Unfortunately I haven't driven more than two different 928's and I was being gentle when I drove one so I'm can't say how one differs from another. I currently have Koni's and am very happy with them. They keep the tires stuck to the road very well and the cars handling is very predictable. The ride is also comfortable so long as the bumps aren't too big.

On past cars I've had Koni's and Bilsteins. One of my Koni's did fail shortly after installation, it was warrantied but I still ended up paying to install them and realign the car. Bilstein sports worked great and had no problems.

Where do you live? It might be worth finding a few other guys that already have new shocks installed for comparison purposes.

I have Bilsteins and M474 springs currently and they are really sweet on smooth/whinedy roads. They are donkey on many of the roads in San Jose, where there is rapid and sharp road surface changes. I find the return up from a fast down to soft. It feels like a bottom out. I have a box of eibach's but after Bill B's stories about the mix, it leaves me wondering.

We we're thinking of our snow bound friends :D

Hammer........please still consider my PM for myself; pehaps I'll play a little this winter. :eek:

I also switched to bilstien eibach. The car has a tendancy to follow road undulations, riding the waves like a dolphin. My stock setup would float over that. My feeling is that on many other surfaces the ride is much better, and the bumps are absorbed while retaining contact with the pavement. BTW, the springs can be set to normal ride hight.

Overall this is less of a luxury ride and more sports oriented, but still very nice on the highway. I live in rural upstate NY, so I drive some pretty tough roads. I would do this again, and add sways if I wanted more, and probably will. Before I did this, the car would sometime bottom out during certain combinations of corners and bumps. Now it never does, and I am contemplating lowering a tad, as I now feel it is safe to do so.

The point has already been made, but replacing tired shocks with fresh stockers would also feel pretty good I would guess. I was told by a good suspension man that my original shocks were still good at 60 K, but I can't say for sure that they were like new.

BTW , if you are serious about shocks and can't make up your mind, call Carl Faucett. If you tell him how you like to drive, he will hook you up with a combo that will match your style.

Currently I have stock non-sport suspension on my S4.....I rode in BillB's eibach-Bilstein setup.....I didn't like it.....neither did Bill.....I would describe it as "bouncy".....when I need to replace my shocks....I would do one of two things.....get factory sport springs and the red sport boges....or get konis and keep my stock springs....I think stock springs are 300lb front and 200lb rear vs 450 front and 300 rear for sports? I drove Afshins 928 & it handled very well...with stock springs and Konis

Can you elaborate on bouncy?

Bouncy -- fscking washboard where your arse goes NUMB! Driving down cobble stone streets in Charleston, SC on a racing 10-speed!

Don't forget that ride height can make a big impact as well.

I had the Bilstein/Eibach combination on my former 90GT, along with a Devek HD front swaybar and polyurethane swaybar bushings. If set near the factory ride height to as much as 10MM below, the ride and handling was great. Firm ride, flat cornering.

If lowered beyond that, as many owners do, the front end would porpoise. By this I mean any bump would set off a short cycle of very noticable up and down oscillations.

My installer assumed I wanted it set to race car specs. I don't recall the exact height, but I'm guessing it was 140-150MM. It definitely looked lowered. I was NOT pleased with the initial results. It may have been fine on a track, but for street use the front end porpoising was very annoying. A quick adjustment with the Motion Pro shock spanner height adjustment tool, bringing it up to within 10MM of spec, and all was good again.

Just my experience, YMMV.

Hmmm. Its all so subjective. How was the actual handling?

THAT is interesting. My car is lowered to about 150/150 and the Bilstein/Eibachs are not happy. To look at my car you wouldn't call it lowered. There is a 2-finger gap between the front tires and the fender lip. But it measures 150 at the correct points. I've ridden in cars at 120/120 that handled better... but they may have had spacers, for all I know, to raise the spring back into its usual preload. In open road racing we set the cars low, but the issue you raise may explain my awful handling and day-to-day road manners. This had not occured to me in my struggles to regain the handling I had once a long time ago. Thanks for bringing this up.

Don't forget that early cars at least came with tires that had some sidewall to absorb some of the bumps. Two inch sidewalls and "sport" shocks may be only practical on the track.

Sounds like a neat suspension shop if they can actually test the shocks.

It seemed too stiff......like the bilsteins were valved to harsh on intial movement....then once moving didn't have enough rebound damping.....however I've only experienced one 928 like this...others really like the setup?

I like my Ledas with Hypercoils. Adjustable from "the track" to the railroad tracks!!. Whatever you select, make sure that the shock is matched to the spring.

My ride height is set aound 145-150mm. I never experienced a "porpoising" problem or ever felt my car would bottom out with my Konis.

I can't see how anyone can subjectively define what is "better", especially for street use, when there are so many combinations of tires, springs, shocks, sway bars and links, bushings, ride height, alignment, etc. Just changing the caster angle will change the effort it takes to turn the wheel (at least what I heard).

Some one please define the points on the care where ride height is defined.