KING SPRINGS Low V's Super Low Debate

[ROL14]

Lows at the front drop ~30mm

Super lows at rear drop ~50mm

but this gives level ride height.

So, are you concerned about ride height (looks) or handling (performance)? Whats you're priority?

I always had the impression that you can't have both to a certain extent...?? No...???

And at the end of the day doesn't handling have to do with CG and weight distribution - not ride height...???

[chicaboo]

cool i understand about the load points.. its getting clearer.

Apologies about the caps... force of habit... i'll use italics from now on.

just to clarify...

Lows at the front drop ~30mm

Super lows at rear drop ~50mm

but this gives level ride height.

Yeah, your car will sit more level. As it sits nose down stock. So you will get understeer from having the rear lower, but then you will gain oversteer by having a higher spring rate too. So it will either square itself out or have a slight tendancy to under or over steer. But then the threshold at which it does this may have gone up or down too. The Sportivo stock has a very low threshold before it goes into oversteer when pushing hard around a corner. So it would be nice to raise that limit...

Gav.

[daviboy]

i got a Stivo with Lows up front and Superlows on the rear, but i just listened to how other peoples cars felt, and drove another stivo with same setup and was happy with it. Ride height i also love.

As a few other guys have measured and said the rear sits higher with Lows all round, so in actual fact, the superlows does level it out. Maybe makes the rear a few mm lower.

For me Looks is 1st, but in addition to just springs you need to upgrade, swaybars, braces, brakes, Tyres, its all a package. Cant really have one without the other if you also want performance.

My 2 cents.

[SuperDave]

this is why i am asking the question i guess....

is the change in Geometry better 1 way or the other?

wheres Superdave when you want some results. *looks around*

Your right, the front of the car wouldn’t be any lighter, but it’s about the weight transfer as you accelerate, turn and brake.

Put simply and without the use of capital letters to add emphasis . . .

As you accelerate and break the weight of your car is transferred back and forward respectively

During acceleration having the rear of the car lower will result in more weight transferring to the rear of the car increasing the rear grip, decreasing front grip

Add a corner to the equation the car having transferred more weight to the rear and trying to get drive out of the corner through one front wheel will more likely spin the inside wheel and understeer.

Same theory applies to braking - the front end of the car does the majority of the work when it comes to stopping. The car will perform best under brakes when the weight transfers towards the front of the car under brakes. In my opinion having your chassis setup with the nose higher than the rear reduces the ability of the cars weight to transfer forward and as a result will reduce overall braking performance

When the front/rear is at different heights to each other it is known as 'rake'. The reason why the rear shouldn't be lower than the front is as Dori explained. Having the rear sit higher is like preloading the front with more weight, much like how the front loads up under brakes. Take this too far and the car can wander under heavy braking.

[Blind Kid Seeks]

SD: So the Rake on a car with Low Fronts and Super Low Rears, would you say, is better than a car with Lows all round?

considering when you use in conjunction with KYB's this combo seems to make the car sit dead level.

I'm after handling/performance.. and before anyone pipes up and says.. "get coilovers" i really like the comfort level of the Spring Shocker combo.

I guess i never questioned anyone when everyone said get the Low / Super low combo, so i am asking "why?"

I like that everyon has thrown in their perspective here... While i admit that keeping the geometry or stance (rake) as close to the stock angle, but who has proven that the S/lows give the better handling.

I think its nice to say that the increased Spring rate adds stiffness, but surely a progressive spring would provide as much "stiffness" or force as the S/low Linear Spring rate at full load.

anyways... keen to hear more opinions.

[doriae86]

at the end of the day if your happy with the car thats all that matters. Im sure of one thing, SLOW, LOW or a combination of both probably makes only a bees ***** of difference

[SuperDave]

I'm not having a go at anyone here, but everyone has their own direction with their car. Looks or performance. I myself haven't played with rake yet, however the rear on my car it set 10-15mm higher than the front. Might give it a go at the next track day if I have time. I can't say how lows on the front and superlow or just low on the rear performs as I have never done it or driven examples of such. If I knew what the spring rate difference was, then it would be easier to recommend one over the other. But compared to stock you can't go wrong with either option.

As for coilovers vs springs/struts I can't see there being any difference. Since most coilovers have adjustable strut tops and height that gives some room for adjustment, otherwise there isn't anything between them since camber adjustment can be added aftermarket.

Be careful of progressive springs. I'm not a fan of progressive coil as the handling changes the more the suspension loads up; progressive wire diameter is the better version, but costs more. Linear springs are simple and get the job done, even if they are a bit rough on the street :P

So, are you concerned about ride height (looks) or handling (performance)? Whats you're priority?

I always had the impression that you can't have both to a certain extent...?? No...???

And at the end of the day doesn't handling have to do with CG and weight distribution - not ride height...???

Ride height does to a certain extent. You do need to keep enough stroke length to maintain contact with the surface over uneven ground to avoid topping and bottoming out. If you have ever hit the bump stops you'll know about it!

Suspension is a dynamic system changes in one area can affect performance in another area. It is more complex than it is given credit for. If it could be measured in kW then I'm sure it would be more popular.

How come the suspension & brakes section isn't as active as this thread?

[DANZZT231]

Maybe just go low kings all round. Then since you are thinking to get KYB, you can manipulate the weight distribution by the damper adjust the shock provide. One thing for sure, the car by the center chassis should not be lower at the back. You don't measure by the fender gap just in case. And none of the Kings resulted with the chassis leaning backwards anyway.

This is the simplest way, and it can get complex if you decided to venture more into it.

But If height for performance is your concerns, you need coilover so you can get corner weight adjustment. But you don't have to.

Since we are on the topic, I just share with you guys my height setting for my Celica across 4 corners within 15mm possible height adjustment range; between highest and lowest settings:

Front right - Maximum height

Front left - Near lowest height

Rear right - Maximum height

Rear left - near Maximum height.

Fender gap difference between front and rear - 1.5cm, rear having less gap.

Fender gap between left and right are equal for both front and rear

The car leans forward as it was when it was standard, handling is neutral and the car is way more balanced. It's like having all 4 corners with ample strokes between each other.

Previously the car was lowered equal lowest height at the front, and equal 2/3 lowest for the rear. The car is leaning to the right. Before I have swaybars I set all 4 corners to its lowest and I thought that was awesome until now. And alignment plays a big factor in suspension dynamics. But let's keep the topic within height for now.

Settings above is me working with the limitations of my coilover; the fact that it is non-adjustable damper. But regardless, height balance plays a great role in chassis dynamic anyway.

I hope this helps.

[anferne]

while we are on the topic, i got quoted $420 for lowering. i have a choice of superlows and lows. i dont want the car to scrape the guards to rub, would superlows be too much ? too low? anyone know ? (17x8 wheels i think)

[DANZZT231]

Superlow won't scrub.

Nothing to fear.

[Blind Kid Seeks]

I'm not having a go at anyone here, but everyone has their own direction with their car. Looks or performance. I myself haven't played with rake yet, however the rear on my car it set 10-15mm higher than the front. Might give it a go at the next track day if I have time. I can't say how lows on the front and superlow or just low on the rear performs as I have never done it or driven examples of such. If I knew what the spring rate difference was, then it would be easier to recommend one over the other. But compared to stock you can't go wrong with either option.

As for coilovers vs springs/struts I can't see there being any difference. Since most coilovers have adjustable strut tops and height that gives some room for adjustment, otherwise there isn't anything between them since camber adjustment can be added aftermarket.

Be careful of progressive springs. I'm not a fan of progressive coil as the handling changes the more the suspension loads up; progressive wire diameter is the better version, but costs more. Linear springs are simple and get the job done, even if they are a bit rough on the street :P

So, are you concerned about ride height (looks) or handling (performance)? Whats you're priority?

I always had the impression that you can't have both to a certain extent...?? No...???

And at the end of the day doesn't handling have to do with CG and weight distribution - not ride height...???

Ride height does to a certain extent. You do need to keep enough stroke length to maintain contact with the surface over uneven ground to avoid topping and bottoming out. If you have ever hit the bump stops you'll know about it!

Suspension is a dynamic system changes in one area can affect performance in another area. It is more complex than it is given credit for. If it could be measured in kW then I'm sure it would be more popular.

How come the suspension & brakes section isn't as active as this thread?

Most people just ask "whats the best suspension?" so there are about a thousand answers.. i had a specific question about a specific style of suspension.. gives people a topic rather than a feild. makes for a good conersation rather than a list of scenarios.

Thanks for taking the time to answer SD, I'm currently happy with the setup i have, but have always wondered what it would be like to use the Progressive LOWS in the rears. I'm gonna bite the bullet and either buy some lows or swap the super lows out... and give it a red hot go.

You mention your front is set 10 - 15mm lower than the rear, would that denote your best (so far) handling geometry for track use? I'm not asking you to tell me whats best for me, just what you've experienced.

DANZZT231 : I've got a good setup in my car, so i'm just asking how i can improve it. and for what its worth, Coilovers are just height and damper adjustable spring and shocker combo. As i dont require constant tweaking of my setup every week, or day, or whatever, i am happy to buy a product and let it do its thing.

Also Superlow DO scrub if you have the wrong offset wheels... as i have personal experience with a 17X7+40 offset wheel and a 215 wide tyre scrubbing on my car. best curb your enthusiasm on such a topic if you dont have experience.

[CME-LFT]

Hangs a sec, if putting superlows in the rear and lows in the front gives the car an even stance, then what happens with superlows all around? same situation only the front too low now?

[Blind Kid Seeks]

Hangs a sec, if putting superlows in the rear and lows in the front gives the car an even stance, then what happens with superlows all around? same situation only the front too low now?

i think it too low yes...

Lows 30mm drop S/Lows 50mm drop.

makes the front and back sit level... BUT i have KYB Excel Gas shocks... which are Firmer than stock.

[DANZZT231]

I'm not having a go at anyone here, but everyone has their own direction with their car. Looks or performance. I myself haven't played with rake yet, however the rear on my car it set 10-15mm higher than the front. Might give it a go at the next track day if I have time. I can't say how lows on the front and superlow or just low on the rear performs as I have never done it or driven examples of such. If I knew what the spring rate difference was, then it would be easier to recommend one over the other. But compared to stock you can't go wrong with either option.

As for coilovers vs springs/struts I can't see there being any difference. Since most coilovers have adjustable strut tops and height that gives some room for adjustment, otherwise there isn't anything between them since camber adjustment can be added aftermarket.

Be careful of progressive springs. I'm not a fan of progressive coil as the handling changes the more the suspension loads up; progressive wire diameter is the better version, but costs more. Linear springs are simple and get the job done, even if they are a bit rough on the street :P

So, are you concerned about ride height (looks) or handling (performance)? Whats you're priority?

I always had the impression that you can't have both to a certain extent...?? No...???

And at the end of the day doesn't handling have to do with CG and weight distribution - not ride height...???

Ride height does to a certain extent. You do need to keep enough stroke length to maintain contact with the surface over uneven ground to avoid topping and bottoming out. If you have ever hit the bump stops you'll know about it!

Suspension is a dynamic system changes in one area can affect performance in another area. It is more complex than it is given credit for. If it could be measured in kW then I'm sure it would be more popular.

How come the suspension & brakes section isn't as active as this thread?

Most people just ask "whats the best suspension?" so there are about a thousand answers.. i had a specific question about a specific style of suspension.. gives people a topic rather than a feild. makes for a good conersation rather than a list of scenarios.

Thanks for taking the time to answer SD, I'm currently happy with the setup i have, but have always wondered what it would be like to use the Progressive LOWS in the rears. I'm gonna bite the bullet and either buy some lows or swap the super lows out... and give it a red hot go.

You mention your front is set 10 - 15mm lower than the rear, would that denote your best (so far) handling geometry for track use? I'm not asking you to tell me whats best for me, just what you've experienced.

DANZZT231 : I've got a good setup in my car, so i'm just asking how i can improve it. and for what its worth, Coilovers are just height and damper adjustable spring and shocker combo. As i dont require constant tweaking of my setup every week, or day, or whatever, i am happy to buy a product and let it do its thing.

Also Superlow DO scrub if you have the wrong offset wheels... as i have personal experience with a 17X7+40 offset wheel and a 215 wide tyre scrubbing on my car. best curb your enthusiasm on such a topic if you dont have experience.

Sorry, I missed his 17x8 wheels option. But I used to have a Corolla and I dropped it for about 4inches. I was running 17x7 +42, 215/40/17. No rubbing for day to day, full steering turns lock to lock. No problems. Car full of passenger, no problems too. I used coilover though ;) But in general, super low isn't even that low anyway. for me at least. and others.

You seems to dislike coilover huh? Nonetheless, I did recommended you to get low king for your rear. But if you want to have freedom to tune your height tuning then you have to go for coilover. And what makes you think having coilover means you have to tweak it everyday? I know I didn't tweak it everyday, but I can if I wanted to especially if I think there is an adjustment to be made. Like now, if you have coilover you won't have problem choosing your ride height for performance ;)

What do you seek to improve from your current suspension set-up anyway?

[doriae86]

Hangs a sec, if putting superlows in the rear and lows in the front gives the car an even stance, then what happens with superlows all around? same situation only the front too low now?

the front isnt too low - theres only a 5mm difference. see my previous posts in this thread for more detailed explination

Edited January 16, 2009 by doriae86

[chicaboo]

If any of you guys are considering springs, I am getting Eibachs next week, and maybe even have them fitted next weekend(?).

I can then give you a comparison as compared to stock. Beyond that, the only way the for me to tell if they were worth the money and compare them to King lows, would be to swap cars with Phil on a cruise and compare them that way. But after his recent offroad excursion I'm a little concerned about doing that! :P

But I seriously doubt many of you would buy Eibachs over Kings any way. It's like comparing the price of a CES intake to an Apexi Power intake for example. Most people only want to spend so much and opt for the cheaper option since it does the job. And the difference is only appreciated by fanatics.

Cheers, Gav.

[SuperDave]

Thanks for taking the time to answer SD, I'm currently happy with the setup i have, but have always wondered what it would be like to use the Progressive LOWS in the rears. I'm gonna bite the bullet and either buy some lows or swap the super lows out... and give it a red hot go.

You mention your front is set 10 - 15mm lower than the rear, would that denote your best (so far) handling geometry for track use? I'm not asking you to tell me whats best for me, just what you've experienced.

I just haven't played around with it since time is so limited at track days.

[Blind Kid Seeks]

If any of you guys are considering springs, I am getting Eibachs next week, and maybe even have them fitted next It's like comparing a CES intake to an Apexi Power intake for example. Most people only want to spend so much and opt for the cheaper option since it does the job. And the difference is only appreciated by fanatics.

Cheers, Gav.

Please.... i dont want to turn this into a ridiculous CES V's everyone else exhaust. I was reccomended Kings and KYB just like you were reccomended CES. More the point is.. i was reccommended the Kings Low + Super Low combo... which is what this thread is about... not which brand is better.

thanks for your input.

[chicaboo]

Hi Andy,

You've missed my point totally. My illustration of CES CAI is NOT about brand loyalty! It is about the cost of CES vs Apexi PI and Eibachs vs Kings!

What I am saying is that most ppl will never buy CES or Eibachs at some $512 and $540 each, when they can get Kings and Apexi for $240 and $250 each...

I am talking about the use of a level drop with Kings vs Eibach. Since your thread is about the nature of dropping the springs, ppl have happily brought springs rates and linear vs progressive rates into the arguments, I am just introducing one more manufacturer into the mix. Eibachs will respond differently to Kings, and I had assumed yourself and others would be keen to know another dimension to a low level drop.

I thought my statement was obvious sorry...

Gav.

EDIT: Since my comment related to cost and not branding, I don't want to make this into a ridiculous Bursons V's everyone else strutbar.

I am not trying to be a smart@r$e Andy, but please just take the time to read my posts properly and take in their meaning before commenting like that.

Too often ppl fly off the handle here, and it has to stop for the sake of the forum. [/rant]

[DANZZT231]

I think he better try the low king first and see how that go.

Then he should find out why Eibach is superior compared to Kings.

Bottom line, more often than not, you really get what you paid for.

[doriae86]

eibach known for quality and i wouldent be suprised if they outperform king springs with regards to both performane and comfort.

i would have chosen to go with the eibach springs if not for the fact there was a supply problem at the time of getting my koni's installed. Anyway, good luck with it. Keep us posted, very keen to here how you go!

[doriae86]

If any of you guys are considering springs, I am getting Eibachs next week, and maybe even have them fitted next It's like comparing a CES intake to an Apexi Power intake for example. Most people only want to spend so much and opt for the cheaper option since it does the job. And the difference is only appreciated by fanatics.

Cheers, Gav.

Please.... i dont want to turn this into a ridiculous CES V's everyone else exhaust. I was reccomended Kings and KYB just like you were reccomended CES. More the point is.. i was reccommended the Kings Low + Super Low combo... which is what this thread is about... not which brand is better.

thanks for your input.

relax - the fact of the matter is there is 50 odd posts discussing the pro's + cons of the king spring combination. You must be happy with the information provided to this point. In addition, including another option in the mix will only makes the thread a more useful tool for the next member who is seeking to lower their car.

[chicaboo]

eibach known for quality and i wouldent be suprised if they outperform king springs with regards to both performane and comfort.

i would have chosen to go with the eibach springs if not for the fact there was a supply problem at the time of getting my koni's installed. Anyway, good luck with it. Keep us posted, very keen to here how you go!

Hi Dori,

I will let everyone know how the Eibachs go after they are installed. If I am lucky I will be able to get them installed next weekend if they arrive through the coming week.

There is one advantage to me not getting my struts done now, and that is I will be able to tell you my thoughts of the Eibachs alone in isolation from any other change.

I haven't read any feedback about the Eibachs on the Corolla, so I am buying these based on past history with them on my Mazdas and and a friend's VW.

I'm as keen as you are too find out if they will be that good or not! :o

Fingies crossed,

Gav.

[DANZZT231]

If not mistaken, Carlo 1ZZ-FE have Eibach on his.

[SILVABULLIT]

Well seing as i am the culprit of the lows/superlows set up I guess I should add my weights and findings to this discussion.

Firstly Low kings are 35mm drop. Superlows are 50mm drop. That is the fact from King spring themselves. Whiteline do 30mm drop.

I had kings lows all round on Koni's for quite some time and it wasn't till one day I was over a mates place and he commented on how the rear sits higher than the front. This then got the mouse in the wheel in my head working overtime.

I went to my suspension wholesaler who not only supplies stuff but also specialises in race suspension set ups for track and rally. I spoke at length to their head suspension technician who is an accomplished driver in both rally and circuit and explained to him what I was looking to do. I threw him the idea of superlows in the rear perhaps. My car went into the workshop and the measuring began. Rear sat approx 15mm higher in the rear than the front. This is measuring from the guard to hub centre not measuring to the ground as wheel/tyre combos will give different readings all the time.

Super lows were agreed to be the solution to the problem. I then posed the question of spring rates. Superlows do have a heavier spring rate as they are physically a shorter spring and are set with a tighter coil than lows are.(hence the "higher" spring rate). Yes they are a slightly progressive spring but compared to lows the difference is so minimual it would be very hard to tell the difference in actual ride comfort over a minute dip/bump.

But once the spring is trying to be compressed further than the first coil say the difference begins. Superlows are a lot stiffer and do not allow the car to squat in the rear and lift the nose like lows do. Plus having the car sitting level does many things to braking and handling abilities which nearly all are positive. And it didn't ride harsher as my wife didn't even notice the difference!!(I didn't tell her I swapped the springs LOL)

Best analogy i can use is imagine you have a scooter. Now this scooter has a slightly bigger wheel on the rear than the front making it lean forward. Now the handle bars are at the front and consequently the majority of the weight on the scooter is at the front as you have your hands on the handle bars and are leaning forward(just like a sportivo. 2/3 of the cars weight is on the front wheels). Now if you have brakes on both wheels of the scooter(like the car has brakes front and back) and have to brake hard what happens?? your weight leans forward transferring more weight on the front wheel than the rear as it does in a car plus the car also has larger brakes on the front. Why? If the majority of your weight is on the front axle then putting bigger brakes on the rear will do squat apart from lock up hence why larger on front where most of the weight is.

Now if the scooter is sitting nose down already what happens when you hit the brakes hard?? It nose dives even further with the subsequent weight transfer. What happens to the rear brakes??? They lock up as the weight is transferred forward under heavy braking and as the scooter has unequal height front to rear and will subsequently cause rear lock up moreso as momentum weight is transferred forward off the rear making it much lighter than if it were sitting level and when you have no weight lock up is enivitable.

That is one big difference I noticed with going from lows to SL's in the rear. Heavy braking the car felt more stable and more controlled and as someone had already mentioned it does also reduce heavy braking tram tracking or wondering in the front. It certainly doesn't allow the rear to lift like a mongrel dog that has had a swift kick up the bum. Depending on you rim's offset will also affect how much tram trakcing you get.

Handling benefits are plentiful too. Unfortunately some of you think that making the car stiff as is the way to make it handle. WRONG!

Front wheel drive cars have to be set up totally different to rear wheel drive AWD or even rear engined rear wheel drive(before you ask VW/Porsche) the secret to make a front wheel drive car handle is finding the perfect balance between being able to absorb road/track impact(bumps/dips etc) and controlled rebound.

Now the biggest mistake most people make with a FWD car is to make the front too stiff. Sportivo's have plenty of understeer in stock form with most of it caused by a high suspension stance with softish dampeners which allows what i see as ridiculous amounts of body roll for a "sports" model. So instantly most go out and by a heavier front and rear sway bar. Wrong again. All this does is make the understeer worse as it wont allow the inside front wheel to stay on the ground and transfers all the front weight/grip to the outside wheel which it simply cannot do then you have the tyre trying to peel off the rim and the weight transfer trying to flex the suspension that much to the point of causing positive camber. Plus outside wheel essentially loses drive in an open diff situation and you are spinning the inside wheel with no grip as the diff transfers drive to the wheel with least resistance. Front grip reaches the point of no adhesion and you go straight ahead off the road/over the edge. If you want to put a heavier sway on the front then you need to go one stage heavier on the rear. (Only really necessary for high track use as that's the only place you'll benefit from it.)

Now for those who are going to say "add a LSD" and it won't do it. It still will but not as bad as the inside wheel is still trying to drive and the ouside wheel is also still trying to drive and it will essentially try and pull the car around the corner but the biggest mistake most make is applying waay too much power which you end up with both wheels spinning with lock on and broken traction. you still go straight ahead.

To tie all this in with putting superlows on the rear to aid in handling. A front wheel drive car has the front wheels doing all the work. They have to turn and also supply the drive. So you need to have them on the ground at all times. It's pointless only having one wheel on the ground as what i mentioned above happens. So essentially you need to find a neutral balance between have the front suspension soft enough to allow both wheels to remain in contact with the road at all times and also firm enough to reduce minimise body roll/ braking weight transfer. A good matched spring/shock package or coilovers with correct dampener/rebound settings COMBINED with correct matching springs rates will help with this. Strut brace will aid in reducing tower flex which contributes to understeer as well.

The rear of a front wheel drive car should basically be as firm as possible but compliant enough to still absorb bumps/dips. By tieing the back of the car down it stops it from unsettling the front mid corner when say hitting a dip/bump and pushing the front of the car around. A nice big heavier rear sway bar in conjunction with coilovers/spring shocks as i have mentioned will do the job. When I set up a front wheel drive car all I want the rear wheels to do is follow where ever the front wheels go. I don't want them doing their own thing or going in a different direction to the front at all. Think of it as towing a well balanced trailer. It will simply just follow the car's path through bumps/dips with the wheels on the trailer taking exactly the same path as those on the car. Not hitting a bump mid corner and stepping out trying to throw the car into over steer or even leaving the road surface alltogether and pushing the front causing understeer.

Adding superlows to the rear to clarify the reasons is it simply stiffens the rear spring rate over the lows, allows the car to sit level giving the centre line of the car a neutral setting. It allows the suspension of each wheel to do it's job from thus neutral position without one already having a determined load on it before it starts.

Like I said I have run with both lows and super lows in my car and the difference in handling is like chalk and cheese. My car was such an easy car to drive fast as it was totally predictable in it's behaviour on uneven surfaces and inputs from the driver were felt straight away and are precise and not delayed or vague. I have driven a lot of corolla's with a lot of different set ups suspension wise and my opinion is i think I've pretty much hit the nail on the head hence why many others have followed suit.

A couple of quick points with info on springs.

They don't sag like most think. It is the suspension bushes that cause the "sag" or drop in ride height. When installing springs you should always loosen off the bolts that hold the torsion beam to the body of the car a little(just loosen then nip back up a little) and go for a quick spirited drive. This allows the bushes to move as they aren't tight enough to allow no movement and index themselves into their new set postion after adding lowered springs. Then retighten bolts and away you go. Your suspension bushes will thank you for it and last a lot longer.

Ensure the springs are seated correctly. I have now done 3 Corolla's which haven't had springs seated correctly in the spring hangers or had the top spring retainer plates installed correctly on the front struts. This allows spring movement and also incorrect tension on the springs themselves. Makes hideous noises and also cause unnecessary wear.

End of my epic post. Longest one I have done on this forum yet. LOL

Do i get 4 posts added to my post count for length??? :P