Alfa Romeo Giulia Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
2017 Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio
Joined
·
953 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
We have two published spring rates for the two currently available lowering springs for the Q2 Giulia. Would the experts chime in on which should exhibit a better spring rate? The Madness drop is very aggressive compared to the Eibach. Interestingly though, pictures of the Giulia with Eibach installed show the front of the car dropped excessively.

What are your thoughts. Pros and Cons for either setup. I am ready to click the purchase button but I cannot decide on which one.

OEM FRONT LINEAR: 180lb/in
OEM REAR LINEAR: 278lb/in


Madness: (Manufacturer unknown)

​Approximately 1.4" drop
Progressive Rate Design

Spring Rates:

Front: 216 lbs / in
Rear: 245 - 320 lbs /


Eibach Pro-Kit

LOWERING RATE:

Front: 0.8 in
Rear: 1.0 in
SPRING RATES:

EIBACH FRONT LINEAR: 228lb/in
EIBACH REAR (PROGRESSIVE):271lb/in TO 359lb/in
 

·
Registered
2018 Q4 with Fiamenghi Ti exhaust, Race Mod, and Tecnico wheels.
Joined
·
7,904 Posts
I'm not an expert, but have peripherally related questions:

1) Is anybody going to make Titanium springs for Giulia? Apparently they are significantly lighter than steel springs due to using lighter metal and needing less total metal (fewer coils). Supposedly Ti holds up better than steel due to not rusting. I dunno about the price though. I see two manufacturers on line, but they don't list any developed products for AR; both advertise industrial and race car uses.

2) Has anybody worked out what spring changes would be necessary to get a range of lower + higher stance in combination with pneumatic springs?

It seems that pneumatic springs exhibit somewhat undesirable spring rates (assuming I remember by undergrad engineering properly). While metal springs have a rate that is pretty constant with actuation rate, pneumatic springs are "stiffer" when activated rapidly compared (absorbing road roughness) to slowly (absorbing body roll?), which is pretty much the opposite of the desired behavior. The issue being caused by the extent to which the chamber air pressure changes versus the air temperature in response to load changes and when the air temperature changes how much of that energy gets transferred out of the chamber.

It is also not obvious to me that pneumatic assist springs can take a wide enough range of lengths to make this work.

Anyway, it appears that metal springs with the minimal pneumatic spring assist that is needed to get the desired range of heights would pose the "least risk" to handling and that a simple pneumatic spring conversion would be a bad idea. To use "off the shelf" parts, that means getting "super low" but softer than stock lowering springs, then raising the car back up to a reasonable height and up to the desired spring rate using the pneumatic springs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
Pneumatic$ aren't bad, just different.

While an air spring does exhibit the rate sensitivity you describe, one gets around this by designing the rest of the suspension around that property and so setting up the lever-arm geometries a little bit differently. Everyone from F1/DTM to Lincoln and Bentley (I think?) have used gas springs at one time or another chasing either end of the spectrum, handling or ride.

The problem you would face would be finding the air spring system designed for the existing geometry -- and I wouldn't doubt we'll see one in the next year or so.

And titanium springs would come in shorter for similar rates, so you may give back some of the weight savings with spacers, but if you can find some, it's true, Ti doesn't rust!
 

·
Registered
2018 Q4 with Fiamenghi Ti exhaust, Race Mod, and Tecnico wheels.
Joined
·
7,904 Posts
Guys please do not hijack the thread so it's true to its subject. Comparing and opinions on the two available lowering springs for the RWD Giulia.
Sorry about that, but..

I think you need to say why you want to lower your car and how you plan to drive the car.

Call me Al reports that really low and stiff is great on the track and that he has had no driveability issues. He has had tire clearance issues, particularly with oversize tires + suspension lowering.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I know that I will be scraping bottom from time to time with the Ti Q4's 6" of ground clearance (1" more than you are starting from and over twice the clearance of Call me Al's car) in my driveway and probably in the winter snow.

I want lower for highway cruising with best MPG.
I want higher for getting over obstacles and helping my wife get in and out.

Please state your intent in those kinds of terms and I think you will be more likely to get some meaningful feedback.

I presume that both of the spring sets that you have identified are competently made (no fit or failure issues).

If you have the active suspension I would be very cautious about any spring rate changes that the spring manufacturer has not thoroughly tested with active suspension since the system might become unstable (bounce uncontrollably) if the spring rate deviates much from stock.

My point with pneumatic and titanium springs is that there may be alternatives in the (near?) future that you haven't thought about yet and may want to wait for rather than installing what is immediately available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
I have had no issues:


Eibach springs, got them from Demon-tweeks.uk, since they are the same springs that are sold stateside, but at a $30-$50 discount.

I run 245/40-18s, never rubbed, bumps are a little harsher, big bumps will bottom the suspension out. No tire rub whatsoever. I'll be autocrossing the car this weekend to get a better idea of how it'll handle with the springs, but on the street, it's glorious.

I don't recommend running the Eibachs on the QV, as it's heavier and will lower the car more and most likely ride harsher than the 2.0t.
And I definitely don't recommend running a spring that lowers the car even more -- blown shocks come to mind, as well as a ruined underbody.
Definitely showing my eibach fanboyism, but, I ran a set of their pro-kits on my S2000 for 80k miles, most of which was on track -- the shocks were still in good working order.
 

·
Registered
2018 Q4 with Fiamenghi Ti exhaust, Race Mod, and Tecnico wheels.
Joined
·
7,904 Posts
While an air spring does exhibit the rate sensitivity you describe, one gets around this by designing the rest of the suspension around that property and so setting up the lever-arm geometries a little bit differently. Everyone from F1/DTM to Lincoln and Bentley (I think?) have used gas springs at one time or another chasing either end of the spectrum, handling or ride.

The problem you would face would be finding the air spring system designed for the existing geometry -- and I wouldn't doubt we'll see one in the next year or so.

And titanium springs would come in shorter for similar rates, so you may give back some of the weight savings with spacers, but if you can find some, it's true, Ti doesn't rust!
I think altering the suspension geometry is a bit more ambitious than I want to make this project. A hybrid metal spring + pneumatic spring arrangement seems like it would avoid most of the problems; plus then the air pressure can be used to set the suspension height. I think having pneumatic lifters would make a lowered car more practical by allowing it to be raised as necessary, on the fly.

A titanium spring of the same rate, length, and wire diameter as a steel spring should have a greater pitch (fewer coils spaced farther apart) and simply be a "plug in" replacement, saving several pounds of partially sprung weight per corner. I have no idea about the cost, but I am surprised to not see them being offered as stock items for lowering or performance related purposes. Maybe they are way too expensive? Due to the greater coil pitch a titanium spring can be compressed to a smaller height before binding (I don't know about taking a set or making the spring variable rate though). In applications where the free length is not important, shorter titanium springs are used to get more weight reduction.
 

·
Registered
2018 Q4 with Fiamenghi Ti exhaust, Race Mod, and Tecnico wheels.
Joined
·
7,904 Posts
Driven, can you co firm how much your front lowered with the Eibach springs
Since the springs do not act directly on the tires there is a difference between spring length and the change in vehicle height. Similarly there is a difference between spring rate and wheel deflection rate.

Do you know if springs are rated as standalone springs or as the apparent effect on the car (i.e. after accounting for the leverage between the wheel and the spring mount)? It looks like "lowering" is at the wheel, while spring rate is at the spring, but that is not clearly stated. Does either manufacturer publish spring displacement-force curves (even better as vehicle height-force curves)? This would help us understand if the progressive feature of the spring is useful (as compared to always in the "stiff" range or never in the "stiff" range).
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
3,538 Posts
We have two published spring rates for the two currently available lowering springs for the Q2 Giulia. Would the experts chime in on which should exhibit a better spring rate? The Madness drop is very aggressive compared to the Eibach. Interestingly though, pictures of the Giulia with Eibach installed show the front of the car dropped excessively.

What are your thoughts. Pros and Cons for either setup. I am ready to click the purchase button but I cannot decide on which one.

OEM FRONT LINEAR: 180lb/in
OEM REAR LINEAR: 278lb/in


Madness: (Manufacturer unknown)

​Approximately 1.4" drop
Progressive Rate Design

Spring Rates:

Front: 216 lbs / in
Rear: 245 - 320 lbs /


Eibach Pro-Kit

LOWERING RATE:

Front: 0.8 in
Rear: 1.0 in
SPRING RATES:

EIBACH FRONT LINEAR: 228lb/in
EIBACH REAR (PROGRESSIVE):271lb/in TO 359lb/in
If I have a QV. I would not touch it. 1.4" is a lot and the geometry is going to be off. I know it will handle worse with that much drop.
Personally I sell lowering springs and I have lowered many alfa's but I would leave these alone. ST might be the only way I go do to the minimal drop or the Eibach's that I offer for the QV that lowers even less at .78":/20mm.


If we go by these numbers

EIBACH FRONT LINEAR: 228lb/in
EIBACH REAR (PROGRESSIVE):271lb/in TO 359lb/in

(Qv springs that I have should be around 275lbs, while rears are most likely the same @271lb/in TO 359lb/in)
The Eibach QV springs, are tailored for the Qv, not some after thought based on 2.0L springs. Since they are Eibach's but not branded as eibach the rates are not published.

I would not go much higher than this or with anything at all. The Giulia's geometry should not be messed with IMO. It is perfectly balanced out of the box. I know from experience lowering on alfa's can ruin them. Period. I'd love to sell you all springs but I am warning you a lowered ride and stiffer suspension is only for looks. Now if we find out Euro models are lower and have different springs, that's an option I'd rather go for. If these springs are to meet US laws then euro springs might be slightly different and most likely lower by .5".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
We have two published spring rates for the two currently available lowering springs for the Q2 Giulia. Would the experts chime in on which should exhibit a better spring rate? The Madness drop is very aggressive compared to the Eibach. Interestingly though, pictures of the Giulia with Eibach installed show the front of the car dropped excessively.

What are your thoughts. Pros and Cons for either setup. I am ready to click the purchase button but I cannot decide on which one.

OEM FRONT LINEAR: 180lb/in
OEM REAR LINEAR: 278lb/in


Madness: (Manufacturer unknown)

Approximately 1.4" drop
Progressive Rate Design

Spring Rates:

Front: 216 lbs / in
Rear: 245 - 320 lbs /


Eibach Pro-Kit

LOWERING RATE:

Front: 0.8 in
Rear: 1.0 in
SPRING RATES:

EIBACH FRONT LINEAR: 228lb/in
EIBACH REAR (PROGRESSIVE):271lb/in TO 359lb/in
apologies for not doing a thorough search, but thought maybe you’d have some input...
I’m curious if any options exist for lowering springs on Q4 ti sport with active suspension. Not looking for much of a drop, just enough to eat up some wheel gap.
thanks
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
391 Posts
apologies for not doing a thorough search, but thought maybe you’d have some input...
I’m curious if any options exist for lowering springs on Q4 ti sport with active suspension. Not looking for much of a drop, just enough to eat up some wheel gap.
thanks
I’ll be experimenting next week w QV springs with mild lowering in my Q4 w active. I’ll let u know.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top