I finally got it lowered on wrx wagon struts and swift wagon springs. Prodrive gc010e's in british black. No rubbing whatsoever, had 600lbs on tailgate and tires tucked in nicely.:yumyum: Kind of a fun little cruiser now.
no but 4 struts/8 springs are. it sits pretty level but the wheel well arches are slightly different front and rear on sf5's making the rear look down farther. if it bothers me too much, ill take out the factory subframe spacers.
it takes a bit to get used to, and it doesnt handle like a conversion van as much. sway bars and strut bars should tighten it up a little more
I really like those wheels. lol:laugh::biggrin: looks good. are you using wrx swift springs are forester swift springs? I will post pics of mine on forester struts and forester swift springs later today.
Bill I highly doubt the Forester swifts would work on the wrx suspension.. there is already a length issue between the different struts...
toaster is right, they are flatline's old wrx wagon setup. I thought you would like the wheels bill lol. interested to see your setup too.
I'm thinking I need to evaluate it next weekend and see. As of right now, I would rather take out the subframe spacers in the front I think since in actuality its an even drop but looks sagged in the back from the wheel well arches being a different shape than the fronts. I might need to do some more reading on it and see if one has more of a benefit to the other. (or which one is easier to install) Thanks for the suggestion though, those aren't even mentioned on subaruforester.org in the sf suspension thread. Seems like it would be easy enough to solve the problem.
looking good. I am curious how it handles compared to a WRX now. similar suspension but still the extra body weight.
Chassis = flat Arch cuts = butt sag (illusion) For looks, you can bump up the rear. A little rake isn't terrible either. It does promote roll and can help take out some understeer. You won't see much happen to the back end. Where it sits now, it's sitting on the long, rear bump stops. No fender gap = on bump stops basically. Is that terrible? Not necessarily, but the valving on any dampers we can get for our cars really aren't geared appropriately for this this type of setup. Apparently Porsche and BMW do build their cars this way, but they actually valve the dampers right to work right. The car will ride ok and handle fine, but Subarus are meant to be up in the air a little. You're bound by the hardware available. Rubbing won't occur unless you're at 245 or greater for tread width. The only thing you might want to keep in mind is that a Forester runs a 26" tall tire stock and can fit a 245 wide 26" tire under the rear perch. If you step to sedan spec struts, that perch lowers 0.6" and you will rub. Wide tire = 25" diameter to fit. I think Swift FXT springs can work fine on sedan struts. There will be a little preload, but the ride height will be very near stock for a sedan and a little higher spring rates. Sedan or Forester, the Swift FXT springs would actually work pretty darn well for anyone not wanting to drop their car. The Forester struts aren't significantly different. They're about 1" longer and with a touch more stroke. As well, the rear spring perch is located higher to allow slightly taller tires. The body weight of the Foresters aren't bad. You don't really gain raw weight, and you just have a little higher CG in the rear. Weight distribution is probably slightly different but marginal, like 58%/42% sedan, 57%/43% for Forester. The sedans do benefit from lower drag though versus the boxy shape of the Forester where the frontal area and coefficient of drag is a bit higher. The higher rear CG and slight gain in rear weight actually helps cut out understeer a little.
Looks nice, but it's sagging in the back. It's not an illusion. Look at the bottom of the body in between the wheel arches, it's clearly lower in the rear than in the front. I would either raise the rear 1/2" or lower the front that 1/2" and you will be golden.
I disagree. It looks almost dead on. I've added an orange line so no "perspective" or "illusion" can get in the way.
^^ definetly lower in the back... either way it looks sick, and i think 1" lower up front would look sick, mainly because im not a fan of reverse rake.
dude... its an illusion.. as stated already, the chassis is level.. it is like that on even the bugeyes... the front fender has a different level so it throws it all off... it sits perfect IMO
illusion or not the body lines point downward from the front to the back and thats what you directly see which is why my opinion is that the stance of the car would look much better with the front down, or atleast matching up the wheel gap. im not talking about a level chassis....its just my opinion.
the subframe spacers won't effect ride height. they only ease axle angles. I'm curious how the ground clearance is. since the drivetrain/subframe is all dropped.
no, but with standard WRX suspension. and 2" (?) blocks on the crossmembers. things are going to be hanging down quite a bit, even for street use.
clearance isnt so much an issue on a street driven vehicle... btu suspension dynamics / geometry... by removing the blocks it allow the lower control arms to NOT be already past their range of effectiveness in the whole geometry of the deal.. just read up on Angry Toasters build on forester forums... /thread
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f115/my-forester-brief-photo-diary-9743/ http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f74/so-here-20523/ he has more write ups on Nasioc I think...
This is my car on forester struts with forester swift springs. the tires on it now are 225-45-17 and they should be 225-55-17 or 235-50-17 to be as equal to stock tire/wheel size as possible. Which just increases the amount of wheel well gap. View attachment 15637 View attachment 15638
