Have you had much time to really try them out?

Couple of quick questions.
1) Did you lower your car with the Tiens? If so, how much, and is there any problem with camber?

2) Is the EDFC unit a single DIN size? I was thinking that with a single DIN stero replacing the factory double din unit, the EDFC would look real nice in the extra spot. Think it would fit?

Also, do you have any pictures of the stepping motors installed?

thanks

 

1) yes, about 10mm
2) its 1/4 din

pics can be seen on the greddy car.

 

Can you describe the ride/handling in comparison with stock?

I assume the bounce can be tuned out.

Is the lowest setting about stock ride stiffness, or stiffer?

Thanks.

 

is it necessary to remove the front strut tower brace for the EDFC to work (b/c of space issues)?

 

full soft is slightly softer than stock.
full stiff is much stiffer than stock.

stock setting is about 3/16 clicks.

FSTB can stay in place for edfc to work.. the front mounts are inverted to hold the stepping motor inside.

m

 

hey skidazzle, i have my set with edfc shipping out tomorrow from tein.

they have had them for a while at the tein wearhouse, but there was an issue with the bracket for the right front strut housing, because at full clock, to the right i believe, would cause some rubbing issues to the brake lines.

you should call tein or audra at streetsports about the fix since you got one of the first sets.

anyway, are you satisfied with them, or would you go with jic or somethin' else?

how's camber issues?

let us know,
john350z

 

SKiDaZZLe, is the bounce gone?

 

yes this has been confirmed and posted by other members who have driven my car.

and john, that rubbing might be the stock brake line connector piece which bolts onto the knuckle... i dont have any of those pieces since i installed SS brake lines.... all i know is i have no rubbing issues...

m

 

Ditto. Did the lowering cause any camber problems?

 

no, no camber issues..

here is my take on this: (if i am wrong, someone please explain the correct scenario)...


the shocks have nothing to do with camber on the Z setup.
the camber angle is made by the length of each of the 2 control arms, and the angle at which the knuckle is held.

the shock connects the chassis to the lower arm. making this a smaller distance is not changing anything about the lower control arm's relation to the upper arm..

i think most people think lowering causes camber issues because they are used to macpherson setups on many cars. (in this case the length of the shock (and its angle) determine camber.

 

on second thought... working the diagram in my head... it might make a difference if you lowered the car sigificantly... my drop was only 10mm.

m

 

well here's my take.....

on suspensions with upper and lower control arms, typically the upper arm has a shorter distance from pivot point to steering knuckle pivot point than the lower arm.

the shorter distance on top will "pull" the top end of the spindle inward under substantial amount of suspension travel.

it's done that way because as you corner hard and the body rolls a bit of negative camber is introduced to keep the wheel from having positive camber in relation to the road.

I've never seen an upper and lower control arm suspension where the uppers are the same length as lowers.

If you lower the car significantly you'd see a bit of negative camber.... however, aftermarket companies should be offering adjustable upper arms soon cause by looking at the stock uppers, it seems real easy to have adjustable ones made....