KW V3 and alignment specifications

marcoturbo · Jul 23, 2008

The KW V3 kit I bought several months ago has been installed on my car since less than 24 hours !

I now need to get a whole alignment job to be done with torsion bars reindexing. I've searched about specifications used with KW V3 but can't find what I seek for.

My car is only a street car, no track (sometimes very loaded due to the roof rack

)

What are the specifications you use with KWv3 ? Stock camber, caster and toe-in specifications ?

I'd like to put more negative camber than stock to be able to fit my 16x8 Fuchs (rear 951 wheels) in the front without rubbing fenders (I currently have 7mm spacers to clear the 993 (928s4/944M030) front calipers). What range can be used for street driving ?

Any advice welcome !

I forgot... I adjusted rebound and bump following KW instructions

Thanks.

sawood12 · Jul 23, 2008

I'm aftraid I left things upto my installer, but the alignment is same as stock. Any significant increse in camber aparently will wear out the inside of your front tyres quickly. Mine was lowered significantly and has a slightly nose-down attitude as it is a setup that is prodominantly for the street but slightly compromised for track also. Though i've had no problems on the road I think i'll raise the front a few mm for convenience i've had some problems getting the car on workshop ramps, but should maintain a bit of a nose down attitude.

Fen · Jul 24, 2008

I broadly agree with Scott. Specifically I set mine up to the more aggressive end of the specs quoted for (I think) 1989 models, as that itself is the most aggressive settings Porsche have recommended for the 944.

I also agree that the front should be slightly lower than the rear, which is something I grudgingly accepted as I hate the nose-down look from an aesthetic point of view (I prefer a hint of a lower rear if anything for purely good looks).

In terms of camber you should go for the aggressive end of the tolerance for the other settings you use. I have had good results with adjustable top mounts and contrary to what I have read from others (and admittedly backed up by logic) I have not had a problem with excessive inner edge wear through increased camber nor toe being slightly out, but it does increase the front's resistance to understeer massively.

I used 3 1/2 degrees negative camber on track and 1 degree on road. Toe was adjusted to be on the edge of tolerance at the road setting such that the track setting puts it out by the minimum amount (beyond the other end of tolerance ) I forget if the extra camber ads toe in or toe out.

All of the above is on a car with post '87 offset and if you're running Fuchs you must have pre- '87, but if the wheel centre line is in a similar place I think the overall requirements are going to be very similar.

I used Big Dave's recommendations for bump & rebound adjustment though he modified them afterwards - perhaps he can step in and advise.

The only other thing to note is that I have Weltmeister ARBs which are properly mounted to the car (unlike the toy mounts Porsche provided), have decent drop links and are fully adjustable. I ran them set mid-way as I used this as a starting point and found the car to be set up pretty much perfectly to my taste like that. In dry conditions the front would only break loose if my entry speed was massively too high and the rear resisted all attempts to break it loose. In other words the chassis was far better than I was comfortable pushing it. I didn't develop a wet weather setup however and it was "lairy" the one time I drove it on a wet track with the above setup, but at road speeds it was fine.

marcoturbo · Jul 24, 2008

Thanks for the replies.

My car is a pre-87 with early offset but I also installed M030 944 front hubs and spindles (with 993 calipers). So it's now nearer from a +87 than a 86. I also have M030 ARBs (26.8mm from a 944 M030 in the front with Delrin bushings; 3-way adjustable from a 968 M030 in the rear set to the medium).

I'm now running 16x9 Fuchs in the rear and would like to be able to run the 16x8 wheels instead of the 16x7 ones.

I don't consider running adjustable top mounts. My car isn't a track car and I don't like the look... I don't consider neither lowering the car (due to my garage ramps): the front height is set to the highest position of the KW and it's lower than my previous set up. I was told to have the front lower than the rear, thanks for confirmation.

Where can the Big Dave's recommendations be found ? I don't perform in searching here.

appletonn · Jul 24, 2008

These are my new settings and I love them, but perhaps not right for yours...

Setting Front Rear

Camber -2.7 -1.8

Caster 2.4

Toe In 10-15 min 20-25 min

Corner weights 356 Left 357 Left
359 Right 362 Right

As for the worry about front negative camber and excessive tyre wear, as long as the toe is adjusted following the camber adjustment, there shouldn't be too much excess wear as it is primarily when the toe is not adjusted after the camber that the tyres get a hard time. I have done 1500 miles since having it domne, including to le mans and back and so far i can see no signs of uneven wear

Big Dave · Jul 24, 2008

My KW settings cant be found anywhere apart from in my head.....[

][

]
They are basically....
Wind the adjusters to FULL stiff, then back them off half a turn... BOTH front and rear...
ALTHOUGH the rear TOP adjuster [rebound] isnt adjustable on the car[ not accesable] so,I set this to 3/4 stiff all the time ...
I adj these every time i go on track, as i set the whole lot to full soft for road use....They ARE that easy to adjust...

I found these to be good for me ,, BUT by all means ,try your own settings for you own standard of driving, after all were all like the car to do different things...
Ive got 2.5deg -ve camber at the front + 2deg -ve at the rear.
FULL castor aprox 3.5deg.
And a small amount of toe in...1/4 deg total at the front... 1/2 deg total for the rear.. [

][

]

marcoturbo · Jul 24, 2008

Thanks for the replies.

Dave, do you run the "old" shock absorbers without clicking system ? If so, half a turn from full stiff is 3 clicks open.

Fen · Jul 24, 2008

To be fair I have to question why you bought KW for a road only car that is running maximum ride height and if you want extreme camber settings only to fit too-wide fronts for (I assume) cosmetic reasons. Do you actually care how it drives? Why are you going to reindex the torsions if you don't plan to lower the suspension? You decribe later hubs but don't mention later wishbones, so the geometry is all to cock as you have part early offset and part late offset installed.

I'm not sure what look you don't like about adjustable top mounts either - do you mean the mounts themselves? If so who cares if they provide a performance advantage? Do you care what your oil filter looks like above its performance also?

marcoturbo · Jul 24, 2008

First, I bought KW to remplace my old set up (M474 in the rear, koni inserts in the front) as I wasn't pleased with the install performed by my previous mechanic... Why KW only for road driving ? Maybe because I need good suspensions with the Vitesse Stage 3 kit install coming soon and I do care how it drives... KWs look to be the best compromise in suspension upgrading...So, why get a Stage 3 for a non track car ? I don't know [

]

Then, i need to keep the height to a high level due to my garage ramps (I live in Paris and the building where I live in isn't very practical, ask TTM...).

There're indeed cosmetical reasons to put 16x8 Fuchs in the front... I'd also rather put 225x50 tires on 16x8 wheels rims than on 16x7 rims and the car will be better balanced with this combo (16x9 with 245/45 tires in the rear).

Why reindexing ? Because my car is now higher than stock in the rear (even with eccentrics set to the lowest).

About wishbones, I keep the 86 arms, the only drawback is about camber range adjustement (less negative camber). The only reason to such a mix is I need later hubs and spindles to fit the "medium" black brake calipers instead of the small (and old) 86 ones

Last, I don't need adjustable mounts and the ones I've looked at look bad designed... If I was so concerned with the look, I wouldn't buy a flashy coilover kit [

]

Big Dave · Jul 24, 2008

I think my KW kit is about 3 years old...So whether that is the "old" kit im not sure,
I think it has very slight klicks when adjusting but there are VERY slight, thats why i said half a turn ,, IE 180 deg from closed / full stiff.
I DEFINATELY dont keep them adjusted this way for general road use. Thatd be WAY too stiff....Ide be needing fillings every week.[

][

]

TTM · Jul 24, 2008

Marc, at the risk of repeating myself you have to find another parking place. Compromising the chassis set up after having gone over the deep end restoration-wise does not make much sense. As for looks your car will oddly look almost like a pick-up with the wider wheels if it is not lowered accordingly. If you are that concerned about damaging the batwing I suggest you to keep my old beaten one and call it a day instead of splitting hair [

]

Fen · Jul 24, 2008

I think Thom is more diplomatically saying what I am. It sounds like there is a lot of good (arguably the best) kit on the car, but that it is compromised by a few "unusual" requirements .

I don't know how realistic is it to find somewhere else to park, nor how bad the access ramp is, but I do know that my car, which is lowered on KWv3 and has a front splitter, did not ground very often at all - in fact almost never. Perhaps because the splitter is flat-bottomed rather than having a "belly"in it I get back most of the ground clearance I lost by lowering. If you don't want a splitter then a sacrificial bat wing sounds like a good idea to me.

I understand why you changed the hubs, I just don't understand why you didn't also change the wishbones at the same time - there is no reason why it would not have been possible. It sounds like you spent quite a bit on the car and I'd have thought following that through with some arms that have the correct dimensions for the rest of the suspension as well as fresh new ball joints and bushes would have been a good thing to do. That goes double since what you are looking for is negative camber if the real result of the early arms is less negative camber availability.

I hear what you are saying about 225 fronts for better balance with the rears at 245, and that is the combo Porsche fitted to later cars, but Fuchs (which I agree are the best looking 944 wheel) are totally the wrong offset for use with the later hubs, so you have a hub upgrade to allow the fitment of better performing brakes but are compromising the package by trying to fit wheels which are not optimised for the other parts used. You could easily fit 225 tyres on a 16x8" rim if you were using the correct offset wheel after all. Surely you'll have bump-steer and other handling nastiness with the setup you are proposing?

TTM · Jul 25, 2008

We tested the 8" wheels at the front of Marc's car before replacing the steering knuckle/hub/strut assembly with its "M030" equivalent and although we did not make any proper scientific measurement, the visible tyre offset was "about the same" as with the "M030" parts.

Also, and for what it's worth, '86 Cup cars had 8" Fuchs wheels up front. Although I am not sure of the hubs and brakes used (most probably the same ones as the then current '86 turbo) this leads me to believe 8" Fuchs and early offset wishbones may work fine together.

We tried different camber adjustments and according to the values shown by my digital camber gauge (nice toy, by the way [

]), and even with taking account of the rather erratic caster set up after fitting 968 caster blocks, the new set up should allow for a camber range wide enough. Of course we will know that for sure only when the alignment is done.

marcoturbo · Jul 25, 2008

I do understand these remarks and I'm not offended.

It will take several monthes to find another parking place at best.

The only reason I kept the 23.3 wishbones is to be able to run Fuchs wheels. I checked the arms and there's no need for a rebuild. Even if I loose negative camber range with this set-up, I think I won't try to get more than -1,5° which looks to be the maximum with these wishbones. I want to run these wheels, otherwise there's no interest in driving a 86 car (any pristine 90 or 91 LHD 951 for sale in the UK ?) [

]

Out of curiosity, what splitter do you run ? The one sold by ESS ? If so, any comment on quality and fitment ?

Thanks.

Tam Lin · Jul 25, 2008

ORIGINAL: Big Dave UK

I DEFINITELY dont keep them adjusted this way for general road use. That'd be WAY too stiff....I'de be needing fillings every week.[][]

On the V3 kit, turning the compression to full soft for the road is definitely the way to go. But keeping the rebound set to near-fully stiff at the front seems to work well in keeping the nose planted.

Hope you keep with the Fuchses. They're light, strong and look great. I can also recommend the 944 Turbo Cup mirror to complete the Cup "look".

marcoturbo · Jul 25, 2008

Thanks for your reply.

I don't really want to install turbo cup (924) mirors, I find the stock ones look better especially on a white car.

Fen · Jul 26, 2008

I'm glad you aren't offended as I didn't mean you to be. I do think you have an unusual set of requirements for the car however.

I have never swapped the hubs between early and late, but I would imagine that there has to be an offset change in doing so as the later car's disk sits farther outboard with the correct hubs than it does if you fit later disks to early hubs (hence there is insufficientl clearance between steering rod endand disk). That's going to add challenge to the Fuchs fitment.

Yes the ESS splitter is the one I have. The fit is excellent, it probably actually works as it is not just a lip on the flexible PU, and the quality is very good - nice and solid construction without being ridiculously heavy.

TTM · Jul 26, 2008

With an early offset assembly the disk attaches on the hub from behind it and the disk bowl is much lower than that of a later disk. Hence I don't think it is even possible to fit a later disk to an early hub, as the disk would certainly scrub against the steering knuckle and you wouldn't even be able to fit the caliper.