My review of Riceland coilovers
05-01-2010, 08:36 PM
#283
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
??
I just got done installing a set on the '92, as I'm keeping the FCM Bilstelins which were on it for the blue car.
I pulled the NA tophats from the blue car and used them with the racelands. Used the bumpstops and shims that came with the Raceland shocks, tossed the stock NA bumpstops. Trust me, there's nowhere near enough space in there to re-use the NA stops and the bumpstops that came with the shocks.
One thing I was impressed by was that the shock bodies on the Racelands are somewhat shorter than either the stock shocks or the Bilsteins. In the front, I measured the stock shocks that came out of the '90 at 13" from center of lower bolt to top of body, and the Bilsteins are the same. The Raceland fronts measured 12.75" however, so that's a quarter inch gain in travel. At the rear, the stockers from the '90 were 9.5", the Bilsteins were 9.25", and the Racelands were a mere 8.625".
One downside is that at the rear, the shock travel is internally limited. IOW, on all the other shocks, the rod is capable of being fully compressed into the shock so that nothing but the threaded portion is sticking out. The Raceleand rears bottomed out with a little bit of shaft still showing. So be very careful about installing these with cut-down bumpstops. Not that you'd need to- there's plenty of travel back here. I might suggest cutting down the front stops a tad, depending on your desired final ride height.
Here's the front, showing the position of the shock with the suspension compressed to a 13" ride height:
And the rear, same height:
(note that I tossed the 350# rear springs that came with 'em, and installed a pair of 7" 250# Eibach springs. They fit perfectly w/o the helper springs. At full droop they are still engaged, and yet they're clearly not going to bind at full compression. )
Now, one problem area was that in the rears, the housing around the lower mounting point is too wide. I had to grind it down in order to fit. Perhaps this is Bandit's problem? Here's an in-process shot, showing the area that needed grinding. this picture is taken looking straight up from the floor:
I just got done installing a set on the '92, as I'm keeping the FCM Bilstelins which were on it for the blue car.
I pulled the NA tophats from the blue car and used them with the racelands. Used the bumpstops and shims that came with the Raceland shocks, tossed the stock NA bumpstops. Trust me, there's nowhere near enough space in there to re-use the NA stops and the bumpstops that came with the shocks.
One thing I was impressed by was that the shock bodies on the Racelands are somewhat shorter than either the stock shocks or the Bilsteins. In the front, I measured the stock shocks that came out of the '90 at 13" from center of lower bolt to top of body, and the Bilsteins are the same. The Raceland fronts measured 12.75" however, so that's a quarter inch gain in travel. At the rear, the stockers from the '90 were 9.5", the Bilsteins were 9.25", and the Racelands were a mere 8.625".
One downside is that at the rear, the shock travel is internally limited. IOW, on all the other shocks, the rod is capable of being fully compressed into the shock so that nothing but the threaded portion is sticking out. The Raceleand rears bottomed out with a little bit of shaft still showing. So be very careful about installing these with cut-down bumpstops. Not that you'd need to- there's plenty of travel back here. I might suggest cutting down the front stops a tad, depending on your desired final ride height.
Here's the front, showing the position of the shock with the suspension compressed to a 13" ride height:
And the rear, same height:
(note that I tossed the 350# rear springs that came with 'em, and installed a pair of 7" 250# Eibach springs. They fit perfectly w/o the helper springs. At full droop they are still engaged, and yet they're clearly not going to bind at full compression. )
Now, one problem area was that in the rears, the housing around the lower mounting point is too wide. I had to grind it down in order to fit. Perhaps this is Bandit's problem? Here's an in-process shot, showing the area that needed grinding. this picture is taken looking straight up from the floor:
Last edited by Joe Perez; 05-02-2010 at 12:32 AM. Reason: schpelling
Reply
0
0
05-03-2010, 04:46 PM
#286
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
I thought I told you what I was doing with 'em when I bought 'em?
Anyway, impressions... You're not going to get any feedback from the track here, as the red car is being prepped for sale. I've driven it a couple of days on the street, and I've been specifically trying to characterize its behavior on rough pavement and on state transitions (into a turn, out of a turn, etc.)
Basically, my impression mirrors that of others- I'm primarily surprised by how bad it isn't. A large portion of this, I imagine, is due to the shorter shock bodies giving the suspension a bit more room to do its thing. And I'm actually riding a tad lower that I used to be- there's one speed bump in particular that I dragged the whole underside of the vehicle across this morning. Typically, I can clear that speed bump if I go slow enough. (So I guess I need to raise the car a few turns.)
At any rate- when I'm really tossing it into a turn, there's definitely a difference in character vs. the Bilsteins. It's not at all uncontrollable, and I don't really know enough to express it in technical terms, it's just a bit different. Unless Shaikh or Emilio volunteer to come down here at drive it at Qualcomm next weekend, that's about the extent of the feedback you're going to get.
No shakes, rattles, or bad noises, though. Like I said, grinding the bottoms of the rear mounts was necessary, but apart from that I'm just running stock NA tophats with the stock white plastic insulating sheets between them and the body, plus the shims and bumpstops that came with the stocks.
FWIW, this particular spring rate (400F, 250R) is all kinds of win. The Eibach springs fit perfectly on the upper and lower rings that came with the Racelands.
Anyway, impressions... You're not going to get any feedback from the track here, as the red car is being prepped for sale. I've driven it a couple of days on the street, and I've been specifically trying to characterize its behavior on rough pavement and on state transitions (into a turn, out of a turn, etc.)
Basically, my impression mirrors that of others- I'm primarily surprised by how bad it isn't. A large portion of this, I imagine, is due to the shorter shock bodies giving the suspension a bit more room to do its thing. And I'm actually riding a tad lower that I used to be- there's one speed bump in particular that I dragged the whole underside of the vehicle across this morning. Typically, I can clear that speed bump if I go slow enough. (So I guess I need to raise the car a few turns.)
At any rate- when I'm really tossing it into a turn, there's definitely a difference in character vs. the Bilsteins. It's not at all uncontrollable, and I don't really know enough to express it in technical terms, it's just a bit different. Unless Shaikh or Emilio volunteer to come down here at drive it at Qualcomm next weekend, that's about the extent of the feedback you're going to get.
No shakes, rattles, or bad noises, though. Like I said, grinding the bottoms of the rear mounts was necessary, but apart from that I'm just running stock NA tophats with the stock white plastic insulating sheets between them and the body, plus the shims and bumpstops that came with the stocks.
FWIW, this particular spring rate (400F, 250R) is all kinds of win. The Eibach springs fit perfectly on the upper and lower rings that came with the Racelands.
Reply
0
0
05-03-2010, 07:39 PM
#288
Junior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Boston / '90 Mariner Blue
Posts: 330
Total Cats: 14
Joe, that is by miles the best review of Ricelands I've ever seen. With your permission, I'm linking it into a similar thread on m.net
Btw, riceland's site states 425 ft/lbs front springs.
Btw, riceland's site states 425 ft/lbs front springs.
Last edited by alik; 05-03-2010 at 10:13 PM.
Reply
0
0
05-03-2010, 08:19 PM
#289
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 809
Total Cats: 67
This guy knows:
On another note, I found a source for QA1 springs that are a little cheaper than summit.
streetsideauto.com
search for: QA1 7250
When I added two to my cart, I wound up with free shipping, I then found SSA5OFF coupon code which saved me another 3.79
Total from ssa is 71.97 whereas summit is 85.71 with shipping.
(there are also a bunch of other coupons if you plan to spend more)
streetsideauto.com
search for: QA1 7250
When I added two to my cart, I wound up with free shipping, I then found SSA5OFF coupon code which saved me another 3.79
Total from ssa is 71.97 whereas summit is 85.71 with shipping.
(there are also a bunch of other coupons if you plan to spend more)
Reply
0
0
05-04-2010, 09:29 PM
#290
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
Btw, riceland's site states 425 ft/lbs front springs.
Sidebar: while verifying this, I actually typed "riceland" into the Google search window. That name is pervasive.
Turns out there are a hell of a lot of companies with that name (including a big agro conglomerate) however none of them seem to make cheap shocks.
Reply
0
0
05-05-2010, 01:08 PM
#295
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
Doubtful.
The manner in which the shock attaches to the upper mount is somewhat different between the two. This is why you can't just take a complete NB upper mount and bolt it into an NA with NA shocks- it has to be modified, which is what FCM has packaged up and is selling as a commodity item.
OTOH, the NB package would work with standard NB mounts (not NB mounts that have been modified for an NA) just fine.
The manner in which the shock attaches to the upper mount is somewhat different between the two. This is why you can't just take a complete NB upper mount and bolt it into an NA with NA shocks- it has to be modified, which is what FCM has packaged up and is selling as a commodity item.
OTOH, the NB package would work with standard NB mounts (not NB mounts that have been modified for an NA) just fine.
Reply
0
0
05-05-2010, 06:11 PM
#297
Newb
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10
Total Cats: 0
well joe...thanks for putting this up...but one thing, I am already fighting understeer here...softening the rear I dont think for me would be a good idea, although i am planning on getting some bars, what are you thoughts?
Jb
Jb
Reply
0
0
