vizman

Any input appreciated. I'm undecided between both companies, I understand that eibach offers a softer ride and H&R springs are more performance orientated. How much of a difference should I see between the two companies, pros/cons?

adfsouth

I know this is probably not what you would want to hear but MHO would be to either stick with the stock suspension or upgrade to a complete setup (ie. Bilstein Damptronic or PSS, JIC Cross, KW etc.). I've went the spring route (H&R) on my last Porsche and would not do it again. If you don't track the car I would leave it stock....lowering the car would be very rough on the front of your Aerokit.

Truble10

I appreciate your point of view but respectfully disagree. I have had all of my P-cars lowered using springs only. For the street I find this to be a perfect blend for giving me the look, ride and saving $$ vs. coil-overs. Coil-overs are the ultimate for your suspension and if you want to spend the $$ you will not be disappointed. I have been very happy with H&R spring only kit with the rest on my suspension being stock. Some will tell you the stock springs will give out but I have 22K miles on my 997 and 20K on my 996 TT and they both drive like they did when I first lowered the car. $300 for springs and about $600 for an install and balance at the dealer and you are good to go.

The ride is firm but not rough. You will decrease the body roll. No rubbing or strange noises and the look is how a sports car should look. I see no downside. I driver my 997 almost daily.

Truble10

Here is a pic with stock suspension and H&R springs.

sandwedge

H&R's are slightly lower as I recall.......1 1/4" vs. 1.0" for Eibach.

vizman

I would suppose the slightly lowering of the eibach to be an advantage especially with the Aerokit. I know lowering the car would make it easier to scraper the Aerokit lowerlip bought those are easily replaceable. I was just wondering why is it that most members opt for the H&R springs rather than the Eibach's?

MichaelL

A stock 997S without any aerokit frequently grounds out, even on normal and unavoidable roadway transitions, to say nothing of parking lots and driveways. The bottom of the bumper will take an occasional strike and the brake cooling ducts will get pretty ragged. Any ride height reduction will make this worse.

There is no question that the body roll with stiffer, lowered springs will be reduced, but the car will invariably have a harder ride. Even with stock springs, the sport setting on PASM is all but unusable on rough pavement.

User 4621

I agree 100%. I have H&R lowering springs now, and suffice it to say that the car is heading for Sharkwerks Monday to get Damptronics installed.

The H&R springs are too low so you scrape all the time, they seem to have a very short lifespan as they've sagged already, and worst of all, they have a negative impact on handling, the car tends to pogo when loaded hard in corners.

I can't wait to get rid of them.

GreggT

Well........maybe H&R springs for 997 were poorly designed?
If so, that's good info to have, as that would have been my plan for the Face Lift I have deposit on.

Our 996 Cab got H&Rs 2 weeks after delivery back in fall of 02......been just fine as a daily ever since......no pogo.
As I recall, H&R had 4 or 5 different 996 model variants back then so attention to that seems appropriate.
I agree on a different approach for anything that will be tracked (or held to a higher standard).
As for height....both our 993 and Turbo are actualy set lower (with significantly modded coil-over setups) than the Cab with her 5 yr old H&R springs.

Driving low Porsches.....is an art form

mickfluff

shameless plug but I am selling a set of Techart coil overs vario for the 997,
1800.00 they retail for 4200-4500 range I believe.... some have had success with just springs and others will tell you they will never do it again. Just PM me if interested. Not many list techart when listing coil over options as they are quite expensive new.... but techart is a very nice product and think many will say the same. Good luck in what you do....

triode

Maybe the H&Rs aren't fully compatible with PASM; on my 996 daily driver, they have the positive qualities Truble described - firm but reasonable ride, virtually no body roll, and superb handling. I can deal with the occasional lip scrape, which can usually be avoided by diagonal entry where possible.

Liva

put H&R springs on cause they worked for my previous M3 for 45k miles. Got 3k out of the 997 C2 with H&R's, blew a rear shock, now have bilstein coilovers....wish i just did bilstein to start

Deanski

What bothers me is some aftermart shops or even dealers offering H&R springs for "thier" flavor of a 997 C2S or C4S and say nothing about issues with the stock shocks or offer warranty in the case of some of the dealers. Whereas others that order what is pretty much the same springs have shock failures.

So I wonder, are we getting different springs than say dealers or aftermart Porsche shops? Wouldn't they be the same for street?

Thnk about it? How many dealer/aftermart shops offer these springs in their own "modded" Porsche and have no failures with using H&R and stock PASM? Maybe they moddify the rate of the PASM reaction as one aftermart company found that by setting the PASM system to "0" you do not get the PASM failure when switching to coilovers or other systems.

Deanski

Deanski

Here's a good example: http://www.championmotorsport.com/F77/

They use H&R springs.

Or this and look at the description: http://www.championmotorsport.com/pr...nsion/S997.htm

Deanski

mdrums

Yes, a few of my local Porsche dealers will mod up a stock 997S with aftermarket springs among other things. I have asked the service manager about the lowering with H&R springs and that I heard the PASM shocks will fail with in 10k miles. They claim they have not run into this issue and warranty the work and sell new cars lowered with H&R springs all the time.

I guess, who really knows if there is really an issue with blowing out PASM shock with lowered H&R springs or any lowering spring for that matter.