User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: which C is the most heavy?

  1. #11
    Regular Member rorycarz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    AYRSHIRE SCOTLAND
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    if you put 3.0 suspension on you ride itll sit to high in the front ..i had 2x elites both diesel your best option is to fit dti sri suspension or cdti suspension .thats what i did and it made it a lot stiffer

  2. #12
    Regular Member fikse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    Ugh. I just used my handbook to calculate the wheight.
    Now I really have to take a pint.
    In my car license it says 1613KG as net weight included driver.
    The handbook says:

    • 1633 as "EU" net wheight, from table 1
    • plus 39 KG for model "Exclusive", from table 2
    • plus 33 KG for towbar, from table 3

    Total is then 1705KG, unknown if they include driver, but as I understand most german cars does include. So that would make kerb wheight to 1705-75=1630KG

    The label at front passengers door says maksimum axle wheight in front is 1130KG.

  3. #13
    Regular Member fikse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rorycarz View Post
    if you put 3.0 suspension on you ride itll sit to high in the front ..i had 2x elites both diesel your best option is to fit dti sri suspension or cdti suspension .thats what i did and it made it a lot stiffer
    If I understand you correct (if mounted on mine):

    3.0 CDTI=No-go, it will be too high?
    1.9 CDTI=Yep. Same height, but stiffer?
    SRI=Lower=No-Go? (Cannot have any lower, to bad roads here)

    And; you say suspension. Do you mean both spring and absorber? Do you know if its OK to mix 2.2DTi absorber and 1.9CDTI spring?

  4. #14
    Regular Member fikse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default What's difference with spring before after certain VIN?

    When I look at Lesjöfors application list, the 2.2DTi and 1.9 CDTi use same springs at some chassis-series. It just doesn't make sense in my little head

    The 2.2 DTi use spring No 92 to chassis No:-48045597, higher chassis no use 93
    The 1.9 CDTi use spring No 91 to chassis No:-4104878, higher chassis no use 92.

    At the moment I have No 92 mounted on mine, same springs as 1.9 CDTi with chassis No 41048790 or higher.

    Strange thing is that the car feels almost as soft as it did with the old springs, and when I look at pictures, it maybe looks like the car is a slight bit lower now!

    Any suggestions?

  5. #15
    Regular Member fikse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    Finally got an answer from Lesjöfors factory today. They claim that the spring I got is 100% the same as original, and most probably the reason I feel it's to soft in front is caused by the quite stiff "heavy duty" springs I got for rear. Yep, I follow that argument. So far so good. They says the springs for 1.9 CDTi is pretty much the same as mine, for some VINs it is excactly the same, so it woun't do any good.
    Their suggestion is to get front springs for the SRi/SX, which is supposed to be 20mm lower than standard, and some stiffer. Then I could stick with the heavy duty in rear (with standard height), and the SRi-springs in front, and maybe get some stiffer and better performance, without suffering to much in height. They will not guarantee the result, but as they could look out of their spescifications, it can be a good match.
    OK, back to the dealer then, and get a replacement

  6. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Beaconsfield, Bucks
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    Hi Fikse,

    Great that you got an answer. Their explanation sounds reasonable. The SRI springs will stiffen the front up over normal, hopefully meaning the front dives less under braking and cornering. I thoughts SRIs were 15mm, but hey thats only 5mm difference!

  7. #17
    Regular Member fikse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marly View Post
    Hi Fikse,

    Great that you got an answer. Their explanation sounds reasonable. The SRI springs will stiffen the front up over normal, hopefully meaning the front dives less under braking and cornering. I thoughts SRIs were 15mm, but hey thats only 5mm difference!
    They said that the SRi-springs was 20mm lower when measured _unmounted_, but on the car it would be _almost_ the same height on the car. They also said they are strictly following the Opel/Vauxhall spec, this is not something Lesjöfors has "invented"
    Well, I dunno what's wrong or right. As long as I get springs who is stiffer, not higher than standard and not more than a few mm than standard, I am happy as a fish in the sea

  8. #18
    Regular Member kenp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kr. Hyllinge, Denmark
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats

    Vehicle : Insignia

    Trim : Dynamic

    Engine : 1.6 turbo

    Year : 2019

    Mileage : 44000

    Default

    you will now see that the front is at the same hight as the rear.. on my standart setup the front wheel arch is actually 10 mm higher than on the rear..

  9. #19
    Regular Member fikse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats





    Default

    I'm gonna measure and take pictures before and after, and give you feedback

  10. #20
    Regular Member kenp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kr. Hyllinge, Denmark
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Vehicle InfoStats

    Vehicle : Insignia

    Trim : Dynamic

    Engine : 1.6 turbo

    Year : 2019

    Mileage : 44000

    Default

    mine is 59 cm back 60 cm front (on standard springs and shocks)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. They're on (PIC HEAVY)
    By MattW74 in forum Styling
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10th April 2011, 09:05
  2. My Car! PIC HEAVY!!
    By R-ford_Vec_C in forum Vectra C / Signum Car Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 29th March 2011, 00:36
  3. Both of them (pic heavy)
    By m111kan in forum Quick Photo Album
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 4th April 2010, 12:32
  4. too heavy?
    By pyro_maniac in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18th April 2009, 22:15
  5. The car so far - what do you think? ( pic heavy )
    By bertbuckie1 in forum Vectra C / Signum Car Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 22nd February 2009, 19:32

Visitors found this page by searching for:

Nobody landed on this page from a search engine, yet!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •