Shoptalkforums.com

$20.00 bucks later and with a bit of cutting, welding, drilling and tapping I'll have the top mounting solution sorted out.

I'm trying to figure out what size to integrate with Mk4 Jetta struts...
Fronts anyway.

Attaching the tops looks easy, attach to upper spring perch inside the larger outer spring, several possible methods.
The bottoms are going to be more interesting, I'm going to guess at the springs and go ~300lb/in F&R.

I'll unload (pull down) the front end ~1" with them which IME will oddly make it much more compliant.
(I do the same on the rear of the T3, or it doesn't stick as well, wants to spin the inside tire too easy)

Piledriver wrote:
I'll unload (pull down) the front end ~1" with them which IME will oddly make it much more compliant.
(I do the same on the rear of the T3, or it doesn't stick as well, wants to spin the inside tire too easy)

If you have spinny rear, you can make the rear softer, or the front harder.

helowrench wrote:

Piledriver wrote:
I'll unload (pull down) the front end ~1" with them which IME will oddly make it much more compliant.
(I do the same on the rear of the T3, or it doesn't stick as well, wants to spin the inside tire too easy)

If you have spinny rear, you can make the rear softer, or the front harder.

Yep, it surprised me (30 years ago) that loading the springs against each other (pulling the back down with the 4ways) effectively softens it. But it does.

I remembered to actually do it again after I drove it in the rain once.

Adrenaline does wonders for memory prompting.

helowrench wrote:Adrenaline does wonders for memory prompting.

So true.

this is a very interesting thread. Seems like such a simple idea but I can see how it could work so well.
I did a quick google search for 4 way suspension and a lot of it seems to be high-performance applications.
Anyone got any more results from using these?

Another question - if these are as good as they're made out to be, why do no manufacturers use them as standard? Surely someone must've looked into it and decided not to use them for some reason?

I'm not saying they don't work, just wondering!

Roflhat wrote:Another question - if these are as good as they're made out to be, why do no manufacturers use them as standard? Surely someone must've looked into it and decided not to use them for some reason?

I'm not saying they don't work, just wondering!

Manufacturers can spec out a spring rate from the get go.
So with the correct (for the mass market) spring rate, the manufacturer does not need all of the other parts involved.
We are very limited on front spring packs.as in two that I am aware of.
Stock, and the swayaway stiff ones.
Not much tuning potential there.

Once upon a time, I wanted to figure out how to take some gas charged, and add an aviation style charge port so I could vary the nitrogen pressure.

Roflhat wrote:Another question - if these are as good as they're made out to be, why do no manufacturers use them as standard?

The T1 is the only suspension design that I have seen in person that is compatible with the 4-Way design. Both of my cars have the spring over the damper. I don't think I have even seen many (if any) pictures of other cars with the damper separate from the spring.
There could be some engineering issue that we don't know about. I speculate that manufacturers also don't like change. Why did Ford use the same basic V8 design for decades? (A design that sprays oil out the dipstick.) The status quo is usually cheaper too. Even if it is as good as we have read, I just don't see it ever getting main stream.

Proctor I have to disagree. Any suspension with a torsion bar would be able to use these.
That is quite a few.
Now, if you meant that no other cars would be able to use these on all four corners, maybe you are right.
I am drawing a blank on cars with tbars on both F and R other than the vw

helowrench, I completely forgot about the torsion beam that one of mine has on the rear, but Toyota did not put a rear anti-sway bar on it. The bar is on the front for understeer where it is MacPherson. My mother's Mini has MacPherson front and some odd rear design that still has the coil over the damper. My friend's tiny Mazda economy car is like my Toyota/Scion. What I have experience with does not fit well with the 4-Way design. Maybe for performance, it would help to have the 4-Way in the rear on my torsion beam car. I never thought of that, but I doubt that Toyota would have cared to do it as it is an economy car (bare minimum parts for safety and making the sale). The only other cars I can think of are Honda's wishbone at all four corners and the Kia Rio's chintzy looking MacPherson on the front (never looked at the rear). The design incompatibility is just speculation anyway. Maybe they never heard of it or management shot it down. I do software and I am nearly ALWAYS stuck working with what I have been given which somebody long gone had chosen YEARS ago.

The "4-way" snubber could also be implemented as a sway bar that is clamped to the frame in the middle.
In that incarnation the spring rate could be made easily adjustable, and it can fit anything.

I saw some for sale on ebay here in the UK for a subaru impreza, at £9000!

Piledriver wrote:The "4-way" snubber could also be implemented as a sway bar that is clamped to the frame in the middle.
In that incarnation the spring rate could be made easily adjustable, and it can fit anything.

That reminds me of your original home brew idea of an anti-sway bar clamped or split to make the sides independent, which could easily be a modification on the commonplace anti-sway bar design. Who knows why the basic idea never took off.