PDA

View Full Version : CIEKA- bolt on aftermarket brake kits for W202's



Vetruck
12-23-2012, 06:33 PM
Opps- CEIKA (not cieka)

Found these guys by accident- trick stuff and great prices. Can do both front AND rear 6piston 13" (330mm) 2 pc rotor colored setups for under $2300 front AND rear. I spent over 2k alone custom machining and building a front package only in the same size for a Camaro about a decade ago. You can not touch Ksport, Stoptech, nor Brembos for that price even for only fronts that size.

http://ceikaperformance.com/Small-6-pot-Big-Brake-kit-p29.html

I would not recommend going any larger than the small 6pot setups and a 330x32 front/330x28 rear and keeping all for wheel brake pad sizes the same purchase choice for easy future reference. Easy to keep i set on hand for emergencies that will work on all 4 wheels.

330x32 is a massive 12.90" x1.25" rotor compared to what we have stock. Going any larger on a w202 is just adding unneeded rotation weight as well as unneeded unsprung weight which reduces perfromance accelerations, handling and ride quality reductions. 356mm is the largest you can fit under an 18" wheel- so a 330 is still pretty damn big.

I priced the fronts at $1080.00 and the rears at $1180 in the above sizes (330x32f/ 330x28rear with internal stock parking drum) if you look at their "appication page", they have the w202 fitments already listed and engineered.

Great find.

Vetruck
12-23-2012, 06:44 PM
I don;t care for the Red, but that Champagne Gold is sexy. Looks like alot of the high end full race Brembo kits they put on the Evo's and such in the gold color.

Vetruck
12-23-2012, 07:05 PM
I found these guys looking at coilover options. They also make a trick 2way monotube inverted shock setup (both compression and rebound settings separated) with external reservoirs. I was undecided between Koni Yellows and H&R's, or the Ksport (1way comp/rebound linear adj- which sucks) coilovers. I am definately going to these units

anf6789
12-23-2012, 08:30 PM
awesomeeee!!!! wish i had money, lol! though the brakes are pretty awesome on the c36 already, I love the gold ones and would love some coilovers.

.....eventually :)

Dearlove
12-24-2012, 03:34 AM
The c36's brakes are sufficient even for the track, spend spend that 2 and a bit grand on getting an ecu upgrade would be much better...

Dearlove
12-24-2012, 03:36 AM
the c36 is also 12.6 in the front btw, so not that much bigger at all...

You dont want the same size front and rear, other wise you'll be locking the rears up. Considering that the engineers that build these cars may know a thing or two, i'd be trying to keep the same 'ratio' (rears are 10.9 inches btw)

Vetruck
12-24-2012, 08:39 AM
the c36 is also 12.6 in the front btw, so not that much bigger at all...

You dont want the same size front and rear, other wise you'll be locking the rears up. Considering that the engineers that build these cars may know a thing or two, i'd be trying to keep the same 'ratio' (rears are 10.9 inches btw)

I know a whole lot about building custom brake setups on cars. First off my car is designed with a 11" front rotor and a 10" rear rotor, not 12.6- so that is what base I am working from. Secondly the car stands on the nose right now with ALOT of nose dive and too much front brake in bias. Once I dail the chassis and lower the cg and control the weight transfer a little better from coming off the rear wheels unloading them, I will need quite a bit more rear brake to get the car to rotate.

A system like this will eat the fastory c36 brakes for lunch.

And as for how I should spend my money better? The car is a c220 with 147hp- so an ECU will get me a rocketship 155 hp? LOL. No, I'd be much better spending my money on safety and passing you going in to any corner on a race track

Vetruck
12-24-2012, 09:37 AM
{EDIT- disregard the info in this post, more accurate info is posted below}

I contacted them and got a quick answer on caliper piston size- The response was to use LARGE 6pot front and SMALL 6 pot rear for balance- no other info. I have to assume that they machined them proprtionately with piston area volume accordingly so using these will be a crap shoot without better info

So I am wrong on my assumption of using the same caliper and pad on each axle like alot of cars do. The caliper and pad volume may be the same but the actual piston volume inside the calipers larger for the fronts and smaller for the rears. THis company does not offer those choices like what WIlwood, Brembo, etc do. (for example a Wilwwod 4pot SL caliper can be used both front and rear with a 1.75" pison fronts and a 1.375" rear piston size)

This Ceika company choices means that the front has to use the "Large" 6 piston front caliper and the "Small" 6 piston rear caliper to get the proper proportion on piston volume-= or just use a simple inline Wilood prop valve coming off the combo valve to the rears in the engine bay.

THis does raise the price, but still very reasonable if doing all four wheels with big brakes.
Front Large 6pot 330x32 setup with SS pistons is $1430.00- so it raises the 4 wheel price buy $350 from $2260.00 to a total of $2610 for both axles. Still an awesome price

Dearlove
12-25-2012, 05:14 AM
clearly i was referring to a c36 for comparison/what money would be better spent on.....

Vetruck
12-25-2012, 01:25 PM
Now back to the subject- The quick email I recieved is wrong- must be a stand in tech at Ceika during the holidays. Their website as I scroll down clearly lists that there ARE in fact caliper piston options as I was first assuming. THe small 6pot setup has the option of 3 different piston setups in that size, same for the Large 6pot has two piston otions for volume.

So far here is the info on these. I will start with the large 6pot info(even though I plan to use the small because I want lighter weight and the piston volume is large enough for me in preliminary calculation- I might change my mind as I study more but for now the small look large enough for my desires in gettingdramatic balance and performance gains)
Large 6POT options- 38/36/30mm which is a 4.44" total Surface Area volume against the pads.
- 28/30/28mm 2.99" SA
Small 6POT options- 36/32/28mm 3.77" sa
- 28/32/28mm 3.14" sa
- 22/28/22mm 2.13" sa

My car has a 15/16"-3/4" master cylinder volume. My experience with a car in weight bias and proportion very similar to this with about the size 15/16" MC was a 13.06 front rotor and 4.02" sa balance with a 12.2 rear rotor and 2.98 sa with both front and rear brake pad surface area being the same- with that "assumption" my initial thoughts on choice is to still look into a 13"front /13" rear rotor setup and to reduce a little rear leverage would be to increase the 4:3 bias ratio of the SA to the 3.77/2.13 caliper choices. That is just the initial hunch- I need to do alot more research and calculations.

Also I have learned that both their LARGE and SMALL 6pot calipers use the same exact brake pad size. So with that said, the caliper choice comes down to "SA" availiability while also considering componant weigth as my main focus. I do not care so much about looks as I do function so bigger is not better- buigger often means running around the street too cool. I want pwoerful, but I also want to retain a little heat into them all the time so they work even when cruising in lower temp conditions. Massive brakes on the street is just not practical for safety- trust me Ive been there and have had notoious problems with brake noise from lack of heat.

Before I go any further, I want to point out a few differences I am dealing with in making my ultimate final choice- this is where everyone need to weigh their own car differences and make appropriate changes in brake system build decisions. I am using a staggered rear wheel and tire- which alot do, but some do not. This means a greater rear tire contact patch compared to front grip as opposed to the factory bias of all 4 wheels the same. Also secondly and most importantly, I am modifying a lighter nosed 4 cylinder car and am going to a 17kg/13kg wheel rate rather than the heavier nosed I6 engine cars with the standard 17kg/12kg spring option. I can use a little more rear brake bias than the I6 cars expecially when I use the staggaered wheel choice.

Vetruck
12-25-2012, 04:31 PM
Factory C220 brake system info-

Front 1pot floating caliper 54mm piston. 3.54" surface area 11.18" rotor 3/4" MC bore
Rear 2pot fixed caliper 35mm pistons. 2.96" surface area 10.31" rotor 15/16" MC bore (to move more volume. The C36 had to go up in rotor diameter to increase braking leverage to mate the rear bias from what I am seeing. Engineers generally do things like this so as to simplify production line install for a one size fits all MC and combo valve. This makes it easier for the dealers to service cars by simply having only the wheel assemblies different. Case in point the GM engineers had a world of headaches trying to recalibrate diferent wheel combinations offsets, and brake packages in the mid 80's performance cars that the list of hydraulic options is a novel. Auto manufactureres are required under US rules to suply replacement parts for 10 years. The upper scale manufacturers like Mercedes engineers were obviously doing a little more homework becuase when I cross check the C36 MC its the same.

The caliper SA volume is aprox 3.5:3 ratio with and increase of leverage using a slightly larger front rotor and a much smaller surface area brake pad. I can not find the brake pad friction volume (makes a difference- larger volume is more stopping friction area- thus more stopping power. I would guess the stock system to be overall aprox a 4:3 to 4:2.5 bias range. My initial intuistion on using equal rotors and increase the caliper piston surface area volume to about 55% or a 4:2.2 ratio would yeild me an aproxoverall 4:3 ratio like I am after when I use the larger rear rotor and larger rear pad surface)

anf6789
12-25-2012, 05:41 PM
Vetruck, not sure if you have already seen this thread, or if it helps at all. It has some info on the C36 setup, and how it varies from year to year. It might help with your bias/staggered inquiry. I know you arent going with the C36 stuff (front calipers have to weigh at least 20lbs a piece, cast iron for sure) I know the fronts are from the SL600 and rear may be from the e420 if i remember correctly. wheel size 17/7.5f 17/8.5r. everyone has problems replacing the parts on the various year C36's it seems when AMG got the cars from MB they threw whatever they had laying around on!

I just did a full brake job on mine. Balo Rotors and Akebono pads. I must say the akebonos take some getting used to, but the state the brakes were in when i bought the car, they are a huge improvement.

The Ceika website looks awesome, and when I decide to uprade the "already way better than my old c280" suspension I may go with their coil overs. The wannabe engineer in me loves this stuff. too bad i went to business school ;)


http://mbworld.org/forums/c36-amg-c43-amg-w202/416513-c36-akebono-front-brake-pad-part-number-error.html

Vetruck
12-26-2012, 08:46 AM
^^^ You spiked my curiosity to check a few other applications too. Turns out there are ALOT of changes.

1994 BOTH c220 and 280- front rotors 11.18", rear rotors 10.3125"
1995 and 1996 c220 are the same...BUT...

1995 c280 front the same 11.18" , BUT the rear went to almost the same size with a 10.94 rear rotor
then...
1996 c280 went to a 11.34" front and the 10.94" rear

then the 95 to 97 AMG had changes also. It is not nor ever has been a 12.6" front rotor as Dearlove stated, so I do np;t know where you retrieved that info but I have cross referenced it with a few different parts stores and here is my findings on that-

1995 AMG c36 front 12.44", rear VENTED rotor 10.95"

then 1996 AND 1997 AMG c36 both still had the 12.44" front vented rotor like the 1995 has, HOWEVER, they went to a larger but thinner non-vented rotor like the standard models had but in aan 11.42" diamater rotor- so 12.44" front and 11.42" rear

Vetruck
12-26-2012, 09:05 AM
All of the c220 and c280 applications use the same front and rear brake pads and same Master Cylinder (MC) so the engineers were just making fine tune adjustments with rotor sizes off of prior year useage data. Looks to me they were chasing a wild goose becasue that is very minor changes and alot of abutment bracket changes they then had to stock for different year caliper fitment as well as different rotor sizes.

The c280 changes are what most puzzle me. 11.18/10.31, then 11.18"/10.94", then 11.34"/10.94" all in three years with no change to the same year c220 (11.18"/10.31") <- my car stands on its nose a little much when braking hard, I see the need for more rear brake. What puzzles me is the heavier nosed c280 will stand on its nose alot more weighing 250lbs more up front- so with that you use less rear brake whereas the engineers were throwing more rear brake at it then backed down the ratio the 3rd year. How about a few test track days guys? unbelievable at that level. I saw this ALOT from the 80's GM engineers like stated earlier, would not expect it from Mercedes. That is alot of flipflopping and alot of money in production changes that is passed on to the consumer.

I can not find anything on brake combo valves (proportioning valves)

1997 c230 and c280 then stayed the same size through 2000 (11.34"/10.94") so the car without staggered wheels remained almost the same rotor diameter front to rear.

You then lower the center of gravity and add a staggered (larger footprint grip) rear tire and the car can utilize more rear bias- you can do that three ways 1) larger caliper piston surface area (hydraulic force), 2) larger rotor diameter (greater leverage), or 3) larger brake pad surface area (larger mechanical friction)

I choose to error on the rear brakes being on the "slightly too large" side of a build and simply add a Wilwood propr valve to turn them down to perfect balance.

Vetruck
12-26-2012, 06:36 PM
Now to the MC (master cylinder)and why caliper piston SA(surface area) is so important-

If you go up in caliper Hydraulic volume needed to push the lager total piston area, the MC will increase travel to do so. THis leaves a long travel pedal and also the potential to run out of pedal when the pad wear low. MC diameter has to be in proportion to the caliper volume or SA. If I were to go to the LARGE 6pot calipers on the front, or even the 8POT calipers, the larger piston choices of those would be too much SA for the factory MC to move. You would have to go up to at least a 1" bore MC if not a 1 1/8"- I do not even know if one is availiable, I hardly doubt it. SO the better choice is to build a system with the SMALL 6pot front and rear or even the 6pot front and a small SA 4POT rear.

It is important to keep an aprox ratio within the MC range so the 4" sa front and 2.5-3" sa rear combo will work perfect with the factory 3/4-15/16" bore factory MC.

anf6789
12-26-2012, 07:54 PM
maybe an ML or larger MB sedan master cylinder is compatible. i actually noticed the pedal travel is slightly further versus the c280, or maybe its my imagination...

Vetruck
12-27-2012, 07:58 AM
maybe an ML or larger MB sedan master cylinder is compatible. i actually noticed the pedal travel is slightly further versus the c280, or maybe its my imagination...


The pedal travel in a c36 would have to be greater than the c280 given they run the same MC. The front C36 calipers have a greater front piston SA than the c280 caliper so the same MC will have to move the piston in the bore futher to pump hydraulic fluid into the caliper.

The MC is actually a different # and diffent outlet line specs, but they have the same identical bore. Changing line size and thread pitch of the outlets was a common thing also with GM cars(makes no difference in pressure, just cuts down overall line volume and slows the initial bite of the front brakes to allow the rears to come on a little quicker on the AMG before the fronts to allow for stability under initial hard braking.

Dearlove
12-27-2012, 11:06 PM
Sorry mate, i must have been in a shit mood the other day.

But i do stand by my comment for the AVERAGE person looking to up there brakes on a lower model, the amg ones would be best bang for buck.

eventually i would like to up my brakes, even though the c36 are relatively big they are shitty 2 piston sliding calipers...
I'm very interested in hearing what you do for the bigger MC, i all ways presumed they pulled a bigger one of the sl600 (if its bigger) to go with the calipers

so with the sizing of front vs rear, the way a thought of it in my head was that when your hitting the brakes all your weight is at the front and the effective mechanical grip of the rears was relatively low?

Dearlove
12-27-2012, 11:12 PM
also i could have sworn they were 12.6, ill have to dig round for a tape measure and check on some rotors i have sitting around

Vetruck
12-28-2012, 12:04 AM
Thank you for being friendly- I appreciate the appology and can respect that we all have our bad days.Hell, I'm no saint but do try to be helpful.

I do not plan to hunt out a bigger MC for this car. The main point of my post was to figure through my experience and educated guess on if a small 6 pot front and rear setup with both being 13" rotors will work- based on the specs I have from Ceika on Caliper SA I can easily use the MC I have right now. So no need for me to hunt any further.

The only reason to use the larger 6pot calipers is for using a larger rotor choice for heat control- that would only be needed for an all out track car that would never see street use. The figures I have listed above will work with the MC I have. I want to stay as lightweight as I can while gaining adequate performance for very hard street use. The small 6pot setup with 13"x1.25 2pc front rotors, and 13x1.1" rear asembly with stock internal drum parking brake will be alot more powerful, lightweight, and manage heat alot better than what I have now- large rotors with lots of brake pedal sweet spot to modulate.

W202FTW
01-05-2013, 10:50 AM
Poo. I contacted them about getting some normal rotors [neither slotted or cross drilled] and it turns out that their "supplier" doesn't make any regular rotors. Cedric recommended just slotted rotors for daily driving and track use.

Vetruck
01-05-2013, 10:41 PM
Trust me you do NOT want just slotted rotors for street use. They wear the brake pads way too quickly. You'll be replacing pads every 6 months (aprox 6,000miles).

Cross drilled rotors are nice for the street because they aid in initial pad bite and lessen the rotation mass. I recommend going a good set of Brembo drilled rotors like the first shown on this link-

http://www.brakeworld.com/ProductList.aspx?c=1&y=1996&m=MERCEDES&mod=C280

W202FTW
01-06-2013, 07:52 AM
Trust me you do NOT want just slotted rotors for street use. They wear the brake pads way too quickly. You'll be replacing pads every 6 months (aprox 6,000miles).

Cross drilled rotors are nice for the street because they aid in initial pad bite and lessen the rotation mass. I recommend going a good set of Brembo drilled rotors like the first shown on this link-

http://www.brakeworld.com/ProductList.aspx?c=1&y=1996&m=MERCEDES&mod=C280

Yeah I thought it was weird that he mentioned that. I'm probably going to end up painting the calipers instead and get either crossed drilled rotors or just blank rotors so that I can still have the option of turning them on the brake lathe at work.

zmatt
01-12-2013, 06:01 PM
slotted rotors improve cooling, drilled ones won't, but the lower weight is nice.

Vetruck
01-13-2013, 11:34 AM
slotted rotors improve cooling, drilled ones won't, but the lower weight is nice.

Respectfully- this is partially wrong info, and partially correct. They both aid in cooling the brake pad by allowing a void in the rotor surface for the gases to escape. Drilled rotors are more efficiant in cooling than slotted rotors only because they reduce more of the friction area and allow for more exposed heat sink area. The problem is that volume of metal on the rotor (overall weight) is the main heat disapant so when you remove material with drilling you are lessening the heat sink voulme but increasing the heat sink surface area. Its about a fair trade. Better off going a slightly larger drilled rotor than a slightly smaller slotted rotor for street use (pound for pound)- however with the extreme heat of racing 9and we are not talking little heat of AutoX racing, were talking big track road racing heat) then slotted rotors are far safer from cracking between the holes since the holes will weaken the overall structure. you will never have a problem with drilled rotors for street use because you will never get them hot enough to have a problem- you'd get thrown in jail long before this could happen going a city block then braking & turning, etc.

Dearlove
01-27-2013, 11:25 PM
hey mate, just wondering if you ever got hold of the calipers or the suspension? interested to hear about them.

Vetruck
01-28-2013, 10:05 AM
No I have not gotten to this car yet. I have other projects still going and unexpectedly come accross a deal on an RV last month. I will be getting to this car build but other things keep taking up my time and this is a low priority since nothing is wrong with the car currently. I have two other cars that need attention first- TIming chain on the Caddy, and brakes on the truck, then I am pulling and overhauling the generator on the motorhome when I get my next individual free days. Got to get the honeydo list out of the way before I have fun doing fun modifications- its all about time and priority.

I am also on the fence what wheels I plan to buy for this car- so with that said, if the brakes are not going to show with a wheel choice like a w210 Monobolck then I will probably just leave the stock brakes since they work decent. I really do not drive this car much unless the little lady and I go out to dinner together or such- I am rarely in the car by myself- it has become her daily driver. I am building it more for her with the Brabus bodykit and some nice wheels- but I will put very high end coilovers on it for handling safety and ride comfort, as well as I can set the ride height exactly where I want it prior to installing the wheels and bodykit. So the coilovers are definately going to be ordered once I get the other vehicles out of the way. I can then keep it at current height with the stock wheels and then later lower it to the Brabus kit once I install that and the wheels together. I do not like hammered stock looking cars- they look silly. However, I am not putting the kit and wheels on unleess I can set the ride height at that time to fill the fender gaps and tune/correct supension geometry properly when I do so.

Believe it or not, I am actually now debating doing some Lorinser LM6 fanblade wheels in sliver w/chrome lip with the Brabus kit- I still do not know. I will cross that bridge before summer though definately. I would like to have this car done by then. But like I said, right now it's all about free time- so I will update things when I actually do them. I still jump on here once in a awhile researching and learnig this car- it is new to me- I have no experience buidling anything like it and am learnign what is availiable for it by doing posts lke this- I keep finding more options to aid in my final decissions. When I do it though, it will all be at once and not a drawn out process. When I start something I like to finish it quickly. The interior was a priorty and is finished, I have only had this car about 5 months but immediately cleanedup what was faulty with it so she had a reliable and decent looking car, especially on the inside where a few things were broken and/or worn and damaged.

I am definately going with an inverted shock-why? because I want to retain a good ride ratio and keep the unsprung weight low. I also want a monotube shock but am on the fence if I want to spend the money on 1way or 2way dampers- the race driver in me keeps saying 2way, its just instictive, but I keep thinking its a luxury car and it will never see any track used ever so just do the 1way rebound adjutable units- that is probably what I will do. I also do not weant to have issues of monoball uper mounts knocking on me ove rtime and her complaining about solid shock mount noise, however I am also on the fence about using quality dampers with just a simple ruber bushing mount that will still cause some undampered movement- decisions, decisions.

Next decision is I have been researching goemtry correction options like these offset bushings- They will help with both front and rear wheel/fender clearance when making especially the important front camber corrections whe the car is lowered.
http://www.k-mac.com/pages/newprods/mercedes/mercedes_05.htm.

I lastly have the issue of coilover/wheel clearance on the fronts. I have hasd this issue with a few Gm cars so I know what to anticipate. I first off need to figure out what spring rates I plan to use. Alot of the generic coilover kits use a 16.7kg (935 lb) front spring and ab 11.8kg (661 lb)rear spring for a heavier noses C280. I want to retain lighter weight factory swaybars and not lock up the suspension to retain ride quality, but to aid in cornering I want to use a very high qualty rebound damper with a little higher rate springs on the lighter nose weight C220. I am looking to go 950 lb fronts, and 750lb rears to losen the rear end a little and ge tthe car to rotate going into a corner.....then... if those rates work/ or not, I will order some better high end barrel shape coilsprings in the rates I will decide on after I gather some test drive info on that setup. Barrel springs have more coil wire in the design and have a far better frequency and rate stability than the conventional coilover springs the kit will provide. I just also need to see if a barrel spring will fit up front and not rub the chassis or the wheel/tire assembly.

Still researhing things so when I do put the hooks out I am prepared and educated on what is out there for my best decissions.
When I do things, I do them right- its all about educating myself first and sleeping on that knowledge and choices, not just impulse buying and then later regreting when you find their was a better way.

Dearlove
01-29-2013, 07:56 PM
ah thats cool.

What are your thoughts on the 3 way adj. one's they have? for a car that'd be used on the street and track?

thanks, Trent

Vetruck
01-29-2013, 08:18 PM
THey make some nice stuff. I do not see a need for the 3ways though. I mess with some Penske 4ways once and really did not see a need for it. Back when shocks mainly were built with progressive (linear) valving, 4 way was a nice feature because it would eliminate high piston speed harshness when you valved stiffer for low speed control. The massive high piston speed stiffness would break shock mounts.

Modern Valving enables digressive valving which bleeds off damper stiffness so it does not build up when using stiffer low speed valving, so I really do not see a need for the low piston speed (0-10" per second movement) and high piston speed (1o"-25" per second movement) dampering because the Digressive valving in essence takes care of that very well.

I know how to use them and use them well, whereas most people do not even know how to properly tune 2way shocks- with that said, I would not bother messing with them. Just get 2-way inverted shocks, that is what I am doing and trust me I am a suspension guru. I run 8 shocks on my big pickup truck that I call Vetruck and I revalve those QA1 takeapart shocks myself. I run one linear and one digressive valved shock in each corner of it sionce it is so heavy. I played with the valving for about 6 months uuntil I had them correct . but that vehicle is so specialty with how much it weighs and what it does (it literally is a Corvette killer on autox track- with a 5200 lb curbweight with me in it. I used to valve al the shocks when I was crewcheif for a NASCAR supertruck team also. Why am I listing all this, to give a little background that I am quite qualified on shock use, especially for non symetrical circle track use where it gets very complex. With all that said, I am just buying the 2 ways even if I were to track the car.

ps- Ceika was at the SEMA show in Las Vegas in 2012, so the company really is up and coming.

Dearlove
01-30-2013, 05:58 AM
Not sure if you've looked under the car but I think you're dreaming if you think your going to get inverted shocks in there!

Vetruck
01-31-2013, 07:04 PM
Not sure if you've looked under the car but I think you're dreaming if you think your going to get inverted shocks in there!

Yes I have looked and I do not know what you are talking about. There is plenty of room to mount an upsidedown shock with the top mounts. Matter of fact the shocks I currently have are comventional with a collared upper sleeve (dirt protection of the upper seal) from the factory that is wider than an inverted body shock on both front and rear.

Dearlove
01-31-2013, 07:09 PM
spoke to ceika about this, they said inverted shock was unavailable for our cars

Vetruck
01-31-2013, 08:02 PM
spoke to ceika about this, they said inverted shock was unavailable for our cars

Then I will have to tak to them and give them measurements so they can make them. What they are concerned about without talking to them is how the coilover is going to mount up front. It is alot more room with the inverted shock because the spring on top the conventional design yeilds less room with the upper control arm- yet they can do that and they offer that design. You talked to the wrong person. If I had their machinery, I would just make them myself- I can probably teach them a thing or two- I am just not a machinist

Dearlove
01-31-2013, 08:38 PM
yeah i have no idea who i talked to, guess it was a sales rep... surprising the machinist isn't answering their emails....
so are you going to see if you can go a true coil over up front?

Vetruck
01-31-2013, 10:41 PM
Yes definately. I could probably even piece one together for aftermarket vendors to work using possibly QA1 products or such. I would rather use a company like this that has machined bodys and mounts so I can set the preload. I can not do that unless it is machined for the specific vehicle, otherwise I would just have to go to a conventional coilover threaded body shock. I am experienced in fabrication (cut weld grind etc) so I could alter things if needed like clearancing the upper front control arm a little more as well as strengthening the arms if needed when I ultimately do this. I would rather just buy a very nice kit and bolt it in. I have too many other cars I am always fabricting stuff on so I do not need another garage queen project especially when its the wifey's daily driver. THis car can not be down for a day or two at most, whereas my other toys can be.

Like I said though, I need to finish a timing chain on my Caddy, I just got the brakes on the truck so that is done this week, then I need to do quite a bit of little odds and ends on the new RV for an upcoming trip in April- then I am getting to this car's suspension. I drive it once or twice a week and I hate it- too lofty, its making me seasick...lol

Dearlove
01-31-2013, 11:25 PM
Great, well I'm looking at getting brakes and suspension in a week or two. So if you happen to talk to them about doing a coilover conversion before then that would be great!

Dearlove
02-01-2013, 12:21 AM
Btw the guy I spoke to was the director

anf6789
02-09-2013, 02:20 PM
i see on tirerack.com for the W208 they sell KONI FSD suspension, H&R coilovers, and Bilstein PSS9 Coilovers as well. Now from what ive heard the w208 suspension is pretty much exactly the same as the w202. hmmm? i like the idea of the FSD's or any of the other ones for that matter.

http://www.tirerack.com/suspension/Susptabl.jsp?autoMake=Mercedes-Benz&autoModel=C320&autoYear=2001&autoModClar=

Dearlove
02-09-2013, 11:12 PM
Or you could use one made for our cars...

sure it will probably bolt in (not sure if the rear is the same) but the balance would be all off

Vetruck
02-11-2013, 10:18 AM
BAd news. I have been doing alot of research on this in recent days. It appears we have the same issues as I did on my 87 Camaro with the top shock mounts not being strong enough to hold the vehicles weight. Al of this talk about "coilovers" availiable for these cars are NOT coilovers. I knew this to be true already for the rears (they used adjustable spring pocket inserts/ or better known as insert type weight jacks)- well it turns out all the "coilover kits" for these cars are like that in the fronts also...including KW. They do not sell a coilover for these cars even though they claim is as such. ALl of the springs in these kits remain in the standard spring location with the shock in a separate location. A Coilover is just that= a Coil that is over the shock- fucking marketing idiots in these companies like KW, Ksport, XYZ, etc. I have not seen nor can I find any pictures of anyone putting a coilover on any W202- anyone have pics to prove this otherwise?

What I am currently researching is making a standard Monotube shock that is inverted with a bottomstud mount (on the body) and a top eye mount (on the shaft) that can be run upsdedown. I have contacted a company about building me some- I have sent them the first email just verifying first that their monotube can run upsidedown with their warranty still in place (leakage etc so not to void a lifetime warranty). If so then I will get them the measurements and see what cost would be to build and valve them to my specs for my car.

I am seriously just now looking to go back to what I was originally checking into with adjustable swivel cups- it is alot like what SpeedyBenz did to his, however mine would be welded in, not bolted with delrin snadwiched suspension arm spacers. I still in all honesty need to kepp looking at the car (it is not home right now- wifey has it) to see each new idea. I would really like the ajustable jack bolts to come up through the top 1) for light unsprung weight, and 2) for ease of adjustment. Those "coilover kits" are NOT in any way easy to adjust ride heights. You pretty much have to drop the coilsprings out of the pockets each time you adjust them becuae they are clear up inside the upp sppring can where the factory rubber spring pads go- and they call that adjustment? might as well just used shims if you have to take everything apart each time, I could weld some of those up on various lengths in an hour or so.

and yes the FSD technonlgy is very nice. It is pretty much advanced digressive valving.

Dearlove
02-11-2013, 05:12 PM
yeah man, been through all that myself.

There a few really good examples of what you're talking about on 190rev

Dearlove
02-11-2013, 05:12 PM
yeah man, been through all that myself.

There a few really good examples of what you're talking about on 190rev

Vetruck
02-11-2013, 11:05 PM
Checked a few things tonight, I have some ideas I am going to check more into on the spring perches. I will have to make my own. I would like to make them up top but I am more worried about the control arm pockets and how I need to modify them for smaller diameter flat bottom springs (like used on actuall coilovers) I will probably buy used sets of fronts and rears off ebay (fronts can be found aprox $56 each used, and rears about $39 used). I could then have a set to modify to take the springs I want to use.

The front springs 3" I.D stock (4" aprox O.D.) can probably be cut down since they are so long and have plenty of room without coil bind. Cutting off about 2 coils would give me a decent increased spring rate and still have plenty of wire length no to increase the frequency all that much. I did not cout the winds but it appeard to have at least 8-9 free coils. most Gm cars have 5-6 so an 8-9 free coil spring explains the lofty seasickness these cara have when the OEM dampers fade- If not then springs are cheap ($60 each).

The front spring top perch: I love it. I take a threaded spring plate and cut the diamater down to fit atop the spring perch. A little rolled lip up top needs to be quickly grind off and then weld the plate onto it in a 4" diameter. Then simply cut down a swivel cup diameter and weld a 1" cut piece of 2 3/4 steel tube onto it to seat inside the top of the spring and grind the OEM spring pigtail flat to sit against it- wallah- a top mount adjustable weight jacker setup that is easily usable front under the fenderwell with a rachet and the wheel turned outward. Just need a short jack bolt so as not to go up into the inner fender sheetmetal.

The rears I need to check still if I can go intot eh truck with the jackbolts (I am sure I can, just need to look what might be in the way up inside the spare tire/battery area. if so then I would do pretty much the same thing back there but with aftermaket 2.5" I.D springs. I probably should just do both front and rear both in 2.5" aftermarket springs just to make things uniform. The beauty of this is they are already flat on the ends and I can easily modify some secondary used lower front AND rear control arms with flat spring plates welded to them with again some 1" cut pieces of 2.375" O.D tubing to keep the springs in place.

This would keep the heavy weight of the weightjacker cups, bolts and threaded jack plates off the articulating Ccontrol arms to keep the unsprung weight low. I just need to cut and add a little wieght to the arms with the modified smaller diameter lower spring perches. So far it all looks doable. I have been looking at the K-mac adjustable bshing kits (expensive, but they come with the installation tools in that cost and give good range of camber fix with pulling in the lower arms. I'd rather pull in and use a wheel spacer shim to set the wheel where I need it, as oppsoed to having fender lip clearance issues that are not correctable.

As I am learning this car and what opinions I am having/discovering- I am open to other opinions that anyone ahs to share- you may know things availiable that I do not.

Dearlove
02-12-2013, 05:47 PM
read this, this is exactly what you want to do

http://190rev.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39716&highlight=weight+jackers&page=2

Vetruck
02-12-2013, 08:17 PM
read this, this is exactly what you want to do

http://190rev.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39716&highlight=weight+jackers&page=2

Light emphasis on the word 'exactly' but yes. My execution will be alot more porfessional.

His spring rates are not the same as our cars though. I question his uses of 900/900. That is a pretty stiff rear spring. I was going to use 900 fronts since the so called coilover kits use 935lb16.7kg springs front and 11.8kg/ 661lbs rears. Since I have a lighter nosed 4 banger I will drop the front just a tad to 900 but I want the rears up to 750 so I can get the car to rotate_ I like a slightly loose and very lightweight swaybars. Springs are cheap so I wil experiment with those rate probably first and see what I have.

Dearlove
02-13-2013, 07:09 PM
That was just his prototype