When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
A bit of advice for those doing the coilover installation themselves, there is actually not a need to remove all of the rear carpeting, which is a bit of a bear of a job. You can simply remove the retractable cover. Just remove the two torx bolts which secure the hinge and the two outer push pins beneath the lower edge of the window and the whole unit can be removed. Once the cover is out of place the left and right carpet can be peeled back exposing the electrical connector and two upper bolts securing the top of the strut. This can all be accomplished in about 15 minutes and you'll avoid the headache of removing all the carpeting. Wish someone had mentioned this before I removed.all the carpeting. I then used a one inch hole saw to cut holes in the carpet to provide easy access to the dampening dial atop the coilovers. I purchased 2 one inch diameter plastic caps to cover the holes and it looks factory.
Hopefully this helps others avoid the headache of full carpet removal.
A bit of advice for those doing the coilover installation themselves, there is actually not a need to remove all of the rear carpeting, which is a bit of a bear of a job. You can simply remove the retractable cover. Just remove the two torx bolts which secure the hinge and the two outer push pins beneath the lower edge of the window and the whole unit can be removed. Once the cover is out of place the left and right carpet can be peeled back exposing the electrical connector and two upper bolts securing the top of the strut. This can all be accomplished in about 15 minutes and you'll avoid the headache of removing all the carpeting. Wish someone had mentioned this before I removed.all the carpeting. I then used a one inch hole saw to cut holes in the carpet to provide easy access to the dampening dial atop the coilovers. I purchased 2 one inch diameter plastic caps to cover the holes and it looks factory.
Hopefully this helps others avoid the headache of full carpet removal.
I made a much larger hole. There's no way I could get my fingers in a one inch diameter. It's about 2.5 inches.
I am interested to hear about BC Coilovers and the comparison between them and Neomax Silvers.
If possible I want to stick with an adjustable camber top hat on the front pair weather it’s Neomax or BC due to our car being lowered in ride height
Thanks
I am interested to hear about BC Coilovers and the comparison between them and Neomax Silvers.
If possible I want to stick with an adjustable camber top hat on the front pair weather it’s Neomax or BC due to our car being lowered in ride height
Thanks
Hary, all of the coilovers connect the same way. The Neomax gives you the optimal spring rate. Without the optimal spring rate, you lose adjustability since you have to overcompensate for lower springrates. With the BC you really only end up with about 6 rates of actual adjustability since you have to firm up to a degree to compensate for the lower actual springrate. The Neomax gives you more actual adjustability since the spring is already at the proper rate for our vehicles weight and geometry. Between those two, the Neomax is at a superior starting point. As are the Emotion and Gecko. The BC is basically the same strut with a less optimal spring. If you plan to adjust between comfort and performance then I'd choose between the Neomax, Emotion and Gecko. If you plan to set once and never adjust, then it really doesn't matter. You can just adjust the BC to your preference and be done with it. With the proper springrates you have options for preferred drivability based on intended use. Between the two, I'd choose the Neomax just to retain the option.
All of the choices offer choice in ride height. The Neomax, Emotion, & Gecko offer greater choice in firmness when compared to the BC & Ceikas. For that reason, the BC & Ceikas would be my last 2 choices due to their lower springrates.
The original ABC Struts offer no camber adjustability. As the ball joints wear, camber wanes and we all experience wear on the inner tire edge. Being able to adjust camber helps over time, but you generally don't realize the ball joints are worn until you see that tire wear at about the 50,000 mile mark on average. That is about the max of tires on our cars in the best case scenario. If you want to be safest, then just plan on changing ball joints at every tire change to max out tire mileage. Versus ABC, changing ball joints with coilovers simple means replacing the lower portion of the coilover which contains the ball joint. ( The portion which simply screws on the end). Those are all the same and can be interchanged between makes of coilovers since they all use pretty much the same manufacturer in Taiwan (ie, you can screw a BC lower half onto a Neomax for example). Those lower half's with ball new ball joints retail for about $50 on average. In an extreme sense, replace those lower half's with every tire change for peace of mind and you should never have to worry about wear on the inner tire edge. When camber adjustability is seen in that light it really becomes a moot point since most never realize a car is out of camber UNTIL the see that inner tire wear, which necessitates new tires anyway.
Last edited by Aussiesuede; 04-21-2023 at 01:30 AM.
As an addendum for the necessity of sway bars. Our cars have a. Naturally low center of gravity by design. We basically sit between 2 frame rails with our butts planted just ahead of the rear wheels. With such a low natural center of gravity, our vehicles don't have a natural tendency for sway when compared to the majority of other vehicles. We are closer to a gocart in that regard and is why we are able to get away with not using sway bars. Due to our vehicles inherent geometry, a strut brace between the two front struts pretty much accompliches the same effect of firming up sway as would sway bars on a higher center of gravity vehicle. In truth, if you aren't tracking the car, the difference is negligible.
Last edited by Aussiesuede; 04-21-2023 at 01:49 AM.
I am interested to hear about BC Coilovers and the comparison between them and Neomax Silvers.
If possible I want to stick with an adjustable camber top hat on the front pair weather it’s Neomax or BC due to our car being lowered in ride height
Thanks
There's no use in having an adjustable camber top on coilovers for an R230. These cars have upper and lower A-arms.
Adjustable camber tops are for cars with Macpherson strut suspensions, not for upper/lower A-arm suspensions.
Moving the top of the coilover in or out will only change the angle of the coilover itself, not the angle of the steering knuckle/wheel/tire.
You can get offset bolts for the lower A-arm bushings that will enable +/- a half degree or so of camber adjustment.
Hary, all of the coilovers connect the same way. The Neomax gives you the optimal spring rate. Without the optimal spring rate, you lose adjustability since you have to overcompensate for lower springrates. With the BC you really only end up with about 6 rates of actual adjustability since you have to firm up to a degree to compensate for the lower actual springrate. The Neomax gives you more actual adjustability since the spring is already at the proper rate for our vehicles weight and geometry. Between those two, the Neomax is at a superior starting point. As are the Emotion and Gecko. The BC is basically the same strut with a less optimal spring. If you plan to adjust between comfort and performance then I'd choose between the Neomax, Emotion and Gecko. If you plan to set once and never adjust, then it really doesn't matter. You can just adjust the BC to your preference and be done with it. With the proper springrates you have options for preferred drivability based on intended use. Between the two, I'd choose the Neomax just to retain the option.
All of the choices offer choice in ride height. The Neomax, Emotion, & Gecko offer greater choice in firmness when compared to the BC & Ceikas. For that reason, the BC & Ceikas would be my last 2 choices due to their lower springrates.
The original ABC Struts offer no camber adjustability. As the ball joints wear, camber wanes and we all experience wear on the inner tire edge. Being able to adjust camber helps over time, but you generally don't realize the ball joints are worn until you see that tire wear at about the 50,000 mile mark on average. That is about the max of tires on our cars in the best case scenario. If you want to be safest, then just plan on changing ball joints at every tire change to max out tire mileage. Versus ABC, changing ball joints with coilovers simple means replacing the lower portion of the coilover which contains the ball joint. ( The portion which simply screws on the end). Those are all the same and can be interchanged between makes of coilovers since they all use pretty much the same manufacturer in Taiwan (ie, you can screw a BC lower half onto a Neomax for example). Those lower half's with ball new ball joints retail for about $50 on average. In an extreme sense, replace those lower half's with every tire change for peace of mind and you should never have to worry about wear on the inner tire edge. When camber adjustability is seen in that light it really becomes a moot point since most never realize a car is out of camber UNTIL the see that inner tire wear, which necessitates new tires anyway.
The coilover/ABC strut ball joint has no effect on camber (no effect on alignment whatsoever).
Strut brace performing the same function as sway bars? Please explain
Apologies. The strut brace is not performing the "same function" as sway bars. The point was that our vehicles inherent low center of gravity doesn't require the same level of need for sway bars as a vehicle with a higher inherent center of gravity would. Our vehicles don't have a natural tendency for excessive roll when entering a turn. Strut tower bars simply enhance that natural characteristic of our low roll tendency platforms, but to a rather negligible degree. The inherent low center of gravity is the primary reason we are able to get away with not needing sway bars. If measured against one another the ratio of stability offered by the strut brace vs the inherent low center of gravity on platform stability when cornering would be about 98% low center of gravity vs 2 % strut tower brace, hence strut tower brace imrovemwnt being negligible. In making a similar comparison with inherent low center of gravity vs the presence of sway bars on our vehicles stability when cornering, I'd offer the stability enhancement to be about 95% inherent low center of gravity to 5% sway bars.
Both sway bars and strut braces offer negligible enhancement of how our cars react when cornering. The overwhelming characteristic is our vehicles inherent low center of gravity, hence why we are able to get away with lack of sway bars just fine whether running ABC or coilovers. A 1990's designed computer system wasn't so amazing that it alone could overcome the basic laws of physics. The design engineers knew this and designed a system as an enhancement to a low inherent center of gravity, not as an effort to defeat an inherent high center of gravity.
Last edited by Aussiesuede; 04-21-2023 at 03:04 PM.
As an addendum for the necessity of sway bars. Our cars have a. Naturally low center of gravity by design. We basically sit between 2 frame rails with our butts planted just ahead of the rear wheels. With such a low natural center of gravity, our vehicles don't have a natural tendency for sway when compared to the majority of other vehicles. We are closer to a gocart in that regard and is why we are able to get away with not using sway bars. Due to our vehicles inherent geometry, a strut brace between the two front struts pretty much accompliches the same effect of firming up sway as would sway bars on a higher center of gravity vehicle. In truth, if you aren't tracking the car, the difference is negligible.
True, a lot of people won't notice a lack of sway control in most driving situations.
An example of when you will notice it - when you're driving through a curve with some speed, like an interchange ramp between highways. The weight of the car is transferred to the outer wheels, compressing the suspension; then there's a bump along the way. The outer wheel suspension is already compressed, so you only have a small amount of travel available before the suspension bottoms out. In this situation, you can break traction very easily and unexpectedly.
Also - without sway bars, you'll likely dial the adjustable damping on your coilovers up a few notches to have a bit more sway control over momentary side-to-side motions. With sway bars, you can run less damping and still have control over those motions, so you can have a more comfortable ride without that "wallowing/floaty" feeling.
I wouldn't say sway bars are an absolute necessity for these cars - as said, these cars do have a very low center of gravity, so there's less need than a typical passenger car or SUV. But IMO the car will be much better with them, and I'd rather not find myself in an emergency maneuver, avoiding a crash, without them.
Apologies. The strut brace is not performing the "same function" as sway bars. The point was that our vehicles inherent low center of gravity doesn't require the same level of need for sway bars as a vehicle with a higher inherent center of gravity would. Our vehicles don't have a natural tendency for excessive roll when entering a turn. Strut tower bars simply enhance that natural characteristic of our low roll tendency platforms, but to a rather negligible degree. The inherent low center of gravity is the primary reason we are able to get away with not needing sway bars. If measured against one another the ratio of stability offered by the strut brace vs the inherent low center of gravity on platform stability when cornering would be about 98% low center of gravity vs 2 % strut tower brace, hence strut tower brace imrovemwnt being negligible. In making a similar comparison with inherent low center of gravity vs the presence of sway bars on our vehicles stability when cornering, I'd offer the stability enhancement to be about 95% inherent low center of gravity to 5% sway bars.
Both sway bars and strut braces offer negligible enhancement of how our cars react when cornering. The overwhelming characteristic is our vehicles inherent low center of gravity, hence why we are able to get away with lack of sway bars just fine whether running ABC or coilovers. A 1990's designed computer system wasn't so amazing that it alone could overcome the basic laws of physics. The design engineers knew this and designed a system as an enhancement to a low inherent center of gravity, not as an effort to defeat an inherent high center of gravity.
At a base level an R230 “could “ be driven without sway bars on coilovers but the main reason we bought the car was to drive faster than a base level is competent of. As it was designed it was not better than our C5 Corvette. So with 30mm VVK sway bar and decent coilovers the level of control and feedback should provide potentially significant improvements over ABC. Essentially what I’m aiming for is that Black Series ride with adjustability to tailor the ride. The ABC even in Sport was no match for our Corvette at speed
Apologies. The strut brace is not performing the "same function" as sway bars. The point was that our vehicles inherent low center of gravity doesn't require the same level of need for sway bars as a vehicle with a higher inherent center of gravity would. Our vehicles don't have a natural tendency for excessive roll when entering a turn. Strut tower bars simply enhance that natural characteristic of our low roll tendency platforms, but to a rather negligible degree. The inherent low center of gravity is the primary reason we are able to get away with not needing sway bars. If measured against one another the ratio of stability offered by the strut brace vs the inherent low center of gravity on platform stability when cornering would be about 98% low center of gravity vs 2 % strut tower brace, hence strut tower brace imrovemwnt being negligible. In making a similar comparison with inherent low center of gravity vs the presence of sway bars on our vehicles stability when cornering, I'd offer the stability enhancement to be about 95% inherent low center of gravity to 5% sway bars.
Both sway bars and strut braces offer negligible enhancement of how our cars react when cornering. The overwhelming characteristic is our vehicles inherent low center of gravity, hence why we are able to get away with lack of sway bars just fine whether running ABC or coilovers. A 1990's designed computer system wasn't so amazing that it alone could overcome the basic laws of physics. The design engineers knew this and designed a system as an enhancement to a low inherent center of gravity, not as an effort to defeat an inherent high center of gravity.
ABC monitors vehicle height at each corner and actively manages body roll. That is the only reason our cars don't have factory sway bars. The SL350 doesn't have ABC, so it does have sway bars. Same chassis. The R231 actually has both ABC and sway bars.
A strut tower brace enhances chassis rigidity, which improves steering response and cornering traction predictability. On most mass produced cars, they're more for looks than anything else because there's not going to be a lot of flex across the front lower crossmembers anyway. On a race car chassis, they allow you to use much lighter lower crossmember materials while maintaining rigidity, saving weight overall. Also, if the strut brace is triangulated to the firewall area, it adds torsional rigidity to the chassis. They do not affect body roll control in any significant way.
True, a lot of people won't notice a lack of sway control in most driving situations.
An example of when you will notice it - when you're driving through a curve with some speed, like an interchange ramp between highways. The weight of the car is transferred to the outer wheels, compressing the suspension; then there's a bump along the way. The outer wheel suspension is already compressed, so you only have a small amount of travel available before the suspension bottoms out. In this situation, you can break traction very easily and unexpectedly.
Also - without sway bars, you'll likely dial the adjustable damping on your coilovers up a few notches to have a bit more sway control over momentary side-to-side motions. With sway bars, you can run less damping and still have control over those motions, so you can have a more comfortable ride without that "wallowing/floaty" feeling.
I wouldn't say sway bars are an absolute necessity for these cars - as said, these cars do have a very low center of gravity, so there's less need than a typical passenger car or SUV. But IMO the car will be much better with them, and I'd rather not find myself in an emergency maneuver, avoiding a crash, without them.
I can tell you that my car on Ceika coilovers with SL350 anti roll bars has virtually zero body roll in corners. The limiting factor for me in cornering speed is my nerve. My son drives it much quicker than me, he says the rear end can get twitchy when really pressing on. Our A and B roads in UK are very different to most of those in USA, we have more need for cars that take corners safely, I didn't even consider not fitting anti roll bars.
Moving the top of the coilover in or out will only change the angle of the coilover itself, not the angle of the steering knuckle/wheel/tire.
You can get offset bolts for the lower A-arm bushings that will enable +/- a half degree or so of camber adjustment.
What I was concerned with is at the lowered level the angle of the Coilovers binding and wearing out prematurely which could be compensated for using adjustable hats; unless the top hats are pillow ball mounts
Last edited by Hary Gahtoe; 06-26-2023 at 02:58 AM.
Guys I enjoy reading all these post to learn more about these R230. When I purchased my SL-500 2004, the ABC had multiple wrong issues, so immediatelly after purchasing it, I put the vehicle on jacks and replaced the ABC suspension for plain Jane coilovers. I didn't go to the suppliers of coilover kits, instead purchased the Bilstein shocks and the springs from a Swedish supplier. Then figured how to replace the top mounts with stock items.
In the beginning I experienced the same effects of the low center of gravity with little roll over on turns...but something bothered me...when taking a 90 degree turn on an uneven road, my front wheel was sinking too much into the fender bay and rubbing. Same when trying to climb in a 45 degree angle over a steep driveway.
So, I resolved that a front anti-sway bar will cure these deficiencies...and also observed in some post the procedure to install sway bars...since I wasn't ready for so much work, and not having a lift, I opted for my own and very personal solution..!
I found a sway bar in a junk year from an older E430 which was close enough for the solution I had on mind. Similarly to the positioning on these E430, I adapted the sway bar to the rear of the front subframe and fabricated the remaining hardware to link the bar to the lower suspension arms. The only thing I had to partially remove was the brace bars underneath the car. So far my sway bar is doing the job it was intended to do..! Cost: some sweat and $30.
When you enter our vehicle data into a Spring Rate Calculator, it returns the optimal values of 26k Front & 20k Rear.
.
26/20 seems overly stiff for an R230. If the car was a coupe it would likely work with a higher rate.
The R230 is a heavy car but that high of a rate could stress out the frame. Being a convertible there’s quite a bit of flex and that very likely would cause some frame related issues.
Base 500’s (especially being a convertible) are not up to the AMG design standards. Allowing damping from a lower level would be a good safety measure against over stressing the vehicle from a high level road force. I have put in emails to each company and asked a friend, mechanical engineer for help
Last edited by Hary Gahtoe; 04-22-2023 at 06:53 PM.
26/20 seems overly stiff for an R230. If the car was a coupe it would likely work with a higher rate.
The R230 is a heavy car but that high of a rate could stress out the frame. Being a convertible there’s quite a bit of flex and that very likely would cause some frame related issues.
Base 500’s (especially being a convertible) are not up to the AMG design standards. Allowing damping from a lower level would be a good safety measure against over stressing the vehicle from a high level road force. I have put in emails to each company and asked a friend, mechanical engineer for help
Just for clarity,. Make sure your mechanical engineer friend is measuring in kg/mm vs lbs/inch. The following are the weights used in the calculator.
Anecdotally, regarding the frame strength of our vehicles, I experienced a pothole collision strong enough to fracture the rear driver's side knuckle where the torsion bar from the frame connects to the knuckle. The likely scenario is that a previous pothole caused a hairline fracture in the knuckle, then catastrophic failure uccured during the known pothole event. The event was violent enough that when the knuckle broke, the torsion bar let loose the weight of the rear corner of the vehicle with enough force to buckle the rear lower control arm right where the strut connects to it. This occured when the original ABC strut was still installed on the vehicle.
Point being, that rear knuckle is probably the single most robust steel component on our cars yet it was the part which took the brunt of the force as opposed the where the torsion bar connects to the frame. And when you examine the multi link design of the rear, you can quickly understand how violent forces are distributed. Now the front is a different matter. Those shock towers don't appear to be the sturdiest, although I've no anecdotal knowledge of one of them ever failing on our vehicles?
Also worth noting the conversion between kg/mm to lb/in is 1kg/mm = 55 lb/in so the difference between the 26k on rhe Neomax/Emotion and the 18k on the BC is about 450 lb/in.
The industry standard is kg/mm,. So keep this in mind when comparing each manufacturers advertised springrates.
Looks like I’ll be going BC w/Swift spring or Neo
There’s no way I’d use a obsolete KW design shock
That design was abandoned almost 10 years ago by top brands
That archaic design changes the entire spring rate because it wasn’t built with an adjustable height moving collar to keep the spring rate at suggested compression. You either put the car at the height the spring rate dictates or you put the car at your height and suffer with an improper spring rate. Totally unacceptable.
It also won’t allow the car to be used at the height my car already rides at. V3 has 1.8” max drop.
About weight; I weighed my car. It was 3848 w/3/4 gas & assuming the entire ABC (all the lines, valve blocks and pump) took a dirt nap after factoring in SB’s & coils there’s a net loss of 130-135 lbs so around 3720-ish. Putting spec ride loads at Or much closer to Coilover manufacturer recommended spring rates
regarding the frame strength a pothole collision strong enough to fracture the rear driver's side knuckle where the torsion bar from the frame connects to the knuckle, violent enough the knuckle broke.
The dynamic integrity of the entire unibody frame is more at question than specific suspensions points R230 roof tops make cracks or groans when entering/exiting high angle side walks or driveways. That’s a sign of chassis flex. And no my car has never had collision damage but that shows the lower degrees of convertible chassis flexing and if you force it to absorb a higher level you could get severe wear in the roof and windshield frame mounting points as well as trunk and door fittings. That’s why MB fitted the front end X brace.
Last edited by Hary Gahtoe; 04-23-2023 at 07:07 PM.
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard of someone.calling Any KW product archaic, and choosing the Chinese brand over the quality product. The Chinese coil overs work, but are in no way shape or form anywhere near the product KW puts out. It may not be worth the extra money for some, but it is definitely a different league of product.
10 years ago KW’s we’re vey good. Now even almost the very cheapest, low quality Coilover can provide much better results because KW aren’t able to tailor in height adjustments like most do now
V3 still have a very narrow range of height before compromising the spring rate whereas Neo or BC even some base level shocks (Godspeed) have >3” of adjustments where the springs stays exactly where it was designed to operate.
KW has restricted their use mainly to 911 & M3 owners who want a high level of control at an industry level (not individual owners) choice of height which they can do a fantastic job at.
It just seems so wrong to use over designed tech to under achieve on daily driven cars. KW have staged themselves at race or race purpose use only at an exorbitant cost.
Moving on
Last edited by Hary Gahtoe; 04-23-2023 at 12:32 PM.
04-20-2023, 12:33 PM
