Відео

It's a Subaru with a Toyota name on it.

In reply to the first part of your statement, I think what you’re trying to say is that it’s ok to use base height adjustment as long as there are no major contact issues? Whilst it could be argued that this is true if there are no safety concerns, the fact is that most people will not know if the shocks are currently setup in a way that could potentially cause these safety concerns, because it wasn’t setup correctly by the manufacturer in the first place. The other potential issue is who is to say the amount of bump travel you have is enough? One issue is too much travel, but a separate issue is not enough to function/perform properly. It’s about having the correct amount of bump travel, which in most cases is as much as possible before any contact issues. Even in cases where there is room for more bump travel than will be practically used or be able to be used, it’s still good to know this and know that your suspension is still setup appropriately. One of the major issues with base height adjustment is the lack of knowledge as to how it’s actually setup and what’s really happening and able to happen. In reply to the second part of your statement which is primarily about the potential for insufficient droop travel, yes it’s possible that if you raise the vehicle too much by the spring seat it could result in insufficient droop travel. However, this is only possible if the amount of droop travel is ignored by both the designer/manufacturer as well as the installer. When we design our suspension products we build them in a way that provides sufficient droop within a large range of height adjustment. Having more droop is no problem so for lower ride heights it will have more than it needs, but at higher ride heights it will still have enough. On our install instructions, we also specify a certain amount of droop as being a minimum required amount. If the customer requires a ride height that will mean this minimum droop is not achievable, then it tells the installer to use the spring seat until the minimum droop is achieved and then do the rest using the bottom mount. However, this is not a normal situation for installers of our products to find themselves in as we design our shocks to be able to achieve factory ride height or close to factory ride height without the need for bottom mount adjustment. The reasons that it’s ok for the bottom mount to be used in this scenario is because a) the amount of bump travel is known to be plentiful and more than enough for the desired application and b) the amount of bump travel is known to not be too much and so no contact issues can arise. My answers are based around normal passenger vehicles such as sedans, coupes, wagons, etc. Not 4x4 utes or offroad vehicles. Whilst the principles are essentially no different, some of my comments that relate to our products might differ if we were referring to offroad vehicles, such as instead of aiming for factory ride heights as an upper limit, we’d be designing them for a certain amount of lift.

Yeah, the day German manufacturers, especially in the Stuttgart area, begin dabbling with flat engines, that spells the end of the vaunted engineering. /s The horizontally opposed cylinder design is old and mastered by the Germans. Subaru is just so bad at engine designing over the years that I don’t get how they get away with it.

We have suspension workshops all over Australia that sell and install our suspension. Most commonly though, people can contact us directly for support and advice. There shouldn't be any disconnect at all between us and the end user as we are easily contactable and always happy to help.

@@mcasuspension3976 your absolutely right in that there should be no disconnect between customers and MCA. I’ve actually got MCA coil overs in my car right now and love them, I’ve been into cars my whole life so I know what to do and where to go for coil overs. But i know people who have bought MCA coil overs and end up being disappointed only to find out that they purchased it from a online store without considering spring choice or anything else and than had it fitted by a work shop who doesn’t specialise in suspension work. To me this is crazy, but that’s only because I know better now that I’m a lot older. I just think there should more done to prevent these incidents from happening because more often than not, they’ll end up spreading the news on how MCA coil overs are rubbish. I’ve got nothing but good things to say about MCA suspension, my experience has been overwhelmingly positive but that’s only because I know people who can set up coil overs properly in their workshop. I hope you take this as positive feedback because I’ve got nothing but good intentions by writing this. Anyway, love MCA coilovers, have them on my car right now, just thought I’d give you a little feedback.

There was no clear indication of exactly what caused it so we can't say for certain what it was.

@@mcasuspension3976 did you give it to Toyota to check out? New model and all, engine failure is something that they are keen to look at, even if it was on track.

@@Blight-fp3vt no we didn't we just had a new engine put in at The 86 Shop. Since it wouldn't be under warranty we didn't contact Toyota.

@@mcasuspension3976 no worries. I guess they might ask to charge for the teardown, but to never know if they just want them to look at.

@@mcasuspension3976 Accusump time

Currently there's accusumps which will deliver pressurized oil once it detects a pressure drop. Otherwise the aftermarket is still working on a baffled and extended capacity oil pan.

@@sl0907 Unfortunately that does not fix the RTV issue.

There isn't one other than completely disassembling the engine and correctly replacing the RTV as step 1. Most cars are not failing from the lack of baffle issue (other than possible tracked cars).

To-Yoda

It's a Subaru with a Toyota name on it. Subaru engine-- not Toyota

Most likely oil starvation from high G corners. There seem to be some problems with the oil system keeping pressure in right hand turns.

No

could definitely contribute to it. anything getting sucked in / blocking the flow of oil would naturally damage the engine

Might be. But with no (zero) data available, can’t say for certain. now can we? What oil used? What are engine temps? Any engine mods? Surprised they can’t figure out the issue with a simple engine breakdown. Almost like it was human error?

@@michaeljohn1160 It's been a while since I thought about this. But it has bee proven without a doubt that the oil capacity for the stock system is not enough for racing. The large and sudden oil pressure drops is air.

It is both a design flaw and a production flaw. The engine failures are happening to plenty of cars that have never seen the track and have the correct amount of oil. And it is not rare. It is actually just a matter of time. You cannot build a motor with RTV floating around in the engine and pieces of it breaking off from the globs of it protruding out of the gasket surface into the engine and not have it eventually clog oil passageways. And the RTV is not just from the oil pan. It is used on the extra large timing chain cover and lots of other places that are on the other side of the oil pickup tube and thus the oil pickup tube cannot stop it from going into other parts of the engine. Plus, the oil pickup tube cannot stop small pieces from being sucked up into the oiling system from the oil pan (those screens only stop larger pieces which eventually get broken down into smaller and smaller pieces over time and miles). I would love to buy one of these cars, but I am not going to do it if they do not fix this problem. Scrap the robot that is putting the RTV on the gasket surfaces and go watch how other car manufacturers do it and copy them. Easy peasy.

@@jimihendrix8535 There are exactly ZERO cases of RTV failure. Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. I am mildly concerned about RTV and will eventually drop the pan and clean it out. The entire issue is gravity with a flat engine, and high rpm right turns. I use my car as a daily driver, have a oil pressure gauge. After 50,000 miles trust me, there is NO issue in normal driving. If you race, you need either a larger oil pan or a system to add oil when needed. If you do high rpm donuts, you are going to blow it up. Don't do high rpm donuts or racing without a larger oil pan.

@@artblackwood7936 You are dead wrong. Most of the cases are RTV issues because they are not track related (engines blowing up driving down the road that have nothing to do with high g forces, etc.). It's great that you are not concerned, but that has nothing to do with the facts. Good luck with it. I actually think you are worried and just lying to yourself, but good luck with that. LOL

Hi Tom, We licensed this song from soundstripe.

The hammerhead is still going strong, We are currently planning upgrades for WTAC this year. instagram.com/p/COeIZkbMxfJ/

Just the standard GR Yaris, not the Ralley version.

The wrap was done by Exclusive Wraps, they'll know for sure. I can't quite remember the exact wrap used, but it's something like a matte metallic grey from memory.

Before :-)

A longer spring with the same diameter and coil pitch will be softer.

No because the static deflection will be the same (sprung weight acting on the spring) , but if you add helper sprung that will increase your rebound stroke while decreasing your bump stroke , because helper spring fully collapses under weight

we will keep this in mind for the next video, thank you for the feedback.

@@mcasuspension3976 thanks for considering this

@@mcasuspension3976 No, it was pure perfection! This is the video that saves us :D

I thought the same thing, conceptually, but,"stored energy" has no affect at all on the return rate of the spring. The suspension will droop at exactly the same rate as it compressed, regardless of preload. There will still be "stored energy" in the spring, true, but, that will only come into play when the tire is completely in droop (catches air). When the tire re-makes contact with the ground that preload will make the car effectively stiffer until the initial preload amount has been overcome. Not too sure if there are any handling implications of this. I thought there was but now that I think about it more I don't think it will have any effect. You can prove to yourself the above by plotting an example. Corner weight = 700lb. 700lb/350lb spring = 2" of rebound travel. preload that 350lb spring by 1in. Now you have (700-350)/350 = 1in rebound. You've changed your bump/droop distribution, and the "stored energy" in the spring, but, so long as the tire is on the groudn the spring loads/unloads along the exact same slope (y=mx+B).

You are wrong. Corner balancing using spring perches alters the height of the vehicle and therefore moves/distribute the weight to the other springs. That's why it's called "BALANCING". There is no additional carrying force - just simple weight distribution. It is actually mentioned on the link you posted if you bothered reading the whole thing.

@@GCast-iv1pd im very sorry but you're extremely un informed and lack even the basic understanding of physics. Raising the ride height to corner balance via adding more preload to the spring is the ONLY way to do it - unless you have the luxury of physically moving weights around - The additonal carrying force required to acheive said balance comes from the additional preload applied to the spring, it doesnt just appear from thin air. Im still not sure what the purpose of your reply is.

@@alyousuf Either you are really confused when you wrote your first comment or you really don't know what they are talking about. What it is exactly about the preload section of the video you find confusing? 1. You said "adding preload SHIFTS the spring curve to the left". There is no curve to begin with as we are talking about linear spring. Keyword here is LINEAR...Say you preload the springs to 100kg total equally on all corners. When you put a 80kg weight on top, the springs simply won't move. Think go-karts with no suspensions. You basically muted off the suspension play between 0.1kg - 100kg by preloading/pre-compressing it...It will only start to compress once you put in more than 100kg on top.(See Figure 1 of your link) 2. You said "We raise vehicles and corner balance them using adjustable spring perches by preloading the spring, where else is this additional carrying force coming from". My understanding here is, you implying that as you preload the springs more, the springs gain more carrying force? Okay, this one is pretty basic but I'll explain it anyway. A 10kg/mm linear spring will always compress 1mm for every 10kg weight on top. It will NEVER have more "carrying force", no matter how much preload you put on it. Say that spring has a total compression play of 20mm. You then preload it with 170kg, compressing it by 17mm. If you put 10kg on top, it will still compress 1mm. That is simply PHYSICS and you can not argue with that. Now if you learned your physics lessons from wile E. coyote, then stop reading now as I can not help you anymore. 3. You say, "The car gets stiffer proportional to the additional load in the spring, yet the RATE remains the same." In sensation, maybe...but that doesn't mean the springs are producing more potential energy due to preloading. By preloading the springs (pre-compressing), what you are basically doing is muting the suspension play to the weight differences within the preloaded range, hence giving you the impression that it has become stiff. If say you have preloaded your springs to 900kg total split on all corners... If your car weighs 750kg, in static it won't ever compress the springs at all. Even if you ride in it (I'm assuming you weigh less than 150kg), it won't move at all. Now we could say that the springs are stiff as bricks...But when you add 940kg total weight on top, it will still compress 1mm (40kg total of 4 springs). If 980kg, 2mm... Now you're thinking: "But...we balanced the car using preload?!?"... In a sense, Yes, you are right. You balance a car by adjusting the spring perch. You refer to it as preloading. But it also can be referred to: adjusting the base of the spring. Say you preload all your springs to 30kgs...You then laden the vehicle and notice the front left sitting 2mm lower and rear left sitting 1mm lower. You balance it by preloading the front left to 50kgs and rear left to 40kg. Laden the car again and voila! Now everything is well balanced. (I'm just simplifying here, not accounting for mass shifts) Now by preloading the front-left spring to 50kg, did I give it "additional carrying force"? NO! So what happened? I raised the base of the spring so it basically sits higher. Does that mean the front-left spring is stiffer than the other springs since its preloaded to 50kg? NO! (If I follow your flawed physics, then yes). The reason the front-left is sitting lower is that the vehicle is heavier on that corner, thus compressing the springs more. By raising the base, I have compensated for it (hence the 50kg preload). Now what happens if I add an additional 40kg right in the center? All 4 springs will compress 1mm, evenly. Based on your argument, the left-front will compress less since it is preloaded more thus having more carrying force.

@@GCast-iv1pd I asked you the first time and will ask you once again, whats the purpose of your comment and you didnt reply. you dont understand this enough to explain it hence the very odd and erratic last reply, which is fine you can learn it. Saying there is no spring curve because is linear is also odd, you can draw an x and y axis and graph a linear spring line on it then add preload to the same graph to understand how it will behave then compare it with a higher rate spring and so on. Adding preload shifts the curve to the left or to the top depending on how you like to visualise it, if you want i can send you images but obviously youtube doesnt allow this. Adding preload makes the suspension stiffer and its not some "feeling" or illusion. Also you seem to think that preloading is making ride heights equal by saying you add more.preload to the corner thats sitting lower, this is FAAR from the truth. I wont be posting anymore. If you wanted to better understand this Ill go on but youre obviously and unnecesarrily fighting your ego here, not sure why.

@@GCast-iv1pd i'm not sure I follow. If you preload the springs to 900lbs then the spring won't compress with 750lbs? Well it depends on the rate of the spring. If the spring rate was 500lbs/in. The preload compressed the spring by like 1.8inch. If you add the 750lbs... since the spring rate requires 500lbs per inc then 750 would compress it by like 1.5 inch. Because now you have a total force of 1650lbs being enacted upon the spring. Which should compress a linear spring by 3.3inch.

Oath