
Originally Posted by
dkmesa
I stayed away from H&R because I had seen others with the same stance.
I disagree re cutting bumpstops. 034 is a mild drop a nowhere near sitting on the bumpstops when at rest. Vehicle options/ full tank/ items in the car is not going to explain differences like what we see between abiley84 H&R and TeflonS4 H&R drop.
I can guarantee that if the bumpstops are not trimmed on the H&R that it can yield an odd looking and driving A/S/RS5. I say this because when I first installed H&R springs on my S5 I did not trim and the car sat oddly, lower front, higher rear. I inspected and found the rear bumpstops were effecting the resting ride height. The front was almost touching as well and in time would have when the springs settled. I trimmed front and rear bumpstops, the rear came down visibly as the springs settled and the front now actually has proper suspension range of motion without contacting the bumpstops.
With springs that lower less than the H&R springs it's still a requirement to trim the bumpstops if you want the car to ride without hitting them repeatedly. Bumpstops are not meant to be part of the suspension that holds weight or is repeatedly contacted/used. With stock suspension heights the bumpstops are used to avoid hard contact with the chassis and disallowing the shock internals to bottom out under very large suspension movement. This means that any larger movement of the suspension engages the bumpstops adding a massive change in spring rate during contact, bumpstops increase the spring rate massively when they are engaged which is not their intention.
That is how little room there is with a half trimmed bumpstop with this car which has H&R springs:
My S5 sat normally front/rear after the bumpstops were trimmed, the rear being the most effected. Every single lowering spring or adjustable spring kit for these models requires the bumpstops be trimmed for proper suspension travel and/or in some cases proper resting ride height.
Cheers,
Bookmarks