When I test drove the TA compared with a pre-2010 1.4 - the 1.4 was much more squat on the sweeping corners (at this stage it had new shocks) - the TA at one stage felt a little wobbly. I felt that with the newer suspension setup of post 2010 cars that the suspension had got a little softer with what can be loosely called the ARB which Maxi once explained really wasn't.
My thoughts are
1. I couldn't cope with a stiffer ride of the full Bilstein setup and would want a little comfort well at least for the passenger.
2. FSDs on all fours probably wouldn't last the test of time and if lowered the rears certainly wouldn't. On the North American A500 that only have the FSDs on the front.
3. Thought that the ideal setup would be FSDs on the front and Koni Sports on the back but then the FSDs are only sold in a set - you can't buy a pair so a full set makes more sense.
4. Would be tempted to lower a TA just a little and a set of springs off a 1.4 are cheap. Since the TA is the same weight as the 1.4 can't see why they wouldn't be 'right'.
5. Maxi's suggestion of the cheapie Bilsteins OEM replacement would be a good choice.
6. 100HP drivers seem to give the thumbs up to a set of Koni sports on the rear and they can be adjusted on the car but it's a little awkward but a particular number seems to work so it does not need adjusting.

Mick, I wouldn't say the Bilstein's are especially stiff, in fact they're surprisingly compliant.

I wonder how Koni sports on standard springs would feel?
I recall someone on here doing Vogtland kit for about £400 too. Wonder if they are any good?
The suspension is the one thing I'd really love to get sorted.
I'm a bit worried about getting the suspension fitted too, I know that camber bolts are offer needed to get it right but it's knowing who to trust to fit the suspension and get the geometry right afterwards.
Decisions decisions....

306maxi said:

Mick, I wouldn't say the Bilstein's are especially stiff, in fact they're surprisingly compliant.

Click to expand...

I've strongly considered them for the MiTo but it runs on small wheels. When you're pushing it - it starts to get unsettled. Thinking back on the LAD sport's 500 they opted for 15 inch wheels - they reckoned it was the best compromise. With 16s I would be split between FSDs or just Koni sports on the rear.

loveshandbags said:

When I test drove the TA compared with a pre-2010 1.4 - the 1.4 was much more squat on the sweeping corners (at this stage it had new shocks) - the TA at one stage felt a little wobbly. I felt that with the newer suspension setup of post 2010 cars that the suspension had got a little softer with what can be loosely called the ARB which Maxi once explained really wasn't.
My thoughts are
1. I couldn't cope with a stiffer ride of the full Bilstein setup and would want a little comfort well at least for the passenger.
2. FSDs on all fours probably wouldn't last the test of time and if lowered the rears certainly wouldn't. On the North American A500 that only have the FSDs on the front.
3. Thought that the ideal setup would be FSDs on the front and Koni Sports on the back but then the FSDs are only sold in a set - you can't buy a pair so a full set makes more sense.
4. Would be tempted to lower a TA just a little and a set of springs off a 1.4 are cheap. Since the TA is the same weight as the 1.4 can't see why they wouldn't be 'right'.
5. Maxi's suggestion of the cheapie Bilsteins OEM replacement would be a good choice.
6. 100HP drivers seem to give the thumbs up to a set of Koni sports on the rear and they can be adjusted on the car but it's a little awkward but a particular number seems to work so it does not need adjusting.

Click to expand...

Good point on the 1.4 springs - that's something I hadn't thought of. Although I don't think the springing of the TA is particularly bad, it's the damping that's all wrong (especially on the rear). It's very light on compression damping - particularly at the front, and heavy on rebound. And the rear just feels odd on both.

I actually think the damping rates of the 1.2 are a bit better - having driven this 1.2 I have a bit harder; it seems a little more balanced through the corners (relatively speaking of course, it's still shabby compared to how it could be). It's more 'chuckable'.

I need to drive a Bilstein equipped car I think. I can cope with stiffness if it's very well controlled. The standard car isn't exactly 'soft' anyway, and is very jiggly on bumps.

loveshandbags said:

I've strongly considered them for the MiTo but it runs on small wheels. When you're pushing it - it starts to get unsettled. Thinking back on the LAD sport's 500 they opted for 15 inch wheels - they reckoned it was the best compromise. With 16s I would be split between FSDs or just Koni sports on the rear.

Click to expand...

God no, the front dampers are shocking. If a replacement is done, they're all getting replaced.

Ask Jnoiles if you can have a quick drive in his car. Like I said in the thread I linked to, it was fantastic. It felt sportier, but not harsher and was far better controlled.

'Supple' is the term I'd use for what I want out of the car.

They lower the car between 30 and 50mm, right? (Obviously I don't want it any lower than 30mm - and I suspect this'll be from the datum point of the highest of the standard cars).

the problem o find with the 500 is that you're too busy being wobbled about by the poor danping to really notice whether it's too stiff or not.

bgunn said:

Only on two of the corners though (the front)..

I reckon FSDs are going to be what works for me. It appears that Koni have fixed the rear damper knocking issue that afflicted the early ones by changing the valving slightly, as well as increasing the bush size (and eyelet) in the rear damper. I'm going to try them then with the OE springs and see how I get on..

Click to expand...

Brian, I'm aware that there are still problems with the FSD rears, at least two 595 owners have complained of knocking and are waiting for replacements. The percentage ratio of faulty ones is allegedly 5%.

grimwau said:

Brian, I'm aware that there are still problems with the FSD rears, at least two 595 owners have complained of knocking and are waiting for replacements. The percentage ratio of faulty ones is allegedly 5%.

Click to expand...

That's not good then. Good to know; odds are stacking in favour of Bilsteins!

I just don't want the bloody car to be too low..

I didnt think Jaspn's car was too low, but then again that's subjective and we all have different definitions of low!

306maxi said:

I didnt think Jaspn's car was too low, but then again that's subjective and we all have different definitions of low!

Click to expand...

Well, in this case it's not subjective for me. If the car can't traverse a particular couple of speedhumps local to me, then it's too low, or too soft/underdamped

I need a centre of hub>wheelarch measurement for front and rear of a Bilstein equipped car - static ride height will tell me whether all bets are off straight away..

bgunn said:

That's not good then. Good to know; odds are stacking in favour of Bilsteins!

I just don't want the bloody car to be too low..

Click to expand...

I have a set of 4 std coil springs from an Abarth 500 you are welcome to borrow for evaluation purposes.

grimwau said:

I have a set of 4 std coil springs from an Abarth 500 you are welcome to borrow for evaluation purposes.

Click to expand...

That's a very kind offer, thanks for that. Might be worth a go to compare against the TA ones actually..

It's the damping that is the issue not the spring rating

I get your concerns on lowering the 500 mine is worse over speed humps than my golf which has a 40mm drop

wigit said:

It's the damping that is the issue not the spring rating

Click to expand...

Not if you're trying to avoid grounding the car on your local speed hump, it isn't. Damping isn't going to affect the static ride height.

wigit said:

It's the damping that is the issue not the spring rating

I get your concerns on lowering the 500 mine is worse over speed humps than my golf which has a 40mm drop

Click to expand...

Totally agree, the 500 suspension seems to blow thorough its travel too easily hence the grounding.

grimwau said:

Brian, I'm aware that there are still problems with the FSD rears, at least two 595 owners have complained of knocking and are waiting for replacements. The percentage ratio of faulty ones is allegedly 5%.

Click to expand...

Since the 595s have the esseesse springs this results it is being by 30mm compared to a F500. If the FSDs were just on the standard Abarth springs (only 20mm) would there be the same number of failures ?
Standard bump stops are probably still on the 595 which leaves very little suspension travel before it bottoms out. This wouldn't help the life of a FSD which I understand last about 40K miles all going well.
On another forum where there's a competitor car to the 500 with a rear multi-link suspension they have not had much success with FSDs on a lowered suspension but that was over a year a go. It would appear that the FSDs weren't really designed for lowered springs and were designed more for standard springs.

Bilsteins can be re-built but the AF informed me that the FSDs can't be so when they go faulty they have to be replaced. After experiencing the comfort of an adaptive suspension setup the FSDs are probably the closest 'thing' to it. Given the shortness of the wheelbase of the 500 there is a price to be paid for performance with comfort.

I did manage to source a reasonably priced set of FSDs for the MiTo local to me but there was no guarantee - this surprised me because I was always lead to believe that they were life-time. It might be different elsewhere. Since the suspension can take more bumps than a 500 I felt on balance that the Bilsteins were a better choice if I had to fit something. Price of a set of FSDs are tempting (if you can get some guarantee) and if the car isn't lowered could it be viewed as a performance modification by an insurance company ?

loveshandbags said:

Since the 595s have the esseesse springs this results it is being by 30mm compared to a F500. If the FSDs were just on the standard Abarth springs (only 20mm) would there be the same number of failures ?
Standard bump stops are probably still on the 595 which leaves very little suspension travel before it bottoms out. This wouldn't help the life of a FSD which I understand last about 40K miles all going well.
On another forum where there's a competitor car to the 500 with a rear multi-link suspension they have not had much success with FSDs on a lowered suspension but that was over a year a go. It would appear that the FSDs weren't really designed for lowered springs and were designed more for standard springs.

Click to expand...

Hitting the bumpstops won't cause the dampers to fail, NOT having bumpstops and allowing the damper to hit the end of its travel is more likely to, as it'll smash the valve against the end of the damper tube. If I were to fit FSDs and Coupe bump stops (a popular modification), I would be inclined to fit the rear assembly without springs (i.e. just bumpstop and damper), and swing it through full travel to see that the damper doesn't hit the end of its travel before full bump. Of course, the B14 kit has been engineered as a whole solution, and includes a bumpstop - so points in its favour for that.

You are right though about FSDs, they are designed to be used with roughly standard suspension height, the situation is exactly the same with the Alfa 147/156/GT in that regard, FSDs don't work well with lower ride heights.

loveshandbags said:

Bilsteins can be re-built but the AF informed me that the FSDs can't be so when they go faulty they have to be replaced. After experiencing the comfort of an adaptive suspension setup the FSDs are probably the closest 'thing' to it. Given the shortness of the wheelbase of the 500 there is a price to be paid for performance with comfort.

Click to expand...

Anything can be rebuilt, but it's whether it's too costly. I suspect the damper body of the FSD is a simple stamped out thing with the top cap crimped or welded on, whereas the B14 dampers will have the end cap screwed on.

Comfort is one thing, but if the damping rates are wrong, the car will still porpoise around and pitch badly over bumps. If anything - being very short of wheelbase - means the damping needs to be *more* accurate. The suspension travel is quite short, so there isn't the luxury of varying the damping rate over the travel of the damper as there is on larger cars, so it has to be accepted that the ride will be 'sporty', in order to be 'accurate'.

A similar situation is when MG launched the TF, which is basically the F without the hydragas suspension (it was too expensive to produce for MG by Dunlop for just one car, so was changed over for a more simple coil/damper setup). The budget for cars from the factory wasn't very high, so the suspension developers used the best they can, but it's not ideal. Once MG exploded as a going concern, the three suspension development engineers set up their own company, and produced (in conjunction with Bilstein) a kit with much higher quality dampers and springs and the car was transformed from a pitchy bouncy nightmare (sounds familiar) to a smooth, controlled beast. Remember the F/TF is a very short wheelbase car also, so in a lot of ways it's quite similar (apart from being mid engined!).

loveshandbags said:

I did manage to source a reasonably priced set of FSDs for the MiTo local to me but there was no guarantee - this surprised me because I was always lead to believe that they were life-time. It might be different elsewhere. Since the suspension can take more bumps than a 500 I felt on balance that the Bilsteins were a better choice if I had to fit something. Price of a set of FSDs are tempting (if you can get some guarantee) and if the car isn't lowered could it be viewed as a performance modification by an insurance company ?

Click to expand...

Replacement dampers will always be viewed as a performance mod, but that's of secondary importance to me; I'm in my early/mid thirties, so the cost will increase, but shouldn't be astronomical.

If, and I say IF, the ride height is a) not too low, and b) the springing and damping sufficient to prevent the car grounding on bumps, I think the B14 kit is the way to go.