Koni yellows with Ground Controls 400f/350r

1993 Civic EG hatch with LSVTEC swap. Daily driver with occasional drag strip use. I also live in Puerto Rico so there are a lot of curves in the mountains

 

If you search the threads, you will see that many people use 350-450 for daily rates for their Koni/GC combo.

Whats nice about the koni gc combo.. is that you have alot of spring choices to choose from.. and that when you want to go to the strip...

you can keep another set just for the strip, and swap them in before your race.

not only that but the koni sport dampers are pretty strong, and can handle rates up to 500lbs/in - if i'm not mistaken.

with drag rates.. i think you need the rear to be very stiff.... so that it can force the weight forward... or something like that...

but if you can, get some PIC... or give them a look..

people say that they ride alot better than koni yellows with the gc ots..

if you look at the dynos of the pic, they are very linear... but with the selects, the different positions actually make a noticeable difference.. but its still very linear..

i don't know much about shocks or anything... but if its linear. i think its more predictable....

and i think thats why people who have switched from koni/gc to pics, say that the car feels smoother, and more predictable.

 

Depends on how the roads are in Puerto Rico and what your personal tolerance is like.

Personally, I think 400f/350r would feel pretty comfortable on that car with some mild rebound settings on the Konis, but will still be plenty stiff for any motorsports use.

 

Those rates were suggested by VtecVoodoo here on Honda Tech who is selling the GC's for $315 shipped. I think it's a steal don't you?

 

I guess I'll go with the 400f/350r setup

 

is there any reason to buy the GC top hats besides looks?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 7rrivera7 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">is there any reason to buy the GC top hats besides looks?</TD></TR></TABLE>

yes.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mormonboy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

yes. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I guess I forgot to add the following:

...and if so, why?

 

If you plan on going really low, yes.

If not, then don't bother with them. I had 380 lb/in springs on the front of my Integra, lowered as pictured below, and I never had any problems bottoming out or with the UCA's hitting the shock towers:

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you plan on going really low, yes.

If not, then don't bother with them. I had 380 lb/in springs on the front of my Integra, lowered as pictured below, and I never had any problems bottoming out or with the UCA's hitting the shock towers:
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hum, I'm running with a "2 finger" gap and 400 lbs/in springs int he front of my 00 GSR, and I bottom periodically on large vertical displacements (pot holes and some overpass transitions).

I didn't think my SPC UCAs reduced total travel that much, but I do have a nice set of dents in my shock towers from impacts.

Now, if only I could get a reasonable autocross alignment without some form of camber correction in there. The -2.0* I got from lowering just wasn't enough...

But, to get back on topic, the GC extended upper mounts (I have them as well), just move the impact point of actually bottoming the suspension from the shock piston to the UCA, but should allow a little more travel before contact happens.

 

whats the drop on your DC?

 

I have zero dents on my shock towers. I drove over 100 miles/day for nearly a year, lowered on GC's as pictured above.

 

Can I get the top hats for looks only or do they affect the "parameters" of the installation?

 

umm why would you spend $150/pair on something just for looks? Yes it would affect how high you can go w/ the suspension. You would not be able to adjust them as high as if you had the stock top hats.

 

That's the answer I was looking for - thanks

 

thats a great setup you should do it...i did 450f/400r...i never had a problem like patrickgsr94 been explaining about bottoming out and hitting the shock frame...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Hum, I'm running with a "2 finger" gap and 400 lbs/in springs int he front of my 00 GSR, and I bottom periodically on large vertical displacements (pot holes and some overpass transitions).

I didn't think my SPC UCAs reduced total travel that much, but I do have a nice set of dents in my shock towers from impacts.

Now, if only I could get a reasonable autocross alignment without some form of camber correction in there. The -2.0* I got from lowering just wasn't enough...

But, to get back on topic, the GC extended upper mounts (I have them as well), just move the impact point of actually bottoming the suspension from the shock piston to the UCA, but should allow a little more travel before contact happens.</TD></TR></TABLE>

At the moment i'm running 10k up front (dropped 2.0-2.5+inchs all around, no finger gap up front and barely a finger gap in the rear) i dont bottom out what so ever, even when i hit hard bumps on the freeway. Your shock also determines if you'll bottom out or not too but ride height still plays a big role too. When i had my sk2 shocks paired with GC's (ots spring rates) 380F/280R, i bottomed out alot. (same height as above ^)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hawjboi &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">thats a great setup you should do it...i did 450f/400r...i never had a problem like patrickgsr94 been explaining about bottoming out and hitting the shock frame...</TD></TR></TABLE>

What's a good setup? 400f 350r?

 

That should be a good setup. I had 380/450 before and thought it was too harsh. If I could do it again I would probably go with 400/350 or even 300 in the back.

 

that should be good...my 450f/400r my dad doesnt like it...says its kinda hard and rough ride...but i think its all good...just some adjustments and it'll work out evenly...hard when you want it soft when you need it...oh btw i always have a car full which is why i choose the 400r...

 

sorry to jack your thread OP but how does a car with matching front/rear spring rates feel like? I know opinions are based on needs and performance but would a 400F/400R setup perform better than a 450/400 setup? I know the stock ITR spring rates are 250/250, i've drivin one and it feels pretty solid for a stock car. That is considering the ITR has the big rear sway and many other struts/braces.

Patrick, have you drivin a ITR and compared it to your setup? I remember you said you had stock ITR springs with koni's right?

Sorry OP for jacking your thread

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bmoua &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">sorry to jack your thread OP but how does a car with matching front/rear spring rates feel like? I know opinions are based on needs and performance but would a 400F/400R setup perform better than a 450/400 setup? I know the stock ITR spring rates are 250/250, i've drivin one and it feels pretty solid for a stock car. That is considering the ITR has the big rear sway and many other struts/braces.

Patrick, have you drivin a ITR and compared it to your setup? I remember you said you had stock ITR springs with koni's right?

Sorry OP for jacking your thread</TD></TR></TABLE>

I have stock GS-R springs in front and stock ITR springs in back. ITR rear springs are progressive and are only 250 lb/in at the very stiff end of the range. I think most of the time it's going to be operating below 200 lb/in.

 

i dont know about matching rates...but what could go wrong i was about to choose matching rates as well...when i choose my rates i thought that they might've been to stiff...everyone that i let drive it love them but they cant afford them...i just went with "MY" rule of thumb for a dd stock street, bumpy road car...more lbs/in in the front and lesser lbs/in in the back...i do use an itr rear bar as well...i love it and i'm happy...my next setup will be the shortened koni yellows ssp3 i beleive they were and some 700lbs/in f and 550lbs/in r....we'll see how that goes...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bmoua &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">sorry to jack your thread OP but how does a car with matching front/rear spring rates feel like? I know opinions are based on needs and performance but would a 400F/400R setup perform better than a 450/400 setup? I know the stock ITR spring rates are 250/250, i've drivin one and it feels pretty solid for a stock car. That is considering the ITR has the big rear sway and many other struts/braces.

Patrick, have you drivin a ITR and compared it to your setup? I remember you said you had stock ITR springs with koni's right?

Sorry OP for jacking your thread</TD></TR></TABLE>

"Matching spring rates" won't be "matched" at the tires, due to both the weight distribution and different front/rear motion ratios, so depending on what you want the car to do could be fine, ideal, or merely acceptable. Then again, if you actually matched the ride frequency at both ends, you'd have other issues as well (bouncing but only under certain conditions).

I run my 00 GSR on 400/400 rates. With the Comptech rear swaybar set to the stiffest, it handles fine. With a ton of front camber and not too much rear camber, its autocross-able. It will also be changed out for a set of 600 lbs/in (10.7k) springs all the way around at some point, to reduce body roll, brake dive, and hopefully bottoming out even further.