To lower or to anti-sway?

[Huw Powell]

Tessie McMillan wrote:
> 
> I was going to take my sluggy little 80Q in to be lowered this week, but a
> friend with an S6 Avant just emailed me: "Audis suffer from poor suspension
> geometry when they're lowered; not enough camber to keep tire wear
> reasonable". He suggested I get a rear anti-sway bar instead.

I dunno about tire wear (yet) but my 90Q is *much* happier down lower on
its H&R's.  Ground clearance is a bit sketchy I suppose, but that's what
the F250 is for anyway.  I've still got some crappy generic 14" all
seasons on it (came with), and they are about all I feel twisting out of
shape on moderately hard cornering now.  used to be the whole car leaned
over.  btw, the H&R's came with Bilsteins on the same wreck, which saved
on shopping trips and decisions.  The car is more "sensitive" to bumps
now, of course...

> better? What about a strut-tower brace? I'm going for cheap here, guys.

The type 8A (do I have that right???) brace fits right on your car, is
cheap, and can't hurt.  Trouble is, I had my brackets welded whiel the
car was inside for the lowering stuff so I don't know which did what. 
But... from how the body felt before I put it on, it wasn't really
needed.  Solid little bullet, the type 89 body is.  There's pix of that
install somewhere on my website.

I haven't touched the alignment yet, either - I don't care yet, I'd just
as soon trash these tires.  My speedlines are at the powder coater and I
have some used Toyo's waiting, that's when the alignment goes in.

-- 
Huw Powell

http://www.humanspeakers.com/audi/

http://www.humanthoughts.org