I'm thinking of tightening up the rebound of my Konis. Then again, the roads here in San Diego are mostly smooth as glass.
I would agree that in an area with smooth roads, the KONIs would rock. My old Mazda3 was SOOOO fun to drive.
I'm thinking of tightening up the rebound of my Konis. Then again, the roads here in San Diego are mostly smooth as glass.
I spoke to an Eibach person, today about why the rear is lowered more than the front. Of all the lowering spring sets I have seen, every one had lowered the front more than it did the rear. Here's a good example of a set for a 2008 Mazda 3:
http://www.tirerack.com/suspension/...oor&autoYear=2008&autoModClar=s+Grand+Touring
Notice that the front is lowered more than the rear.
Any way, the Eibach rep explained that they needed to lower the rear more to even out the stance. Compression is increased by about 15% over the stock springs' compression.
My unanswered question is this: If the factory keeps the rear a bit higher, why change that "stance"?
Does the 2014 3 in my post, above look like it needs a lower rear?
I can say that on my hatchback, the back does have noticeably more fender gap than the front. However, for me, the lowering and spring rates should be based on performance and getting the handling balance right, not looks. Having a greater drop on one end or the other will shift weight distribution a small amount, which will affect the handling balance of the car.
This is why I'm wondering why Eibach and corksport changed the stance of the 3. Yes, it's not by much, but I always thought the rear being slightly higher than the front would compensate for heavy loads in the trunk or hatch area. If they start out as perfectly even, a trip to Home Depot for some soil bags or retaining wall blocks may make your car look goofy.
...or if you regularly commute with 3 people in the back seat......