[396ssrat]

What was the ride height at the "Ring"? That car performed pretty darned well and is high on the pecking order. Sometimes a certain "look" is counter productive. That said, Chevy has to design a car knowing that not all of their customers knows how to drive their car.
How much down force is placed in this car at speed?

[XWoodyX]

So I finally got the car out and drove it about 60 miles Saturday. I am trying to limit the miles as it is going to the performance shop on Tuesday (for some other goodies ) and they are going to check the alignment to verify. From what I can tell IF the camber was changed at all it was exactly equal between driver and passenger sides as there was no pull one way or another. First impression, the ride is a little stiffer which is what I expected. Lets just say I had a '14 1LE and before the lowering springs on the '17 I would say the ride was 100x better than the 1LE. Now it is maybe 85x better than the 1LE. So for me, still not bad and well within the realm of driving a sports car (the gen 6 has surpassed muscle and pony car status IMO).

I noticed there was a couple questions about linear vs progressive for the springs used. The BMR springs that were used have linear spring rates.

Originally Posted by Swacer

I think its a dead giveaway that the vendor knows the product takes away from the performance of the car, so you can have the "look". The look means #%(#&*$ if it takes away from the reason you bought the car.

But then again...wide body kits exist for a reason...

As for this comment...I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that the vendor knows the product takes away from the performance of the car. To get the look there are going to be some compromises, the compromise is stiffer springs and thus the ride is a little less desirable. So if I was buying this car for the ride, I would've just bought the CTS-V. Considering I was running 95 mph across a 50 mph fly over last night and it was stuck like glue I don't think there are any performance issues to that point.

There are some considerations to be taken into account though. With the front lower the overall balance of the car has been shifted forward. What does this mean? Well possibly a little more under steer going into a corner. But the resulting exit of a corner will be better because the weight can transfer to the rear and "level" the car out.

Now the MRC, please read my previous post about the Vettes and the chassis engineer. I also forgot to mention these dampers are now also going to be used on GM pickups, let that sink in for a minute. After I posted the other night I continued to do research, and found that Ferrari used MRC in one of their California's. That particular car could be lowed over 1.3" using factory installed equipment with no issues, which sounds oddly familiar to the Vette. On a couple forums there was even suggestions that the MRC could actually handle ride height changes better than standard dampers due to the way they operate. With all this being said and the hundreds of forum posts, BWI and Delco pamphlets I've read, I doubt there will be any harm done to the dampers, and as long as it isn't slammed to the ground there shouldn't be any issues.

I truly could not tell the difference last night and believe the only way to do so would be to have two at a track that you got out of one and directly into another. I honestly don't think even then 75% of us would feel the difference. But that is just my opinion. Until I get some more miles...

[Diggitydog]

I do like the lowered look but it all just sounds like tweaking the engineering recipe without an accurate way to measure the effects. 85% here 75% there.... If we are being honest about this, the reason you lowered the car is for looks and the resulting performance effect is unlikely to be an improvement. I'll be keeping mine stock.

[17CamaroZL1]

Thanks for the update Woody!! Keep us posted. If the lowering springs had the same spring rate as factory but was just a little shorter, it would lower the car without changing the ride quality at all, other than any difference a lower cg might make. That would be my preference if anyone knows the factory rates and length before it's installed on the strut. I wish the car just had adjustable ride height front and rear like the Vettes and Ferrari.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 17CamaroZL1

Thanks for the update Woody!! Keep us posted. If the lowering springs had the same spring rate as factory but was just a little shorter, it would lower the car without changing the ride quality at all, other than any difference a lower cg might make. That would be my preference if anyone knows the factory rates and length before it's installed on the strut. I wish the car just had adjustable ride height front and rear like the Vettes and Ferrari.

It's a poor idea to lower a car, but keep the spring rate. Ride quality will be maintained, but that means it will bottom out quicker. (Been there, done that...)

(And since we're wishing things....I wish it came from the factory super low to the ground, but equipped with a front lift system like Porsche offers )

[cosmoZL1]

Originally Posted by 17CamaroZL1

Thanks for the update Woody!! Keep us posted. If the lowering springs had the same spring rate as factory but was just a little shorter, it would lower the car without changing the ride quality at all, other than any difference a lower cg might make. That would be my preference if anyone knows the factory rates and length before it's installed on the strut. I wish the car just had adjustable ride height front and rear like the Vettes and Ferrari.

As far as I understand this question, same spring rate but shorter springs is very ill advised unless using limiting straps. Shorter spring means bad things happen at full extension. Like the spring falling out... There was a company (can't remember the name, getting old) that made a complete coil over set up on the Gen5 that replaced the position arms with ones equally shorter as the ride height. The previous gentleman that stated there will be a difference in stock vs lowered is correct simply due to the spring rate.."stiffer". Unless your worried about driving day to day it's agood way to lower car. If you want to have your car do as it was intended and tuned for, get used to the gap.

[17CamaroZL1]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

It's a poor idea to lower a car, but keep the spring rate. Ride quality will be maintained, but that means it will bottom out quicker. (Been there, done that...)

(And since we're wishing things....I wish it came from the factory super low to the ground, but equipped with a front lift system like Porsche offers )

As long as you don't drop it too much, like only lowering the front enough to equal out the fender gaps, the shocks should keep it from bottoming. That's the beauty of MRC and likely what one of the GM guys were talking about rendering it useless if you slammed the car. Not enough travel for the shock to make adjustments to matter and the fact that springs usually get way stiffer the lower you go.

[17CamaroZL1]

Originally Posted by cosmoZL1

As far as I understand this question, same spring rate but shorter springs is very ill advised unless using limiting straps. Shorter spring means bad things happen at full extension. Like the spring falling out... There was a company (can't remember the name, getting old) that made a complete coil over set up on the Gen5 that replaced the position arms with ones equally shorter as the ride height. The previous gentleman that stated there will be a difference in stock vs lowered is correct simply due to the spring rate.."stiffer". Unless your worried about driving day to day it's agood way to lower car. If you want to have your car do as it was intended and tuned for, get used to the gap.

That is a good point. Most springs have to be compressed quite a bit before they will even go on a strut. I've changed a few out. Yes there definitely is a limit as to how much shorter you can go, because you do need to maintain some preload on the spring. With the slight drop we need to equal out the fender gaps, I don't see there being an issue, but maybe the better solution would be to go with a dual rate spring setup so there is no worries on the spring coming out, the softer portion would be used up just mounting the spring then the shorter standard spring rate would give us the inch or so drop we want.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 17CamaroZL1

As long as you don't drop it too much, like only lowering the front enough to equal out the fender gaps, the shocks should keep it from bottoming. That's the beauty of MRC and likely what one of the GM guys were talking about rendering it useless if you slammed the car. Not enough travel for the shock to make adjustments to matter and the fact that springs usually get way stiffer the lower you go.

No. They don't. Like I said...been there, done that.

We lowered my 2012 ZL1 buy about an inch and a quarter. The front springs did not have a high enough rate, and if I hit a big enough bump in the road, the front suspension would hit the stops...hard.

MRC does not, in any way shape or form...act like a spring, or provide any mechanical limitation to the distance of suspension travel. They are simply dampers...literally damping the motion of the springs during compression and rebound. It just so happens that they can alter the rate at which they do that...which is how Chevy and other brands tune in the magic.

The only thing that will stop the suspension from bottoming out, if the springs aren't right, are the bump stops. And it's not pleasant when you hit those.

I appreciate the positivity in here regarding the feasibility of dropping the car. One good sentiment (which also included a lot of caveats), does not make it the rule. I want it to be easy, too....but it's not. Lots to think about...

[DenverTaco07]

would some sort of body kit be easier?

[17CamaroZL1]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

would some sort of body kit be easier?

As far as eliminating the fender gap, yes it would. Someone could make fender moldings like GM used on the 5th Gen Z28 to take up the gap in front. The trick would be making the rear match. You wouldn't want to take up any more gap in the rear, but you would want the molding to be the same height. Most would probably want the moldings painted to match the body as well, so then there's that concern.

[17CamaroZL1]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

No. They don't. Like I said...been there, done that.

We lowered my 2012 ZL1 buy about an inch and a quarter. The front springs did not have a high enough rate, and if I hit a big enough bump in the road, the front suspension would hit the stops...hard.

MRC does not, in any way shape or form...act like a spring, or provide any mechanical limitation to the distance of suspension travel. They are simply dampers...literally damping the motion of the springs during compression and rebound. It just so happens that they can alter the rate at which they do that...which is how Chevy and other makes tune in the magic.

The only thing that will stop the suspension from bottoming out, if the springs aren't right, are the bump stops. And it's not pleasant when you hit those.

I appreciate the positivity in here regarding the feasibility of dropping the car. One good sentiment (which also included a lot of caveats), does not make it the rule. I want it to be easy, too....but it's not. Lots to think about...

I realize the MR shocks are only dampers and that they are limited by bumpstops like any other suspension setup, but I thought with a slight leveling drop and the position sensors, the MRC would be able to stiffen the dampers enough to prevent most, and soften the remaining bottoming out scenarios. Since you are speaking from experience on this type of suspension, maybe the only feasible spring drop that doesn't affect the ride, would be a progressive rate spring that has about the same rate during everyday driving and stiffens significantly during extreme compression situations. I'm assuming no one messed with the position sensor rod on your lowered car like someone else had mentioned earlier?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 17CamaroZL1

I realize the MR shocks are only dampers and that they are limited by bumpstops like any other suspension setup, but I thought with a slight leveling drop and the position sensors, the MRC would be able to stiffen the dampers enough to prevent most, and soften the remaining bottoming out scenarios. Since you are speaking from experience on this type of suspension, maybe the only feasible spring drop that doesn't affect the ride, would be a progressive rate spring that has about the same rate during everyday driving and stiffens significantly during extreme compression situations. I'm assuming no one messed with the position sensor rod on your lowered car like someone else had mentioned earlier?

That is correct.

And you've got to remember...while the dampers do help...they aren't calibrated to do that, nor account for less travel in the springs.

[triggerjerk]

Originally Posted by 396ssrat

What was the ride height at the "Ring"? That car performed pretty darned well and is high on the pecking order. Sometimes a certain "look" is counter productive. That said, Chevy has to design a car knowing that not all of their customers knows how to drive their car.
How much down force is placed in this car at speed?

This.

Flame away but I wouldn't touch the suspension on a car that does the Nring in 7.29 from the factory . . . unless I was building a dedicated racer.