub I designed but have not made yet....is one that gets rid of the stock steel bump stop bushing. Since I no longer use the stop bump stops and boots ( I have after market ones)....getting rid of the steel bushing allows the step on the stub to be higher and makes it similar to the step found on the stock 1974 strut rod.
In that case....I could lower further than just level and it would be somewhere between what you have and what I have.....but would absolutely have to have a different spring because further compression of the stock one one definitely go past the ride control area and be too stiff for road control.
I realize that you did not have to lower the lower perch....but with the springs I was experimenting with back in the day...I would have had to. I am very averse to cutting springs. Good progressive springs are finely calibrated. I found that it was very difficult to know exactly where you were cutting and what you were getting. Even the strut Dyno could not really tell me much.
Progressive springs are a different animal than straight rate ones. With the VW springs...you have to be careful. At a glance they look like straight rate coils because the coils are evenly spaced. But on careful inspection, they flatten out and have greater cross section through the bottom area. The yellow series rear springs of the 411/412 wagon are very noticeable in this respect.
Back to the original conversation.....I think Sharkskinman may actually do better with your set-up. He's wanting to do more than lower to level...and then just drop sidewall. He "might" be able to get a little more out of the front end with the stub method....maybe 3/4"....but I'm not sure how the system would react when the trunk is loaded....and the spring has another 1" pre load. That 1" of first pre-load is very important on my system. As it is..when you fill the trunk....the front end only droops just barely.
You would think that there would not be enough give going over something like a speed bump...but I generally take them at about 30+
and its dead smooth. The damping is pretty tight on the Gr-2'sAs it is set-up, there is still plenty of bump stop room with the stub mod even with a full trunk.
Ray
-
sharkskinman
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:19 am
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
it doesnt seem that low
especially it having 17s on it
im actually looking to lower it lower thatn that
but i will start small
i think the moving of the rear mounts is good for an inch or so in the rear
but now im on the fence about springs and what not
the strut inserts are audi
but dont know if im going for with extension and stock springs or BMW springs?
its about Cost too
wouldnt BMW springs be expensive?
what year am i looking for for the springs off the BMW?
who knows...
-
bradey bunch
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:13 pm
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
Any springs from the e30 bimmers will work, except those from all wheel drive cars. I think e30 is around 1984-1991
I just put in my bimmer springs (which I got used for free.. when people lower their bimmers they often throw away the springs) and cut about 2.3 coils off
its good and low now... it also has 195/60 tires on there. no rubbing issues so far. drives nice. going on a roadtrip and will report how freeway handling is (and how it handles a load in the trunk).
Braden
I just put in my bimmer springs (which I got used for free.. when people lower their bimmers they often throw away the springs) and cut about 2.3 coils off
its good and low now... it also has 195/60 tires on there. no rubbing issues so far. drives nice. going on a roadtrip and will report how freeway handling is (and how it handles a load in the trunk).Braden
-
sharkskinman
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:19 am
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
pictures man...
pictures..
so you got the stock springs out of a BMW for free
or a pair of "Cut" ones?
so you have the Audi cartridge/BMW Springs set up like bill k?
what really is the cost?
ya know
bill...you have a nice set up for sale but what did it run you to put together
im not going to be cheap ness but $$$ is a factor being that i already have a Daily Driver Type 3
im going to have to go look in the pull it place and see if they have any e30s
altho i doubt it
so
im also looking at your post (bill)
and it doesnt really seem as if its that much lower at all
did you lower the back at all?
man theres Tons of room under those fenders
the idea is maybe 205/35/18s on 18x8
i dont want it slammed
Altho It looks SICK!!
im going for more of a Euro Tuner Look
with slightly stretched tires that curve
with the Nice fenders of my 411
heres a pic i played with of yours
(1) normal
(2) evened out in the back
(3) lowered probably 2"s more than the (2)
maybe it will look different then whats in my head
But Man Does it look Good In Here!
picture this
ugly car
nice car
thats nice and clean
tinted windows
good chrome
and smooth body lines
mix Euro Tuner and Porsche Panamara
BUT... without being able to go TOO LOW
then wheels are essential
so ill get it to the height i want Then deal with wheels
pictures..
so you got the stock springs out of a BMW for free
or a pair of "Cut" ones?
so you have the Audi cartridge/BMW Springs set up like bill k?
what really is the cost?
ya know
bill...you have a nice set up for sale but what did it run you to put together
im not going to be cheap ness but $$$ is a factor being that i already have a Daily Driver Type 3
im going to have to go look in the pull it place and see if they have any e30s
altho i doubt it
so
im also looking at your post (bill)
and it doesnt really seem as if its that much lower at all
did you lower the back at all?
man theres Tons of room under those fenders
the idea is maybe 205/35/18s on 18x8
i dont want it slammed
Altho It looks SICK!!
im going for more of a Euro Tuner Look
with slightly stretched tires that curve
with the Nice fenders of my 411
heres a pic i played with of yours
(1) normal
(2) evened out in the back
(3) lowered probably 2"s more than the (2)
maybe it will look different then whats in my head
But Man Does it look Good In Here!
picture this
ugly car
nice car
thats nice and clean
tinted windows
good chrome
and smooth body lines
mix Euro Tuner and Porsche Panamara
BUT... without being able to go TOO LOW
then wheels are essential
so ill get it to the height i want Then deal with wheels
-
Lahti411
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 2:23 pm
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
Ofcourse everything is possible, but i'm not sure if this is the best car for such lowering... These are cool cars but they are so rare that when the lowering shows its ugly side by destroying balljoints etc. you will be in trouble. You just cannot go to the nearest parts dealer and buy new parts as they simply don't exist anymore.
This car looks cool 'though:
http://vwtype4.xooit.com/t13-411-chocolat.htm?start=30
This car looks cool 'though:
http://vwtype4.xooit.com/t13-411-chocolat.htm?start=30
-
raygreenwood
- Posts: 11910
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:01 am
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
Sharkskinman.....you are just not used to looking at 411/412's. Yes...Bills car is actually lowered fairly significantly. Its even hard for me to tell how far.... or if..... its really been lowered that much in the rear...but its significant in the front....and the front is lower than the rear.
The other thing to worry about (outside of this type of lowering) is the control arm angle and its proximity to the cut-out in the body. This issue limits you to lowering from the top. Also...at some point you may have to make different links or attachment points for the sway bar if you go too low by methods other than what are being described here.
The thing about all of the lowering we have been speaking of here is that we are really lowering the body farther down onto the suspension. We are not changing the suspension angles underneath...yet.
There is the issue of looks versus practicality. All of the lowered 412's in this thread..are still very practical for handling. In all of these methods..there should actually be very little body roll in handling or spring compression to cause bottoming out if its done correctly.
As I noted...when I throw all of my weight onto the front bumper by jumping on it...I get a max of about 1/2" compression. But its valved so well that its very smooth over bumps. Handling is fabulous and flat.
If you lower these cars too much just for looks you will sacrifice handling and longevity. Again...this is not a type 3.....and most of those that are lowered beyond the levels of these type 4's...are not practical anyway. They ride like chuck wagons and destroy themselves over time and potholes.
Once you start driving a type 4....you will want to drive long distances in them. Best driver VW ever made. Lowering excessively destroys that niceness. Ray
The other thing to worry about (outside of this type of lowering) is the control arm angle and its proximity to the cut-out in the body. This issue limits you to lowering from the top. Also...at some point you may have to make different links or attachment points for the sway bar if you go too low by methods other than what are being described here.
The thing about all of the lowering we have been speaking of here is that we are really lowering the body farther down onto the suspension. We are not changing the suspension angles underneath...yet.
There is the issue of looks versus practicality. All of the lowered 412's in this thread..are still very practical for handling. In all of these methods..there should actually be very little body roll in handling or spring compression to cause bottoming out if its done correctly.
As I noted...when I throw all of my weight onto the front bumper by jumping on it...I get a max of about 1/2" compression. But its valved so well that its very smooth over bumps. Handling is fabulous and flat.
If you lower these cars too much just for looks you will sacrifice handling and longevity. Again...this is not a type 3.....and most of those that are lowered beyond the levels of these type 4's...are not practical anyway. They ride like chuck wagons and destroy themselves over time and potholes.
Once you start driving a type 4....you will want to drive long distances in them. Best driver VW ever made. Lowering excessively destroys that niceness. Ray
-
Bill K.
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:50 pm
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
The 412 has huge arches front to back and are difficult to make "look low" because it's difficult to fill the arch with tire like other ACVW's. I don't like the look of the 195/40/17's on the fronts of my car because of the gap front/rear/above even with the chassis lowered like it is. A larger diameter tire is needed to fill the arch so I'm converting to 205/50/17. This will raise the chassis, fill out the arch more and add back a bit of tire suspension to compensate for the stiffer M3 springs. However, 12mm spacers are required to prevent the tire sidewall from rubbing the lower perch (remember this is with 944 hubs and 17x7.5 ET55 Cayenne wheels). Also, at the current ride height with 205/50/17 on the front, the steering lock will be reduced to prevent rubbing on the fender with suspension compression and the fender lip needs a bit of clearancing about the trailing side. A shorter tire would minimize the offset issues but would not fill out the arch as much and not "look low".
Although the current setup doesn't "look that low" due to arch-to-tire gaps, using fender arch apex measurements with the current wheels/tires, the V2 (M3) front is lowered 2.25" from stock (condition before modification using original components that are 36 years old); the rear is raised 0.25" (probably due to the KYB 5406 gas shocks and the rolling forward effect of lowering the front). V2 with 300 lb in the trunk is 3.7" lower than stock at the fender arch. V1 (318i) front was 1" lower at the arch. After these mods, you definately need to adjust the focus of your headlights.
Also, the center of gravity and roll center changes make it more fun to drive while still being versatile enough to handle city/country roads.
Regarding cost, my price for the V1 struts is based on the cost of parts, materials, and a bit of my time. The Koni's and Super Beetle strut bearings are most of the price.
No attempts to lower the rear have been made, I just replaced the rear shock with the KYB 5406 and kept the stock "blue stripe" sedan springs. Using the shock rod to lower the rear would (probably) result in a "one way suspension" - it may only work in compression over bumps, but not in extension to absorb dips because the rod is already at full extension to pull the top of the spring down beyond the load applied by the car. It seems like the lower shock mount would need to be lowered 2.75" to lower the rear 1". Currently, the rear of my car has 1.75" of droop travel (jack up the car and the shock extends 1.75"). Lowering the lower shock mount 1" would preload the spring 1" more at full extension (perhaps increasing the spring rate if the number of active coils is reduced through preload compression). When loaded, the weight of the car would compress the spring another .75" (or less due to the increase in spring rate from decreasing the number of active coils through increased preload), but the ride height would still be a function of the car weight and the spring - no lowering. It seems like this modification would just reduce droop travel, but I haven't tried it so please excuse my further "intellectualization" on my understanding of springs (F=dL*k).
This is my daily driver and I've experienced driving cars that are too low for city and country roads, so I've kept the rear stock for clearance and simplicity.
BTW, I like blue VW's - thanks for the paint job! Here's my bug (first car bought when I was 16 and converted to GermanLook several years ago):
Although the current setup doesn't "look that low" due to arch-to-tire gaps, using fender arch apex measurements with the current wheels/tires, the V2 (M3) front is lowered 2.25" from stock (condition before modification using original components that are 36 years old); the rear is raised 0.25" (probably due to the KYB 5406 gas shocks and the rolling forward effect of lowering the front). V2 with 300 lb in the trunk is 3.7" lower than stock at the fender arch. V1 (318i) front was 1" lower at the arch. After these mods, you definately need to adjust the focus of your headlights.
Also, the center of gravity and roll center changes make it more fun to drive while still being versatile enough to handle city/country roads.Regarding cost, my price for the V1 struts is based on the cost of parts, materials, and a bit of my time. The Koni's and Super Beetle strut bearings are most of the price.
No attempts to lower the rear have been made, I just replaced the rear shock with the KYB 5406 and kept the stock "blue stripe" sedan springs. Using the shock rod to lower the rear would (probably) result in a "one way suspension" - it may only work in compression over bumps, but not in extension to absorb dips because the rod is already at full extension to pull the top of the spring down beyond the load applied by the car. It seems like the lower shock mount would need to be lowered 2.75" to lower the rear 1". Currently, the rear of my car has 1.75" of droop travel (jack up the car and the shock extends 1.75"). Lowering the lower shock mount 1" would preload the spring 1" more at full extension (perhaps increasing the spring rate if the number of active coils is reduced through preload compression). When loaded, the weight of the car would compress the spring another .75" (or less due to the increase in spring rate from decreasing the number of active coils through increased preload), but the ride height would still be a function of the car weight and the spring - no lowering. It seems like this modification would just reduce droop travel, but I haven't tried it so please excuse my further "intellectualization" on my understanding of springs (F=dL*k).
This is my daily driver and I've experienced driving cars that are too low for city and country roads, so I've kept the rear stock for clearance and simplicity.
BTW, I like blue VW's - thanks for the paint job! Here's my bug (first car bought when I was 16 and converted to GermanLook several years ago):
-
sharkskinman
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:19 am
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
http://oldvwcrew.hautetfort.com/411-rudy/
this one?
man i wish i could read this
damn thats a sweet ride...
wonder what those air struts are??
-
raygreenwood
- Posts: 11910
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:01 am
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
Bill K. wrote:The 412 has huge arches front to back and are difficult to make "look low" because it's difficult to fill the arch with tire like other ACVW's. I don't like the look of the 195/40/17's on the fronts of my car because of the gap front/rear/above even with the chassis lowered like it is. A larger diameter tire is needed to fill the arch so I'm converting to 205/50/17. This will raise the chassis, fill out the arch more and add back a bit of tire suspension to compensate for the stiffer M3 springs. However, 12mm spacers are required to prevent the tire sidewall from rubbing the lower perch (remember this is with 944 hubs and 17x7.5 ET55 Cayenne wheels). Also, at the current ride height with 205/50/17 on the front, the steering lock will be reduced to prevent rubbing on the fender with suspension compression and the fender lip needs a bit of clearancing about the trailing side. A shorter tire would minimize the offset issues but would not fill out the arch as much and not "look low".
Although the current setup doesn't "look that low" due to arch-to-tire gaps, using fender arch apex measurements with the current wheels/tires, the V2 (M3) front is lowered 2.25" from stock (condition before modification using original components that are 36 years old); the rear is raised 0.25" (probably due to the KYB 5406 gas shocks and the rolling forward effect of lowering the front). V2 with 300 lb in the trunk is 3.7" lower than stock at the fender arch. V1 (318i) front was 1" lower at the arch. After these mods, you definately need to adjust the focus of your headlights.
Regarding cost, my price for the V1 struts is based on the cost of parts, materials, and a bit of my time. The Koni's and Super Beetle strut bearings are most of the price.
No attempts to lower the rear have been made, I just replaced the rear shock with the KYB 5406 and kept the stock "blue stripe" sedan springs. Using the shock rod to lower the rear would (probably) result in a "one way suspension" - it may only work in compression over bumps, but not in extension to absorb dips because the rod is already at full extension to pull the top of the spring down beyond the load applied by the car. It seems like the lower shock mount would need to be lowered 2.75" to lower the rear 1". Currently, the rear of my car has 1.75" of droop travel (jack up the car and the shock extends 1.75"). Lowering the lower shock mount 1" would preload the spring 1" more at full extension (perhaps increasing the spring rate if the number of active coils is reduced through preload compression). When loaded, the weight of the car would compress the spring another .75" (or less due to the increase in spring rate from decreasing the number of active coils through increased preload), but the ride height would still be a function of the car weight and the spring - no lowering. It seems like this modification would just reduce droop travel, but I haven't tried it so please excuse my further "intellectualization" on my understanding of springs (F=dL*k).
This is my daily driver and I've experienced driving cars that are too low for city and country roads, so I've kept the rear stock for clearance and simplicity.
BTW, I like blue VW's - thanks for the paint job! Here's my bug (first car bought when I was 16 and converted to GermanLook several years ago):
Yes.....100%! The "view" you get of slightly lowered 411/412's....is like a bag of optical illusions. Wheel well gaps, flared fenders, tire sidewalls and actual ride heights...can really conspire to not give you a real visual idea of how much you have lowerd the center of gravity.
The rear has its own difficulties. Lowering in the rear...ideally.....should be done by welding in an "inverted steel cup"....at the top where the shock mounts. But when you look at the way the body is constructed.....that is MAJOR and dangerous surgery (again, there is a crumple zone joint behind the rear seat).
One thing I do know for sure, is that if you want to lower the rear using an extended lower mounts (welding or steel side straps)...you MUST move to the yellow springs from a variant/wagon. They have a softer/longer ride control section at the top. They were design to not droop as much when used with gas shocks. With yellow springs you can drop the lower shock mount about an inch and it will actually lower an inch in the rear. I don't know if that is 100% safe or not.
The rear shock is "designed" to be the travel limit for both extension and compression. It will not damage the shock. This is also in the factory specs and in the books. If you end up using a shock whose rod is longer....and it does not "exactly" limit the extension of the rebound stroke...it allows the spring to unseat on rebound. I found this out the hard way many years ago when I was looking for other shocks that would fit. Its a really ugly sound...and the spring ALWAYS drops sideways and damages the shock.
There is no real worry of it becoming a "one way" suspension. Its designed to have the rod reach full travel. but....if you preload the rear too hard...it will damge the bushings at the pivot point. Force always has to go somewhere. Ray
-
raygreenwood
- Posts: 11910
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:01 am
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
sharkskinman wrote:
http://oldvwcrew.hautetfort.com/411-rudy/
this one?
man i wish i could read this
damn thats a sweet ride...
wonder what those air struts are??
Yeah it looks great....but is almost worthless as a driveable vehicle. The leverage generated against those airbags by the hugely long control arms (and no springs).....and the fact that the 411 had even worse aerodynamics than the 412 in cross winds.....and there will be problems. You should really drive your 411 for a while to get the feel of how it handles before you start lowering. Ray
-
sharkskinman
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:19 am
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
of course i will...
the front is more of a concern thatn the rear at the moment
i have to weigh down the front just to get pics for the insurance company..HA.. FU@%ers
but the rear is something i can play with easily
the idea of a 1" Maybe 1 1/2"
steps down for the bottom of the mounts is a bolt on bolt off idea
If it works..Good
If it doesnt then ill take them off
I need to clean the rear springs to see a color (probably blue)
but the front is a replace bad with good
and lower it while i do it
(bill)
so your saying with the e30 springs ..the audi cartridges just fit in and bolt up
as they are same length?
(bradey bunch)
any pics of your car
and the front suspension
what did you do for cartridges?
speaking of BMW
anyone tried something like this
http://www.essentialgears.com/tho/tr/pr ... 43987.html
or a ride adjuster at all?
the front is more of a concern thatn the rear at the moment
i have to weigh down the front just to get pics for the insurance company..HA.. FU@%ers
but the rear is something i can play with easily
the idea of a 1" Maybe 1 1/2"
steps down for the bottom of the mounts is a bolt on bolt off idea
If it works..Good
If it doesnt then ill take them off
I need to clean the rear springs to see a color (probably blue)
but the front is a replace bad with good
and lower it while i do it
(bill)
so your saying with the e30 springs ..the audi cartridges just fit in and bolt up
as they are same length?
(bradey bunch)
any pics of your car
and the front suspension
what did you do for cartridges?
speaking of BMW
anyone tried something like this
http://www.essentialgears.com/tho/tr/pr ... 43987.html
Note: Springs will not work with performance shocks. Must have OEM shocks installed
or a ride adjuster at all?
-
raygreenwood
- Posts: 11910
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:01 am
Re: lowering a 411/ 412
Those are kind of a DIY version of the Bilsteins I was looking at. They weld onto the stock outer strut tube. That actually is probably the very best long term option. The most expensive...sure....but the best.
In that method you can install whatever strut cartridge you find works (the Audi strut cartridge is known to have nice valving) and then adjust spring load to suit as long as the lower perch does not impinge on the wheel.
By the way...that is why the chocolate brown 411 with bags....uses those worthless skinny treads up front....because anything wider would rub on the lower part of the bag unit.
Why do you have to weigh down the front to get pic for the insurance company? What you see is almost identical to the way it came from the factory. Just show them the pics in the manuals. Also drop the tire pressure in the front to about 25 and pump the rear to 34. It will help the temporary look a little. Ray
In that method you can install whatever strut cartridge you find works (the Audi strut cartridge is known to have nice valving) and then adjust spring load to suit as long as the lower perch does not impinge on the wheel.
By the way...that is why the chocolate brown 411 with bags....uses those worthless skinny treads up front....because anything wider would rub on the lower part of the bag unit.
Why do you have to weigh down the front to get pic for the insurance company? What you see is almost identical to the way it came from the factory. Just show them the pics in the manuals. Also drop the tire pressure in the front to about 25 and pump the rear to 34. It will help the temporary look a little. Ray