...I will only end up have lowered my car by 5mm from what i have today and still have a pretty descent ride using the spidan on a set of FSD?
Hi Maso,
Mostly, you've understood correctly.
The FSDs do lift the car by 15mm, but only at the front. The FSDs cause no noticeable change in height at the back.
So, you can use Spidan 49527 springs at the front to bring the car back down. The car will then sit slightly lower than standard height, but not so much that the tyres wear unevenly. As you suggest, -5mm.
At the back, you can either use standard Audi springs (like I do) or use Spidan 49546. You can see a photo of my car in the very first post of this thread. I use the Audi springs simply because the rear springs in my car were only 1 year old when I changed my suspension setup. Spidan springs are generally more comfortable than Audi springs, but keeping the rear of the car firmer than the front helps the handling of the car by reducing understeer. Whether you choose Audi or Spidan springs at the back, the car will handle better and be more comfortable than the factory setup due to having FSDs. Both springs result in the same ride height as each other. I leave this decision to you, depending on your priorities.
So, in summary...
Front: Koni FSDs + Spidan 49527
Back: Koni FSDs + Spidan 49546 or the standard Audi springs for your car. Audi = even better handling, Spidan = even more comfort.
Normally, lowering a car is associated with a loss of comfort. However, this suspension setup is much, much more comfortable than what you have at the moment, even though it is ~5mm lower. But it's not just about comfort; the difference in handling is also huge. It is a complete upgrade.
I hope this helps.
Tom
Hi Maso, no problem.
The 1.2TDI is low. My car has a hub-to-arch measurement of ~34.5cm. The 1.2TDI is ~32.0cm. If you drop your TDI90 to this height, you will eat tyres!
Tom
Yes, the 1.2TDI must have different geometry, as otherwise it would wear its tyres very unevenly. There's a lot about the 1.2TDI that's different to other A2s.
I currently have 17" wheels with 205/45 tyres. They do indeed fill the arches nicely. By using a smaller alloy, you'll use thicker tyres, to keep the total circumference the same. So, the arches remain just as filled with smaller wheels... except there's less metal and more rubber! I suppose this can make the arches look less 'filled', but the ride height won't change.
I have no idea who makes those alloys in the photo. Given how thin the tyres are, I think they must be 18", meaning I would never consider using them... even if I liked the design!
Tom
When my existing tyres wear out, I will change to 16" 7J wheels and will fit 205/50R16. These have almost the exact same circumference as my current 205/45R17, so my arches will remain nicely filled.
In the UK, we are lucky that we are allowed to play with the tyre size a bit, but other European countries can be quite strict. I'm not sure about Sweden.
Tom
Hi all, I've just got a set of Spidan rear springs for my SE. They're the 49546 model. I'm replacing the upper and lower mounts at the same time, but I don't know if the original part numbers are correct for the Spidans. Anyone know which stops I should buy? Thanks...
Hi tom looking at these Spidan spring specs ...I don’t get it hopefully you got some answers ? can shed light on my concerns 56831 is lower in thickness length and diameter..if the glass roof is heavier which it obviously is why would this be the case in theory I would have thought those figures would be transposed from standard to oss or am I missing something...thanks PaulList of Spidan Springs
For the benefit of all, here are the Spidan springs available, including their tech specs...
49527: Front spring for the 1.4 petrol without OpenSky. .............................Thickness: 11.15mm, Length: 342mm, Diameter: 139mm, Weight: 1.55kg
56831: Front spring for the 1.4 petrol with OpenSky. .................................Thickness: 11.10mm, Length: 337mm, Diameter: 138mm, Weight: 1.541kg
49515: Front spring for the 1.4 TDI and 1.6 FSI with and without OpenSky. ...Thickness: 11.50mm, Length: 338mm, Diameter: 137mm, Weight: 1.7kg
49546: Rear spring for all A2s. ..............................................................Thickness: 09.75mm, Length: 338mm, Diameter: 107mm, Weight: 1.3kg
There is also a rear spring (56833) supposedly for cars with OpenSky, but this results in a back end noticeably higher than SE.
The specifications for 56831 (Petrol with OpenSky) confuse me a little. They appear to be 5mm shorter and slightly lighter than the 49527 springs (Petrol without OpenSky), which considering they're designed for the extra weight of the OpenSky system is a little counterintuitive.
Note that, at the time of writing, I only have experience of the 49527 springs for my specific application. The general consensus on the German forum is that all Spidan springs offer increased comfort over their direct Audi counterparts.
Cheers,
Tom