Koni Reds vs. FSD's

Tin Man · Mar 7, 2007

peter pyce said:
TM, do you remember what was like to drive on the same roads (the dips) when your car was new? How would you describe the difference between new and now?

I don't remember it being this bad. My CDI is heavier and doesn't have this problem, although at 90,000 miles, it seems to feel the smaller bumps more. The Mercedes doesn't have the problem with the long dips.

The reason you feel those so much is manly because our car are designed to bottom-out easily and it gets even easier with "worn" dampers, in which the oil is like water and the whole thing does work as well as when brand new. What really happens is that you are bottoming on the buffers and at that point you have no suspension and basically the car becomes a go-kart and it moves with the tire, and so your head moves with them together and is not nice at all...... Is there anyway you could drive through those things with a soft dirt bike (lots of suspension travel) at the same speed and report back what you feel? Or even better, drive a real dune-buggy, but that is asking too much I guess.

Also, back in the first years, the NB came with stiffer springs. Not by much, but stiffer. Bit if the info I have is correct, they changed them to softer springs around year 2000, so you should have the softer springs.

Our 2004 Beetle has a noticeably softer suspension (as well as much higher recommended pressure in the tires!) and does not seem to have this problem. It only has 16,000 miles on it now. It has sustained a large scratch on the side of the front spoiler, perhaps from bottoming out a bit.

TM

peter pyce · Mar 7, 2007

Varkias said:
I'm wondering what the life span on our OE (A4) dampers is.....

The irony is that the OE dampers are really well made and do use high quality oil, and I have cut several so far, with the oldest sample being 100K Oe damper - and the surprise is that the oil in all of them looked clear, transparent and clean just like brand new oil! All of them!

Then you open the aftermarket "sport" stuff, those that everyone will tell you have the best oil and they are black and watery even after few thousand miles.

Here are picture for you. On the left is oil from an aftermarket damper and I can no longer remember which brand, but it does not matter as what we saw inside is always the same dark "water". On the right is new oil, not the one in the OE dampers, but those in the OE dampers looks just like that (it is just red) and I can't find pictures of it right now.

The other thing is, we dynoed dampers (OE) from brand new to 100K, and there is no difference in performance on the dyno! It is all documented in that big thread. Of course, no one believes, but I trust the data and what I see inside.

It would be an interesting experiment if someone decide to replace ALL bushings and everything related to suspension at 100K, but without replacing the dampers, and see if the "blown" dampers would not suddenly feel good again...

And to answer to the post by "danix" above - the fact that you compress a damper by hand has very little to do with how bad or worn the damper is. All twin tubes with none to little pressure could be compressed by hand. All that says is that the damper has some amount of bleed (designed on purpose) in compression and that the nitrogen inside is at relatively low pressure (if any). You can still make a damper that could not be compressed by simple hand and still get better comfort and smoother ride than OE. Using hand compression is not the best way to judge how worn or strong the damper really is.

NuklearTDI · Mar 7, 2007

peter pyce said:
It would be an interesting experiment if someone decide to replace ALL bushings and everything related to suspension at 100K, but without replacing the dampers, and see if the "blown" dampers would not suddenly feel good again...

Well peter, this is rather interesting to me. My suspension is stock, has 150k on it, so if i can find the money, time, and someone to do the replacing, i might do that. So, that might take months to happen, if it does.
Now, on to another thing I've been thinking of. I am rather curious to see what can be done to improve feel on less than perfect roads. Part of the trip i take 5 days a week to work and school includes a 2 mile stretch of parkway that was built on a marshy area. This part of the parkway has a "ripple" to it, so you are constantly moving up and down, and there are a few big dips to it. Now, I personally don't like bouncing up and down so much, so can anything be done with the suspension to help this?

Varkias · Mar 7, 2007

peter pyce said:
The irony is that the OE dampers are really well made and do use high quality oil, and I have cut several so far, with the oldest sample being 100K Oe damper - and the surprise is that the oil in all of them looked clear, transparent and clean just like brand new oil! All of them!

Well gee, there goes my hope that my ride sucked because of worn dampers! I've only got 82K! And I think less on one front shock, but I'm not sure... I may try your replace everything but option if I find myself with some extra time this spring. I'll let you know if I do!

peter pyce · Mar 7, 2007

danix said:
....My wife's new Mazda5 handles remarkably well, and while I would be tempted to drop in the suspension from the Mazdaspeed3, there is no real need to......

BINGOOOOO! I am so glad your wife drives a Mazda 5 and that you have experience with it AND with your Jetta! This is absolutely great case, because I know the Mazda 5 very well (from suspension point of view) and I am going to write tonight something very related to these two cars and we will all finally get to a consensus here! Great!

truman · Mar 7, 2007

peter pyce said:
BINGOOOOO! I am so glad your wife drives a Mazda 5 and that you have experience with it AND with your Jetta! This is absolutely great case, because I know the Mazda 5 very well (from suspension point of view) and I am going to write tonight something very related to these two cars and we will all finally get to a consensus here! Great!

I have an '03 JW w/ reds, which are a great improvement over the stock setup. However, my wife's 04 Mazda 6 wagon has a much superior suspension in stock mode. The Mazda has a near perfect balance between control and comfort. I cannot imagine what could be done to my Jetta to make it handle as nicely as the Mazda.

majesticj · Mar 7, 2007

I've got 79xxx on my '03 Jetta and my suspension is as it came from the factory save for a set of front sway bar bushings that were replaced 12xxx miles ago. If I wanted to take the stock suspension challenge (replace all the wear items in the suspension but leave the dampers), how could I verify that my stock dampers were in workable condition?

Varkias · Mar 7, 2007

majesticj said:
...how could I verify that my stock dampers were in workable condition?

My take on what Mr. Pyce said was that our stock dampers seem to have a nice long life span, and that at 100K they are still fine and working well. I would guess that it's also possible that if you did all that work, and there was no change, you could then try new OE dampers and see if there is a difference.

I doubt that there is really a way to tell if they are good or not without all the fancy stuff Peter has, or cuting them open. But I'm no expert, just learning along with everyone else here.

arvina · Mar 7, 2007

i know this isnt too relative to the originaly post question, but it seems so now with how the thread has developed.

i keep hearing about changing out our spindles to that of a audi TT to correct the suspention geometry, and allow fo larger brakes (not very interested in the latter).

how does this help?

pdxgrease · Mar 7, 2007

to further that question. What amongst all the possible audi TT suspension components add the most benefit to our cars where they lack something?

peter pyce · Mar 7, 2007

truman said:
I have an '03 JW w/ reds, which are a great improvement over the stock setup. However, my wife's 04 Mazda 6 wagon has a much superior suspension in stock mode. The Mazda has a near perfect balance between control and comfort. I cannot imagine what could be done to my Jetta to make it handle as nicely as the Mazda.

Great! Another Bingo!

And please allow me to continue the bold from you quote and make it more complete:

"I cannot imagine what could be done to my Jetta to make it handle as nicely as the Mazda" ...... and maintain the comfort at the same time!

This is exactly the very bottom line all these threads on vortex and here that have been leading to, at the very end - every car is a very complex system (as far as suspension goes) and the character of the car is decided way before the car is even born as a project! It is not that VW's suck, but Mazda's are great by default just because the M's engineers are better than the VW's engineers. It is just that the two companies have two very different philosophies and are aiming at two very different markets (type of people) and their respective cars reflect that in their stock form. Everybody knows the "Zoom-zoom" thing that had been going around for years now and almost everyone thought it was just another marketing bla bla, but it is not - they decided to make fun cars (to drive) and today every single model of their line, included the space wagon Mazda 5 (the mini-mini van) offers something that an equally priced Volkswagen does not - and that is:

Great Handling Feel with also Great Comfort level!

Something we will NEVER achieve with our cars, no matter what spring or dampers or bars we put. We can tweak and personalize here and there, but the result will never be like what for example Mazda is doing with their line of cars.

And here is the time to say that most probably, when the average thread appears and the poster asks for "How can I improve handling while not sacrificing much comfort" - all and all the poster is looking for is exactly a Mazda experience in his VW. I would invite everyone to go test drive a moder Mazda 3, 6 and even 5 (Not the MX-5, which is the Miata, but the Mazda 5 which is the mini-mini van) and see what I am talking about....

And let's get to the M5 (Mazda 5) now, so for those who have no experience I would like to explain little bit why all this attention suddenly. If we compare that car to let's say a Jetta A4, the M5 is total loser on paper! It weights more than 3400 lb (that's about 400 lb more than a Jetta A4), it is tall, it is big, it has very soft suspension and on top of that it rides on 17" wheels with rather low profile tires (50 series)! All this togethere would make that car pure pig with poor handling and not so good ride quality ...... you would think! ....... In reality, as Danix knows very well, it is exactly the other way around and only ownership of both cars would make you beleive so! The M5 feels like is the ligther car, it feels by far the better "handler", it is so much fun to drive, it has very quick responces, absolutely great change directions characteristics and at the very same time the comfort levels are like nothing that VW offers in the 20K range cars! The only thing that I would add to that car is a Turbo, so it gets some torque and more power up there and it is going to be the must-have-fun-car with great other features. It simply puts a counterpart VW into shame when it comes to the above mentioned balance between "handling" and comfort and fun to drive factor!..... LEt's do not even talk about the Mazda 3 or 6, which are actually cars. There is not even comparison! But the nice part about comparing the "loser" mini mini van to the Jetta is because everyone is convinced that heavy and tall vehicles can not "handle" by default, yet Mazda did the trick and that car is reality and everyone can go try what I am talking about....

Now, the question is HOW did the make it? And that is the point from the begining of this post - it was meant to be this way on paper before even the project began. And so, they made the car with proper geometry, proper bushings, proper everyhitng so even a heavy tall pig can still ride great and be fun to drive for a sporty minded person. And this is why there is very little we can do to our cars to have the cake and eat it too - because it was not meant to be this way and so we can not just bolt on something on a "on-purpose-screwed-project" and fix it for good. It does not work that way.

To really improve our cars in the Mazda way (handle great and comfort/complaince/grip great), we have to start working on a lot more than just the springs and dampers. One of the ways (and this to answer the other post about the Audi TT hardware) is to go precisely the ""TT Way", while keeping the OE springs and midl dampers (just like the TT has it) ...... but then this opens another long line of issues, so well beaten to death in another thread about why is it actually dangerous to go the "TT Way" on our A4 platform. The short answer is - you improve the front, but the rear stays the same and that is not the best move, etc.... It had been discussed in great details by Ceilidh in the "What is Handling?" thread, so let's do not go over it one more time here. That thread is long but is not bad idea for the newer members to go through it and see what was all that about....

Cheers everybody ..... and go testdrive a stock Mazda 5

DbLog · Mar 8, 2007

I've been following this thread and have read many of the other suspension topics. Awesome info and I'm sure along with myself there are many other who appreciate Peter taking his time to answer questions and go beyond just the answers.
The 'what is handling' thread is a great read and will better explain the TT mod and why it works. Well, I do have the TT spindles and agree with Peter, the front is much more capable. I have managed to lose the rear end (ending up sideways) going through a tight chicane at around 35mph. Illustrating the danger with leaving the rear suspension untouched. The root of the problem was going too fast and then relying on my instincts, letting off the go pedal. Weight transfered from the back wheels and out goes the rear end. Trying the same corner again a little slower and staying on the go got me through it relatively quick. This is not an ideal setup for the street, especially the highway. Don't get me wrong I love it!! This car turns and pivots like no other car I have driven (gotta check out some zoom zzoooom) but...I am more carefull, especially when on on/off ramps. Picture going too fast on an onramp such as 696E to 75N. It's a one lane blind corner with a small shoulder and cement walls all around rated for 35mph. Most people take it at 50 or 55 tops. I'm guessing with my setup the Golf could get through it around 80ish but I'd never try. The problem would be unexpecetd debris or slower traffic ahead, out of sight until the last second, people from 696w are merging there too and a traffic backup because of merging traffic would leave little time to react. At 80 letting off the go pedal on that onramp could be a very bad thing. So would staying on it. So I just don't drive like an idiot on public roads.
I've been thinking about upgrading my rear suspension in the next year or so making it more capable like the front is. 140k has taken its toll and its about that time. My number one priority would be traction. This would make the Golf safer and more predictable. I've been contemplating dampers, a mild FSB, larger rear bar. I'll probably stay away from the 'sport' dampers and not go too big on the RSB. If it's done right this will be an extremely capable car in the twisties. Man I want to take that chicane at 35+.

arvina · Mar 8, 2007

any wa to modify the rear with something better?

off an audi per say?

bikeprof · Mar 8, 2007

Arvina: The TT bushings are for the earlier model cars like mine(1996 B4), I think yours will also need this tough.
They changed frame set up in '01-02 models(I think, not exact on dates)
They will help in the firmness of the underbody & suspension.
The longevity of the part is much longer, so less R&R.

1996 B4 Variant, my set up:

Bilsteins HD front and back
(all bumpers, etc. replaced)
Neuspeed Sport springs
Konig Minuz wheels(10.5lbs)
Discount brand 195/65/15's
(they are great for where I live; snow/ice/mud & taller by 1.8", less rpm's)

I may possibly get SHINE rear SWAY bar, that's all I need for suspension 'cause it rolls like a boat

!

peter pyce · Mar 8, 2007

DbLog - thanks for the testimony, land drive that thing safely!

Your experience is in a way similar to what early years TT drives have found (some in a painful way, unfortunately). And as a side note, converting a Golf to a TT (suspension wise) still will make the Golf the more dangerous car to drive as its Center of Gravity is a lot higher than the one of the TT!

Now, let's beat the TT horse one more last time, so to make sure it is ultimately dead and there is no coming back....... here is a copy paste from Winston's great write up from the Handling thread, so the newer member can have a picture of what the "TT Way" is:

(following a copy-paste, author Ceilidh):

At some point (a point that steadily recedes in time, what with all the interesting diversions along the way), Peter and I hope to write up a little guide explaining what different sorts of modifications do to different aspects of handling. That "guide" is still a long ways off, but now that Peter's posted these excellent graphs of the A4 camber change with roll, it seems a good time to (briefly) mention the TT front spindle option.

For those not familiar with this option: there exists a reasonably straightforward OEM (VW) modification that will "cure" the "excessively understeering" camber curve in the A4 Golf/Jetta chassis. This mod basically consists of taking the front spindles off an Audi TT, and installing them in place of the stock Golf/Jetta items. Do that, and you have a slower front camber "degradation" with roll, with much less difference between front & rear camber angles even at extreme roll angles. Since the front camber plays such a major role in producing roll-understeer in our cars (because of the camber-thrust effect discussed in the cut&paste), reducing the front-vs-rear camber difference will significantly reduce the understeer in a hard corner, while still keeping the front tires more or less upright when driving in a straight line (which is good for tire wear, straightline braking, street steering feel, etc., etc.). Moreover, because the spindles are actual VW parts, the conversion can be done fairly neatly, with none of the cursing & filing & fudging that normally comes with installing aftermarket "performance" parts.

Sounds good eh?

Now, the reason we're bringing up this option now (immediately after Peter's posts and cut&pastes) is that it's a great opportunity to try applying some of the concepts posted up over the last two weeks. The TT spindle option (as regular Vortex readers will likely know) is heavily favored by some tuners & autocrossers/track enthusiasts, and indeed Peter and I would never argue that it isn't a plausible mod for racers and the like.......

But --

How will this mod behave on the street?

Let's apply the concepts. If we look at Peter's graphs, we can see that the TT spindle buys you a little less than 1 degree of camber when the car is rolling 5 degrees -- and (not) coincidentally, 1 degree is roughly the front-vs-rear difference in camber gain for the stock chassis at 5 degrees of roll. Thus the TT spindle comes close to wiping out the differential camber gain: when you install it on the Golf/Jetta chassis, you basically make the front and rear wheels behave similarly in a corner.

Now, earlier we talked about how a racecar suspension (one that keeps both front & rear tires essentially upright in a corner) will feel very strange for the normal non-racer driver: if set up to understeer, it will seem to track solidly up to a point, and then suddenly and irretrievably break away at the front; if set up with oversteer, it will feel solid until the moment that it seems to snap into a dramatic and breathtaking spin. (This behaviour arises because (1) in an upright-wheel car, over- or understeer will set in only when g-forces overwhelm the tires; (2) the transition to the tires' non-linear state is very hard for anyone to detect until he/she has spent lots of time lapping a track at high speeds; and (3) once the overloaded tire "lets go", it doesn't respond very well to further driver inputs.)

In the preceding posts, we discussed this "bad" behaviour solely in the context of an upright-tire racecar suspension -- but the behaviour doesn't hinge upon the tires remaining upright. Instead, the "sudden" breakaway is something that occurs when we rely only upon tire characteristics for producing under- or over-steer. Such is certainly the case for an ideal race car suspension in which the tires are kept bolt upright -- but it is also the case for a suspension in which both the front and rear tires are allowed to lean the same amount: basically, if both sets of tires "lose" the same amount due to camber, then the camber is not affecting the handling balance.

Or in other words, the TT-spindle, when mounted on a Golf/Jetta, makes the car behave in a way reminiscent of an upright-tire racing suspension.

This is great on the track. It is great on an autocross circuit. It is even great for a very attentive, trained driver on the street, or perhaps for a slightly less attentive, less trained driver who never approaches the limits of his suspension. But what will it do for a "normal" driver (or a fatigued highly-skilled driver) at the limit? Well, if the grip is lost via understeer, the car will plow straight off the road, with the steering wheel rather useless. If it's lost via oversteer, it will be the sort of oversteer that most non-race drivers have never experienced: if the driver tries to slow down, via braking or even via reducing engine power, the car will not stabilize (the way that the stock Golf/Jetta is designed to stabilize), but will instead snap spin (this because any attempt to slow down will transfer more weight to the front tires, giving them more traction, while further unweighting and reducing the traction in the rears). Indeed the only way to stop a spin once oversteer sets in (with a FWD car on such a suspension) is to apply more power -- not something that comes naturally to anyone(!).

It's for the above reason that yours truly (Ceilidh) has no intention of ever trying a Golf/Jetta with a TT suspension: I'm sure the car will feel absolutely marvelous up to the moment that the tires let go, and I'm equally sure that (my racecar days being many years ago) my current skills and reflexes will not suffice to catch the slide or spin. On a racetrack my incompetence will be embarrassing; and on the road, well, I don't like hitting things.

Final Point:
Regular Vortex readers might recall a sort of TT-spindle forum war about two years ago: basically, there were respected individuals who had worked out how to perform the conversion, who had tried the mod and loved it, and who were urging others to try it; on the other side of the fence was/is yours truly, who feels that this is essentially a dangerous mod that should not be sold for street use. The war came out as a sort of draw (nobody changed their positions), and you, dear TDIclub reader should form your own opinions (should you ever contemplate this mod for yourself), but I'll leave you with an historical tidbit, coupled with a bit more theory:

1) VW owns Audi, and is entirely aware of what the TT spindle will do for the A4 chassis (they have to be aware -- they're the ones who designed and built the spindle!). And yet they have chosen not to mount it on the ordinary Golf/Jetta -- presumably there's a reason.

2) Besides shifting the Golf/Jetta towards an upright-tire suspension feel, the TT spindle conversion will reduce the Golf/Jetta's inherent understeer -- particularly at high cornering loads. Thus in contrast to the stock suspension, which badly wants to understeer when cornered hard on dry pavement, a TT-modded car will be much more easily prodded into oversteer, should the driver do something wrong....

3) The classic oversteer-promoter on dry pavement is a driver who, upon realizing he's come into a fast corner with too much speed, attempts to slow down by easing off the power. When he does so, the forward weight transfer (from decelerating) reduces the rear grip, causing oversteer. The amount of weight transfer (and hence the violence of the oversteer) depends partly upon the severity of the deceleration, and partly upon the car's CG (center of gravity) height: the higher the CG, the more violent the weight transfer, and the more sudden / stronger the transition towards oversteer. Because the CG in a Golf/Jetta is higher than the CG in an Audi TT, the "lift-throttle-oversteer" in a TT-modded Golf/Jetta will hence be stronger and more sudden than it would be in a comparable Audi TT....

4) When the Audi TT was first introduced, journalists and reviewers praised the sharpness of its handling. But then TTs began crashing, with a lengthy spate of accidents (with injuries and deaths) all stemming from sudden oversteer and spins, particularly in Germany, among drivers who were not trained racecar drivers, but who were instead individuals who had learned to drive fast on street-tuned cars (i.e., cars with progressive and stabilizing understeer). Within the year, Audi recalled the cars, enacted a comprehensive suite of suspension modifications, and installed electronic stability control. The public explanation for the oversteer was aerodynamic instability (which probably played a factor), which was "cured" by a retrofitted rear spoilier --- and yet, all subsequent tests of the TT showed the car to have lost its handling sharpness at all speeds: the car simply understeered more, had slower responses, and was much harder to steer on the throttle.

So in putting pieces together: if someone looks at Peter's graph and tells you "Obviously you'll want to fit TT spindles to your A4 Golf/Jetta, as those spindles will cure your understeer and make your car handle like a dream!", consider the above: VW itself is unwilling to fit this modification, one that will dramatically reduce the car's stabilizing understeer at all speeds -- but particularly at the highest speeds and cornering loads. The modification will likely give the Golf/Jetta a more violent and more sudden transition to oversteer than is felt by the Audi TT -- and the Audi TT itself, when first given these spindles, had an oversteer transition too violent for German drivers, and presumably too sudden even now (after a host of chassis mods) for the car to be sold in the U.S. without electronic stability control.

Varkias · Mar 8, 2007

peter pyce said:
...too violent for German drivers...

I think when the folks across the pond who have to spend a LOT more time learning to drive, don't have speed limits, and in general drive some crazy fast cars start crashing something, you gotta think pretty hard before you do it here.

Maybe a warning lable: "I'm crazy, don't drive my car unless you want to die".

GoFaster · Mar 8, 2007

I have to add something to Peter's post above.

I don't necessarily agree that either Mazda's engineers or VW's engineers are "better" than the other, it has more to do with selecting a different set of compromises. The engineers work within parameters that are often set by others, engineering is always this way.

There IS a way to get a VW chassis that is inherently better engineered ... it's called the Jetta Mk5. The multi-link rear suspension and different geometry of the front suspension address *so* many deficiencies that the Mk4 had. Mazda has been using some variation of multi-link rear suspension for many years; the Mazda 3 based vehicles (including Mazda 5) all use it.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that a multilink rear suspension is inherently better. There are a good many vehicles out there which have a multilink rear suspension, but which are completely unremarkable because of the tuning ... For example, the Chevrolet Equinox (unremarkable) has a multilink rear suspension that looks like a copy of the Jetta Mk5's (good), and that in turn looks like a copy of the Mk1 Ford Focus (also well regarded).

And this brings up another point. Somewhere in the big damper thread on VWvortex, was a discussion about a Renault Laguna that Peter had an opportunity to drive. He was surprised to find a twist-beam rear axle under the car. Different shock valving has an *enormous* effect on the way the car behaves. A lot of the "performance" shocks that people buy seem to deliberately have stiffer valving in them (rightly or wrongly) because that way people will "feel" the difference and think that they "improved" something.

This is not a simple matter by any stretch ... Read Peter's damper thread on VWvortex for more.

TornadoRed · Mar 8, 2007

I just want to mention that Peter and Ceilidh have saved me at least several hundred dollars... money that I might have spent on after-market suspension mods, but didn't. Instead I've learned to be content with what I have, which is stock except for Koni Reds.

arvina · Mar 8, 2007

i would love to read much deeper into that thread, but i really dont understand the graphs.
i know what they are saying, but i dont know how it pertains...

Losha · Apr 3, 2007

I have 2001 VW Golf TDi with 138800 miles on stock suspension. I would like to share some experiences with my stock suspension. My suspension right now is very loose a lot of body roll and I would say more of oversteer then understeer. The reason is when I take corner fast first my car understeer then after it leans all the way is starts to loose rear end and spin around. I have read threads about "what is a handaling" and this thread and many other threads. I total agree with Peter Pyce what he is saying about pros and coms.

Last summer I was in Sedalia, MO driving in my TDI thru narrow hilly twisty roads. Taking 40-50mph turns at 90-95 mph with stock suspension and 205/60/15 BFGoodrich Traction T/A H tires. I know it wasn't good idea to go that fast in turns, but I wanted to see how my stock suspension would handle. I was actually supprised by the way they performed. Of course on one of the turns I lost a control and fishtailed. The turn was 35mph and I was doing 95mph before the turn, so I started to slow down and entered turn braking. All of the weight shifted to front, and increased traction on the front and loosing rear traction. Car started to slide from one side for road to other, I caught little bet of shoulder with rear tires but managed to get car straight out. My car lost control at 75mph and when I managed to get car under control speedometer was reading 55mph. My friend was driving behind me and he saw everything, he said it was very scary.

I know a lot of you will say that I am crazy driver. Yes, I am probably I like to drive aggrasively taking car to its limits. One thing I have learned that loosing control of your car (in safe places) sametime keeping under control your car builds your driving skills. This way you will learn limits of your car and what is capable of.

I have been debating for last couple weeks if should I try to replace all of bushings hardware and see how handaling will change or replace dampers go with Koni Reds. Don't have $$$ right now to buy Koni Reds seems like spend $123 for suspension rebuilt kit would be cheaper but don't know the positive results would be achieved from that.

vwdsmguy · Nov 3, 2017

Koni Reds

I replaced the stock GTI struts [one rusted thru] with reds. They are very stiff on sharp bumps with summer tires. The are much stiffer than my TDI FSD struts. Even a year has not softened them much. Never again - these reds.

IndigoBlueWagon · Nov 3, 2017

vwdsmguy said:
I replaced the stock GTI struts [one rusted thru] with reds. They are very stiff on sharp bumps with summer tires. The are much stiffer than my TDI FSD struts. Even a year has not softened them much. Never again - these reds.

This just sounds wrong. I've switched between FSDs and Reds on my wagon twice and, if anything, the ride is softer with the Reds. I think perhaps someone turned yours up to full stiff before install. They're supposed to be installed as they come out of the box and turned up as they wear.

Rrusse11 · Nov 3, 2017

New to this thread, very interesting. I've had both, a MkVI with FSDs, and now a MkIV with Reds and HD springs (VR6 front, Golf Towing rear). The suspension on the MkVI was very nice, the FSDs were a nice match for an otherwise stock setup. Firm enough under aggressive cornering, comfortable over the bumps.

I'm finding the MkIV however is quite a different animal, and after a year of development and mods, see my sig, is also a very nice handling car. No rear bar, but I did upgrade the front recently with a VR6 bar, 24mm vs 21, it also has a bend in the middle vs stock is straight. Note the wheel spacers, 215 wide tires and on installation, I dialed up the rear shocks 25%, (thanks for the instructions Peter!). So I have an offset track, part of the reason I went with the spacers incidentally was that the offset on my "new" wheels, IIRC was about 5mm more than stock VW.

So a stiffer wider rear track than "normal". Front is quite a bit stiffer, and my latest addition is a top strut tie bar, and a rear internal cabin brace, noticeably stiffening the body. Stock bushings by the way in pretty good shape.

I'm no race driver, though I've driven for a livin'. Driving cab at night (no traffic), there was a constant incentive to get around as quick as you can, with the caveat of no tickets, no accidents, and don't frighten the customers. 10-12 hours behind the wheel driving as fast as you can safely, teaches one about personal limits.

My current Golf is quick, quicker when I get my hands on a tuner that'll work with me. I'm very happy with the way the car is handling now, it's been a long work in progress figuring out what
it needed. My rear suspension is plenty stiff without the "usual recommendation" of a rear bar. The front is keeping the body roll down, and is, after the recent additions, a LOT quicker and surer through hard turns and sweeping bends. Still a comfortable ride,
the Reds are just enough firmer for aggressive handling, soft enough for long term highway cruising.

I'm interested to read about keeping the power on in the corners, this was the old rear engine VW trick. Back off and the rear wheels tucked in, flooring it kept them on the ground. I've found the same with the FWD Golf, I suspect my LSD contributes to the effect of pulling you through the corner, counterintuitive for most drivers.

While not as refined as the independent rear suspension, the MkIV offers a lot of variables to play with for less money. I still have a touch of understeer, which is just fine, it keeps it predictable. No regrets about going for the MkIV ALH platform over the MkVI with the common rail and more high tech suspension.

My $.02,
R*2

OlyTDI · Nov 3, 2017

Have never owned the Reds but have FSDs on my 04 with a lift (see sig).

All that I can offer is that the ride is spot on...quiet...smooth...firm...perfect. Daily driver -- very happy with them.

Rrusse11 · Nov 4, 2017

10 year old thread, read it all now, still lots of relevant information.
The dynamics of suspension haven't changed, and the venerable MkIV
can be quite remarkably improved. Race cars they are not, but a lot of
fun to drive, especially if you get the power up. I'm very happy with the little wagon that is my Golf. And you'd be hard pressed to find
anything else that delivers the reliability, longevity, and economy
of our little diesels. {)

vwdsmguy · Nov 5, 2017

Stiff reds

Indigo Blue Wagon said my reds could be set on a stiff setting. I thought they were not adjustible in damping. If they are -how to do it? Anyone.

IndigoBlueWagon · Nov 5, 2017

They're only adjustable outside the car. If you installed them as they came out of the box then they're on the softest setting. They're adjusted by depressing the strut (or shock) piston fully and engaging an adjustment cam in the bottom of the damper. They adjust rebound damping only, not compression, which is typical. But turned up they'll make the ride pretty harsh.

Rrusse11 · Nov 5, 2017

vwdsmguy said:
Indigo Blue Wagon said my reds could be set on a stiff setting. I thought they were not adjustible in damping. If they are -how to do it? Anyone.

IIRC the shaft of the shock/strut is rotated, this most easily done when off the car, or it must be disconnected at the top mount. You should have 2 full turns of adjustment. Again from memory a year ago, the rear was counterclockwise to increase damping, the front the opposite.

I increased my rear shock by 25%, I went with the Idparts "HD" kit.
VR6 struts on the front, which I left at the minimum, and the Jetta Wagon shocks on the rear. VR6 springs on the front, Golf "Towing"
springs on the rear. With 10mm spacers on the front, I lifted the car maybe an inch, with the heavier rear springs and longer rear shock, the car ended up nice and level with a little more clearance.

Very happy with the result, comfortable ride yet stiff enough for pushing through the bends. The recent addition of a 23mm front
VR6 sway bar and a top strut tie bar has really changed the front end for the better, lot less body lean. The internal C pillar body brace has also helped body flex. Worthwhile additions IMO for not much money, ~$100 on Ebay.

Your Mileage WILL Vary

Ps. Double posting,,,,, I forgot about the "with the piston fully depressed", you must be engaging a threaded plug which shortens, or lengthens, the working volume of the tube, ie. hydraulic dampening effect.

Przemix · Mar 7, 2018

2006 GOLF TDI MK4 reds or FSD ?

peter pyce said:
FSD

There are tow separate discussions on the this damper:

1. The principle - On paper, it is novel idea, something that brings the "Wow, why didn't I think about that!?". They like to talk about frequency (which in reality is true, they are frequency selective) but that whole definition kind of makes everything sound so complex and so out of this world. Yet, it is quite simple. It has an additional chamber mounted under the piston and with some washer and holes management, it provides "delay" for the pressure building in rebound. So, what really happens is if the strokes are short (like going over a series of small bumps, with very low amplitude), the damper has this almost free flow of oil into the empty chamber, therefore the damper has very little rebound damping. That gives a very, very nice ride, because the spring is left to extend as fast as it wants/needs and the chassis does not follow those ups and downs like when we have strong rebound dampers..... That is what they call "at high frequency". Then, at low frequency (which basically means long stroke, long extension of the damper) like for example when you turn and the car rolls all the way on the outer bump stops, that same chamber (which is pretty small) get filled up rather quickly and suddenly the almost-free-flow-of-oil is stopped and now the oil goes only through the main rebound valving, so the damper gets very high level of rebound damping.

This was in theory - great theory! Everybody was screaming - wow, the most amazing damper, there is no more compromise between handling and comfort, wow! But then we come to the:

2. Real life application - this is when you get a set and open them, see what hey are made, put them on a dyno and then put them on the car. Then there are so many questions and no one (from Koni) gives you an answer. Like for example why are the fronts Twin-Tube design and the rears Mono-Tube design? (which by the way IS the reason some of you had to go with the 10 mm spacer in front to level the car, because the rear gets a lot taller than the front with these dampers - at least on A4 it was the case). Basically the rears have high pressure nitrogen (de carbon - mono tube design) that even when static, provides about 40-50 lb "push" in extension, so in reality what happens your car sits like you have removed 100 lb from the rear - it sits taller. The fronts are pretty standard twin-tube Koni design, the same Yellow or Red body, same internals, just with the added chamber and related features.

Not only that, but the damping values (curves) from front and rear are very different. In the fronts, there is delay in building pressure and there is also reduction in pressure (rebound pressure) with higher frequency! In the rear, thought, there is NO delay in pressure (rebound pressure), just reduction in pressure with higher frequency. We could sit here all day and speculate why they did it, but the fact is it does not work so well. On may car (Jetta A4) I never liked the ride on the rear. It was like a pretty severe mismatch. Yes, the high compression in rear and initial lack of rebound on the front made for a nice "handler", but the ride was never nice enough and all that came from the rear. The main issue here perhaps is that all these dampers come in the "one-fit-all" form, so they are probably set to pass some test with a car that has max load, which translates in requirement for a very stiff rear damper, and which configuration we almost never drive (I can't remember when was the last time I even put people in the rear seats) and so the daily commute with one or two people in the front becomes uncomfortable experience. They also could have rushed the whole production (as it came out pretty fast after the announcement) and did not really spend enough time to tune (especially the rears) then to suit the main goals on this specific platform. There are so many questions, but the answers from Koni are so few..... There is something else as well (which I personally dislike) - the fronts have incredibly low compression force and combined with the stock springs, the car bottoms even easier than with the OE dampers. And the kick is that they can not simply "up" the compression because with the lack of rebound (the delay) in high frequencies - the car will jack up dynamically, so they have to keep the compression low and that results in easy bottoming and never liked it.

There are few dyno plots I have as well, if someone is interested, but the bottom line is - the real thing is not as impressive as on paper. Yes, it gives little bit different dynamics to the car (for the mentioned above reasons), but it is far from "wow"... At the same time it kind of fails the "best comfort" line (at least for me - but then again, I drive on roads that are bad). So, I would call it "a compromise", but not "best of both worlds" like the marketers call it. If it was really the "wow, omg" that solves all the issues - trust me, it would not be only 200$ more per set!

And beside all this - the big mantra was that Lamborghini got the FSD as OE damper on the Gallardo and at that point everyone was "wow, this must be the ish" and Koni made sure everyone knows about it ..... But later on Lamborghini decided to get Bilsteins for the Spyder, and guess what the official line was? - "To smoothen the ride some"! ...... Which is kind of funny, when someone goes Bilsteins to smoothen the ride - imagine what the ride was before.

WOW! What an amazing and knowledgeable thread.
Please excuse my language or mistakes because English is my second language and im still learning and im also a newbie for the shocks and springs, I have not much experiance with it. I only used AGX struts and then TEIN coilovers 36 ways adjustable on my MR2 TURBO JDM
I also have 2006 GOLF TDI MKIV for everyday driving .

But first things first! I hope Mr Peter is still alive and well so here is the message for YOU!!!

Mr Peter.... You sound so knowledgeable and a man that seek the truth and best thing is that you are not afraid to share it with the world ! With all my heart I am sending You BIG THANKS!!! Please God bring us more smart people like that to the world so we can change it for better and not be cheated by huge companies that has money and power and take advantage from us poor humble customers !!!!

1) So..... does anyone know if they came up with new technology for FSD?.. those twin tubes or something for the rear shocks? or we still are forced to use "repainted technology" from 40 years ago ??

2) what would be the best setup for my VW GOLF 2006 mk4?
, I don't care much about handling or sporty ride because I drive slow and each time i try to beat the record on my MPG

every time I tank its 500 or more miles

Im leaning towards Koni reds with GLS springs. I heard people have been happy with that setup. MY springs started to crack a lot and I have to replace them . FSD i like them too, I wish to test that technology on small bumps and stuff, since people say they are even better than KONI reds" but I care about softness and comfort of ride so I guess KONI reds are my best option ?
What you guys think I should go with ?

3)does GLS spring will lift my car? can I fit them in perfectly from any year of GLS GOLF? or it has to be also 2006 GLS Golf ?

4) should I stay with stock ones since they are softer than GLS?( I just care about comfort all day way, I don't have money for Cadillac or Mercedes so Im stuck with my TDI and I would like it nice and Cadi smooth when I go thru railroad tracks

I would like to lift front a bit because the speed bumps are horrible in Chicago or steep driveways to the bank . I do have my aluminum plate on .
my car has 170 K

Thanks for reading and answering any questions or any input, thanks guys. Have a great day today!

IndigoBlueWagon · Mar 7, 2018

Although they are close, Koni Reds are going to ride slightly better than FSDs. Technology in the Reds (twin tube hydraulic) is older than the FSD technology, for what that's worth. I still like Reds a lot.

Regarding springs, your best bet is probably to stick with the springs that came in the car. Match the paint codes to be sure. If you want a bit more height in front you can use a 12mm spacer (OE VW part) in front to raise it a bit.

Koni Reds vs. FSD's

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Moderator at Large

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/

Veteran Member

Active member

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/