anybody have any experience with these or have good information about them..
i've searched....just want more recent information and experiences....
Thanks

 

anyone??

 

yep but for the money there is better

NEX makes a lot of claims they have never had to back up which is pretty typical of most companies which is why I would stick to progress although I'm getting these next week

I'm hoping the unique inverted shock design and standard ERS springs to be a good sign they thought these up rather than simply adapting some other applcation to fit





Modified by FF lotus at 10:09 PM 8/20/2004

 

alright...thanks for the info....
keep up us updated after you get them and put them on and stuff......
and where did you get that from??
Thanks

 

*right click, properties* http://www.elderbrock.com

 

doesnt work..

 

woops can't spell

http://www.edelbrock.com/autom...s.jpg

there is the exact link to that pick

 

ok...already seen that.......

 

ok now just cut out everything after the .com and figure out were it is on the site

 

ok......anyone else??

 

seems like it may be a hassle reaching the spring perch behind the UCA

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by I8Stang &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ok......anyone else??</TD></TR></TABLE>

How hard is it to figure out? I mean it's obviously from Edlebrock????

 

umm.....OK..

 

wow havent seen this out yet. but i've seen a kit out by opm motorsports i think that invert the shock using koni yellows. saw it one a NASA competition DC2 at a HPDE. supposedly it reduces unsprung weight. im pretty sure there is more to it... but the basic concept. if you look closely, the shock is inverted

 

I've gotta say that the nex looks good....but it sucks *****. After one track event i blew the shocks and the perches/thread are weak. For that price range just invest in some apollo's or omni power's. Im loving my switchup from Nex to omni's.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by toEknEEg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> supposedly it reduces unsprung weight. </TD></TR></TABLE>

no question about it , it does.

unsprung weight moves to sprung weight

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by toEknEEg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> im pretty sure there is more to it... but the basic concept. </TD></TR></TABLE>

thats it.

the entire reason for inverting struts is less unsrprung weight.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Doctor CorteZ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
the entire reason for inverting struts is less unsrprung weight.</TD></TR></TABLE>

One can certainly argue value of switching less than a pound or two each of non-rotating unsprung weight to be sprung weight on a 2000+ lbs car. Don't expect that to have any functional difference, certainly more theoretical than functional on a production based sedan. If this was a 800-1200 lbs ultra lightweight racing car that would be a different story.

Does anyone have any problems with the rubber or urethane bushings being totally load carrying at the top of the pictured coil-over? Very bad idea. The bottom one is carrying the entire vehicle load plus the force of all impacts and will be beaten to a faretheewell in a pretty shoirt time. If they use a harder, less compliant material to better take the pounding, then it will be much more likely to wear and bind. Six of one, half a dozen of the other and neither very good. The stock rubbers with teh Honda design are simply shock top locating and do not carry the weight of the car as the springs in that case load directly to the chassis of the car and are not caried on the damper top alone.

 

bump

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CRX Lee &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Does anyone have any problems with the rubber or urethane bushings being totally load carrying at the top of the pictured coil-over?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yikes!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by opeth13 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Yikes! </TD></TR></TABLE>

Something else I did not mention before, we have seen some evidence of risk of weakness from a stress riser at the point where the 12mm chrome piston rod goes into the barrel that attaches the Honda lower mounting wishbones (also at the point of the lower spring perch loading). When using the mounting fork, any chance for non-linear or angled loading of the entire shock/spring assembly will cause the system to try to bend or fold and we've seen evidence of bending or breaking at that stress riser where the small rod meets the large barrel. Those mounting forks don't normally pivot that cleanly with the lower mounting rubbers (sphericals at the LCA would be cleaner) and have a long enough lever that they may want to fold the entire unit right at that weakest point.

After having built some inverted dampers for the front of these wishbone cars, we are not recommending on our fabrications that racers go inverted but stick with a normal body bottom/rod top mounting even if it is a mono-tube simply to not invite a weakpoint near the middle of the mount/damper/sring assembly. On a fendered production car of 2000+ lbs, the few pound moved from unsprung to sprung weight is negligible and the inherent weak point is not work the risk in our view.