Warracer's mild street project.
- Thread starter warracer
- Start date
underscore
Well-known member
With all the gutting and caging the chassis is going to be fairly different as well, not to mention that just because a stage is tarmac that doesn't mean the car is only touching tarmac :wink:
CMS-GT4":1ddj0wmi said:
They ran 7.64kg/in in the rear.
The 185's you see in this video, are running these exact spring rates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9uvO84RnWI
Actually this is pre super expensive dampers (they starting moving that way with the 205's)
Ok, they were still expensive, but this was before they moved to using soft springs, and having the dampers do all the work.
The strut design doesn't really matter... its still mcpherson strut, so the same spring multipliers, etc still apply.
Their struts were mainly modified for strength.
MWP":1ck844cl said:Domspun":1ck844cl said:
It doesn't mean its right
A lot of those numbers come from marketing, or catering to people that want to run with 0 ride height (=destroys handling).
I recently found out the tarmac WRC TTE 185's ran 8.16kg/mm springs at the front, and they were/are the best street handling 185's on the planet.
Well, if you take the overall length of the spring the guy who initially bought those didn't thought about running 1 inch ride height, I have 6.5inches of clearance. But maybe the rate is too high, honestly im still learning with the car, overall it feels great. But I look forward fine tuning the setup.
CMS-GT4
Active member
Keep in mind that 185 is super strut. I am curious about the spring rates though. I have 7 in the rear already and 10 in the front. I might drop the fronts to 8 and see how that does.
EDIT: I notice people incorrectly converting to lb so it did not match the kg so never mind.
EDIT: I notice people incorrectly converting to lb so it did not match the kg so never mind.
underscore
Well-known member
warracer":32rla6l8 said:
Either way the TTE setup is pretty far off from what we would want on the street.
CMS-GT4":3kr6ya2j said:
They most definitely are not.
Factory 185 is mac, factory 205 is superstrut.
TTE 185 is mac, TTE 205 is mac.
underscore":3kr6ya2j said:
Why? What makes you say that?
Because its too stiff? ... but its softer than you guys run, and is probably more comfortable too.
Because its too low? ... isnt that what most here aim for?
Because it has 100's of hours of development by world class racing drivers & mechanics and handles too well? .... errrrrr.
But anyway... all this is way off topic, this thread is about youre awesome build... back to it.
underscore
Well-known member
Because the TTE setup is for an extensively modified rally car that was then tweaked to work on the street while driven by a rally driver. Their cars are stiffer than ours and the weight balance is going to be different with the supplies they need to carry. They were originally designed for gravel and then changed up to be able to work on tarmac while still retaining some gravel tendencies. And as much as some of us would love to we aren't going to be driving on the street anything like a pro rally driver who is not only used to gravel setups but also pulling big 4 wheel slides and dipping far into the dirt when clipping corners. Even if you matched the TTE build of the car you still don't want their suspension settings because you're not going to be driving it like a rally driver would.
Yeah, i see where you are coming from, but they aren't as different as you may think.
They were lighter, but not by a huge amount.
The chassis were a lot stiffer, but ours are pretty stiff to begin with, and it doesn't affect ideal set up that much.
The roads they rallied on were just public tarmac roads, no different to your everyday roads anywhere else.
Yes, most of us aren't rally drivers, but that doesn't mean the car setup does not apply.
I just think its *very* short sighted to discount tried, tested & world championship winning TTE setup info, and trust Japanese tuning house suspension setups that were most probably created in a excel spreadsheet.
They were lighter, but not by a huge amount.
The chassis were a lot stiffer, but ours are pretty stiff to begin with, and it doesn't affect ideal set up that much.
The roads they rallied on were just public tarmac roads, no different to your everyday roads anywhere else.
Yes, most of us aren't rally drivers, but that doesn't mean the car setup does not apply.
I just think its *very* short sighted to discount tried, tested & world championship winning TTE setup info, and trust Japanese tuning house suspension setups that were most probably created in a excel spreadsheet.
MWP":17lw956r said:
I know we're off topic but I don't really mind since we're debating on an interesting subject, now was the 185 used by TTE Mac or SS??? Because Ive heard both about he same amount of time on this forum, nobody seems to have definite proof on that. :shrug:
Ok 
To clear things up a little.
This is Macpherson Strut...
Its used at the front of factory 165/185, and on the rear of 165/185/205.
(not a diagram of the exact Celica setup, but close enough)
This is Superstrut...
It was only used on the front of the factory 205.
Im 99.999% sure TTE never ran superstrut in 185's.
Every photo & video footage ive seen of TTE 185's shows them having macpherson strut.
TTE converted the front suspensions of its rallying 205's from superstrut to macpherson strut.
Macpherson strut is easier to setup, was well proven, less complicated and more reliable/stronger.
To clear things up a little.
This is Macpherson Strut...
Its used at the front of factory 165/185, and on the rear of 165/185/205.
(not a diagram of the exact Celica setup, but close enough)
This is Superstrut...
It was only used on the front of the factory 205.
Im 99.999% sure TTE never ran superstrut in 185's.
Every photo & video footage ive seen of TTE 185's shows them having macpherson strut.
TTE converted the front suspensions of its rallying 205's from superstrut to macpherson strut.
Macpherson strut is easier to setup, was well proven, less complicated and more reliable/stronger.
underscore
Well-known member
MWP":3iydckqr said:
All true, but whenever I see a rally driver on tarmac they're clipping corners into the dirt and sliding the back end around which we won't be doing. The TTE setup is probably a good starting point for our cars but I have a feeling that due to the differences in chassis setup and the driving style their setup is probably a little softer (at least in the front) than what we would want.
At the end of the day though, the skills (or lack of) possessed by normal people are going to make a much bigger difference in the effectiveness of the car than subtle suspension changes.
CMS-GT4
Active member
There is lots of claims online for ages mentioning a SS setup on the 185, but no images. If I can locate my st185 rally dvd there are pit workers taking bits off the car. I will look at it and take screen grabs and then we can find out once and for all. I would not be surprised if there was at least some instances of it used on a 185 for the very least of developing and testing before 205 production.
Weversport, who sells TTE stuff only carries Mac for all the toyota chassis. Celica-corolla.
I do not think you can fully copy the tte 185's performance with knowing just a few specs. There are a lot of factors involved in the dampeners, corner weights, bump steer etc... Plus I am sure the more advanced awd system the rally car had might have some factors in suspension setup as well. I will experiment though and likely lower my front spring rate being closer to what the rally car lists. From my experience on anything less than a perfect track I am finding the 10kg fronts to cause traction issues on bad pavement.
Weversport, who sells TTE stuff only carries Mac for all the toyota chassis. Celica-corolla.
I do not think you can fully copy the tte 185's performance with knowing just a few specs. There are a lot of factors involved in the dampeners, corner weights, bump steer etc... Plus I am sure the more advanced awd system the rally car had might have some factors in suspension setup as well. I will experiment though and likely lower my front spring rate being closer to what the rally car lists. From my experience on anything less than a perfect track I am finding the 10kg fronts to cause traction issues on bad pavement.
underscore":1d1548j5 said:
Speak for yourself
I was doing exactly this yesterday arvo on some nice semi-abandoned hills roads
I was doing some ECU tuning, and testing my new front strut compression damper settings.
The Koni 8611's are looking very promising with their digressive compression valving. More setup to do though.
underscore":1d1548j5 said:
Quite true, but it really does depend on how you drive the car.
If you like going fast around corners, a bad setup becomes obvious very quickly.
CMS-GT4":1d1548j5 said:
I do actually have a full TTE tarmac car setup sheet (springs, damper, camber, caster, toe, rollbar, arm lengths, etc specs)... and no, im not sharing it (yet).
My front setup now is 475lb/in, Koni 8611-1259, ~5deg of caster (using T3 tops), ~2deg of static camber (crash bolts) and the factory anti-rollbar.
The Koni rebound setting is about 1/3rd, and compression is 9 clicks (out of 12).
I found some very bumpy tarmac corners and loaded up the suspension as much as i could (ECU logged me cornering at about 0.9G).
It handled it quite well considering. I think my springs are a little short (200mm) which means they are at full compression about 10mm too early (bumpstop hadnt fully compressed).
I think with 250mm springs, and and an extra click or two on the compression damping it'll be as good as this setup will get without some serious data analysis.
I am planning to fit linear strut position sensors at some point so i can tune them properly.