Bilstiens Hds raised my 200

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Bernie:
If you put in the Bilstein sports (no other changes) the car will be lower,
with a gas pressure shock.  Why?  the shock is shorter.  IN fact, that is the
ONLY difference between the 065 vs 069 HD vs sports.  IME with shocks vs
springs on all audi chassis, if a shock is taller, the car sits higher
(regardless of gas vs non, btdt on my 83 urq).  So, IMO, the combination of
gas and length contribute to the additional ride height.  The 065 is also a
S4 application, not a 200 application, so I'm thinking the lighter weight on
the shock contributes to a higher look.  I just put a set of 065/070 2 days
ago on a 95 S6 (with stock gas shocks) with no difference in ride height.
You can run the sports on a stock suspension, but the ride suffers in the
front (the rears work pretty well, but the front is out of the valving zone -
bad idea).  You can adjust the ride height a bit with the upper spring
bushings (of which there are 3 heights).  The real way to solve the problem
is to have an overall shock length 1/2in shorter on the HD to compensate for
the extra effective spring rate of the gas.  IME with the 5ktq applications,
this was what Bilstein did.  The application for the 200t20v should be the
same as the v8, not the S4/S6.

HTH

SJ
Bilsteins on everything but the bike
'87 t44tqw mit bilsteins and c/o rear
'83 urq mit bilstein
'84 urq mit bilstein
87 4 runner turbo mit bilstein
'85 FJ 1387 mit Ohlin
In a message dated 7/25/02 10:22:03 AM Central Daylight Time,
b.m.benz at prodigy.net writes:


[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
The OEM shocks were not gas pressurized.  The aftermarket Boges are so
pressurized.
You say, "the bilsteins are taller.  Which adds to the static right height."
Only true if bottomed out above the static ride height.  It is only the
addition of the gas spring that adds to static ride height!

Bernie