The new consolidated 308 lowering & suspension upgrade consensus thread

Thanks for those responses Mike and Verrel. I appreciate it. Not worth the worry to me- I'll go Eibach. 10" in front and 12" in back???

 

Great product,service and support. Hard to beat that... For many that's worth the extra coin

Perhaps you can converse chuck to do one for 308's?

 

I used to get koni parts from truesports. I think they were out of the Midwest somewhere.

 

Someone PMed me with this question & I want to make the answer public:

Unfortunately, NO, They can't be used with Nick's Aldan Eagle shocks. You have to modify the front A-Arms.

A few years ago I had several requests for a solution for the Aldans. So I looked at trying to do something similar to the paperweights for them.
Unfortunately, the Aldens have some valving and an adjusting knob in the upper shock mount! I couldn't come up with a solution to avoid the A-Arm modification that didn't involve making a very expensive, high liability risk part.

 

Thats crazy. You bought a new product and had to pay shipping for their error?? You should have put a stop payment on the charge until they/he righted the error.

 

QA1 offers BOTH single & double adjustable shock varients for those who want independent adjustability.

However, most QA1 users on this forum have reported that they're quite satisfied with the single adjustables.

 

Mike, After we discussed the Varishock extended eye, I ordered a pair to evaluate. They finally came in earlier this week, but I just now got a chance to open them & compare them to my Paperweights.

Certainly they are similar to some aspects of the Paperweight design, BUT they similar <> equivalent!!!

Below are a series of pictures that will illustrate what I'm about to discuss.

1. This picture illustrates how a Paperweight avoids the A-arm - shock interference problem. Note that the A-arm cross brace protrudes about 3mm into the clearance notch on the Paperweight's side!
   
2. The 2nd picture is side by side pictures of a Paperweight & a Varishock extended Shock Eye P/N VAS 512-2-2. They do look very similar,In fact, they are close enough so that the Paperweight should directly mount onto a Varishock!
   
   Differences you can see in this picture are:
   
   * The Varishock eye is aluminum, the Paperweight is stainless steel (quite a bit stronger, but I'm sure Varishock did their homework.)
   * The Varishock eye is about 10mm taller (no big deal, they're adjustable).
   
   * The Varishock body is 1.25" in diameter vs the Paperweight's 1.2" This is a BIG DEAL, more about it later!
   
   * The standard Varishock poly bushing's OD is quite a bit larger, while the bushing thru-hole ID is 5/8". A steel 1.74" wall thickness sleeve must be inserted to adapt it down to Ferrari's 12mm thru-bolt. Also, the at 1.25" length, they bushed eye is too narrow for the Ferrari opening, so the sleeve must be longer than Varishock supplies, also provision must be made to ensure the eye stays centered on the thru-bolt.
   
   Unfortunately, the thin (just over 1/16" thick!) sleeve can crush when the thru-bolt is torqued down, resulting in a shock mounting ear breaking off!!! This actually happened to greg328 back in 2007 when he was running Varishocks. See:
   
   http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/technical-q-sponsored-algar-ferrari/135398-77-308-my-rear-right-hub-broke.html
   
   More about this 2nd BIG DEAL in a subsequent post.
   
3. 3rd picture: Eye to Eye view
   When you compare the other side of the Varishock eye & a Paperweight you see a noticable difference!! The Paperweight on the right has a clearance notch in the side that is missing from the Varishock eye!!! Given the Varishock eye's .050" larger diameter, you end up with the A-Arm cross support interfering with the Varishock eye by 0.175"!!!!
   
   This is the BIG DEAL I mentioned previously.
   
4. 4th picture: A back view showing the side you can't see in the 1st picture.
   

BOTTOM LINE: While the Varishock eye doesn't address the A-Arm interference problem, it looks like a pair of paperweights + pair of my adapter bushings could be used with Varishocks & would address it.

MikeTuason, would you like to try some paperweights & bushings with your Varishocks?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

In the preceding post I related the crushing problem with the Varishock's relatively thin standard sleeve. While writing up the previous post about the Varishock extended eye I came up with a solution I'm fairly confident of.

Varishock has an optional eye with a 3/4" thru-hole, which just happens to be the same as the QA1 thru-hole! Combine this with the fact that the bushing is 1-1/4" wide and guess what:

Unobtainium has a crush proof Varishock solution: A pair of the shock adapter bushings I developed for the QA1 shocks!!!


These bushings have 3.5mm wall thickness, and keep the shock eye precisely centered on the thru-bolt, even provide adjustability for differing poly eye thicknesses! Also they have a long proven track record in 308s!!!

BOTTOM LINE: If you want to use Varishocks, order them with the optional 3/4" thru-hole bushings, and then order a pair of paperweights & a set of bushings from Unobtainium.

I'd really like this confirmed as it gives a 2nd adjustable coil-over shock option for 308s!!!

Anyone interested in helping verify this with an actual installation? If I'm wrong I'll certainly take everything back & pay return shipping.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Let me chime in and say, here it is over a decade later, and I'm still very happy with the Varishock setup.

 

Mike, thank you, I was hoping you'll chime in here. I really learned a lot from your old and long thread.

 

Actually I only ordered a pair of Varishock extended eyes & bushings, not a complete shock. Certainly the machining on the eye is comparable to QA1's. Both were well executed.

Certainly there are a lot fewer people with Varishocks than QA1s. Primarily because QA1s were the first coil-overs people started writing about, and because there have been very few people dissatisfied with them. Also, IMHO, I probably was a significant contributor to their popularity with my QA1 white paper, paperweights & QA1 bushings that simplified using them.

If I'd known about the Varishock 3/4" ID bushing back when I first looked at them (see
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/technical-q-sponsored-algar-ferrari/87413-group-buy-qa1-coil-over-shock-bushings.html
I probably would have realized the parts I was developing for the QA1s were also applicable to the Varishocks & the playing field might have been more level resulting in more people using Varishocks. Unfortunately, I was (and still am) concerned about using Varishocks with the narrow wall bushings and tended to steer people towards QA1s.

Bottom line: There isn't a comparable amount of Varishock experience to what we have with QA1s. Only handful of people (Notably Mike C, miketuason, & greg328) have used Varishocks & probably 20x or 30x that many have used QA1s. luckydynes & chrismorse have seriously tracked cars with QA1s for over 5 years and are happy with them. It's too bad there isn't anyone with comparable track time on Varishocks.

Birdman & many others have driven QA1s on the street & are happy.

Good luck finding objective scientific data comparing the two, There are promotional claims which are subject to bias due to commercial interests.


I suspect you'll be happy with whichever you choose.

 

Yes. Bear in mind that I haven't tried my parts on a Varishock, but everything I've been able to determine checks out.

Also, if you go Varishock you must order them with the 3/4" ID poly eye bushings to fit my shock bushings.

 

Aside for keeping the A-Arm unmolested, is there a down side to notching them? I can understand if you wan to keep the car 100% reversible to stock that the paperweight is worth the investment. Otherwise, does notching the A-Arm slightly for another aftermarket solution really create risk?

 

As to modifying the A-Arm, IMHO Ferrari clearly bent that edge over about 3/4" & welded the ends as a reinforcement to help prevent the bushing ears from twisting, so yes, it will weaken the A-Arm.

Whether it weakens it enough to cause a problem has been argued back & forth, lots of opinions with no facts behind them.

Nick's picture shows a big section of that reinforcement removed.

I don't have a structural simulation tool to say. However,Given that A-arms have a history of developing cracks, I'm certainly not about to do it to my car.

I can't believe Ferrari would have designed it that way for no reason. (Just my $0.02).

 

Thanks Verell!