E-Class (W124) 1984-1995: E 260, E 300, E 320, E 420, E 500 (Includes CE, T, TD models)

spring pad discussion (no gay secks talk allowed)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 11-07-2006, 02:36 PM
  #26  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
mgw_300e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dora the Explorer
Originally Posted by mgw_300e
The spring pads are a lot closer to the wheel than the body, so it's not really a 200% difference, but you get the idea.
OK, so I'm wrong - I found a schematic of the front suspension. Measuring it shows that distance A is 52% of distance B.

So, at least for spring pads on the front suspension, you can pretty much assume that a 5mm change in spring pad will amount to approximately (due to possible error inherent to measuring a drawing) a 10mm of change in ride height.

If someone can measure these points on actual suspension parts, we'll get a more accurate number, if anyone cares that much about it.
Attached Images
File Type: bmp
hpsc8.bmp (779.9 KB, 322 views)

Last edited by mgw_300e; 11-07-2006 at 02:54 PM.
Old 11-07-2006, 03:09 PM
  #27  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
mgw_300e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dora the Explorer
The rear suspension has approximately the same proportions, so 5mm change in pad = 10mm +/- in ride height change.
Attached Images
File Type: bmp
hpsc9.bmp (1.11 MB, 265 views)
Old 11-07-2006, 03:16 PM
  #28  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Bigpete123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,325
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
1990 300ce
ha ha, I don't know why I'm so intrigued by this. but yeah, that's the good old pythagorean theorem.
Old 11-07-2006, 03:18 PM
  #29  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
mgw_300e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dora the Explorer
Originally Posted by Bigpete123
ha ha, I don't know why I'm so intrigued by this. but yeah, that's the good old pythagorean theorem.
Yeah, I don't know what it is either. I guess I'm just unleashing my inner math geek.
Old 11-07-2006, 03:26 PM
  #30  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
YNVDIZW124's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Long Beach, Ca
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
lots of cars
Originally Posted by Bigpete123
Whatever, the principles are the same.
No, their not the same because as you can see from these other post if you put the spring pad on the bottom it will raise the car more than if it was on top because mercedes springs are flat on one side and putting in the bottom wich is not the flat part will cause it to be uneven and higher on one side of the spring...
Old 11-07-2006, 03:49 PM
  #31  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
mgw_300e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dora the Explorer
Originally Posted by YNVDIZW124
No, their not the same because as you can see from these other post if you put the spring pad on the bottom it will raise the car more than if it was on top because mercedes springs are flat on one side and putting in the bottom wich is not the flat part will cause it to be uneven and higher on one side of the spring...
Good observation. That's why I made a point of measuring center to center.

This thread rules - it's making everyone geek out!
Old 11-07-2006, 05:37 PM
  #32  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Bigpete123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,325
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
1990 300ce
I'm not telling anybody to install the spring pad on the top or bottom. Obviously if the spring pad was installed in the incorrect place, it would cause the ride hieght to be off since the spring is flat on the top vs. the bottom. I didn't go and look under my car before drawing this out. These aren't installation instructions, we're just trying to figure out the relationship between pad thickness and ride height.

I made a quick drawing to help illustrate this. But I disagree with you. The principle is the same- there is a multiplicative relationship between pad height and ride height. That's the principle, and it's the same regardless of whether the spring pad is on the top or bottom. Sure, if you took the old spring pad off the top and installed the new one on the bottom, it wouldn't drop the car as much as expected because it was installed wrong. But the mathematical principle is the same, assuming the pad is installed properly. jeeze. That will teach me to try and help.
Old 11-07-2006, 05:51 PM
  #33  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
mgw_300e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dora the Explorer
Old 11-08-2006, 03:04 PM
  #34  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
YNVDIZW124's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Long Beach, Ca
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
lots of cars
Dude i just said the spring pad goes on top not on the bottom!

These aren't installation instructions
If a new member looks at this thread they may think the spring pad goes on the bottom so i want to correct that...

there is a multiplicative relationship between pad height and ridsince the way the suspene height
Who is arguing that this is wrong? I think we all know that pad height and ride hight have to do with each other...

let's look at the spring pad sizes
8 +0 = 1 bump
8 + 5 = 13mm = 2 bump (5mm)
8 + 5 + 5 = 18mm = 3 bump (10mm)
8 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 23mm = 4 bump (15mm)

If you keep adding more thickness it will raise more than 5mm to start because of the angle of the lower control arm. It does matter where the spring is centered in the suspension because that would affect the ratio it raises or lowers the suspension from the pivot point.

So i don't see where we have a problem because the answer is YES your right..

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: spring pad discussion (no gay secks talk allowed)



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 PM.