Will someone rate these from stiffest to softest? Gabriel Guardian

>>16733355
If they're all OEM spec they're all going to be roughly the same in ride feel.


And stiffer or softer is more dependent on spring rates than shocks anyways

>>16733355
go on their website and fucking check yourself

how do you expect faggots here to know?

most cheap aftermarket dampers like the ones you listed are roughly the same shit and equivalent to oem or a little stiffer, just with better internals to cope with retards putting lowering springs on them

>>16733387
>spring rates
True, but shock stiffness effects handling in a way that doesn't also effect ride height. Think of it this way, springs keep your wheels on the ground, shocks keep your body on your wheels.
>>16733498
The shock/strut combination I normally use for a FWD GM (Monroe Economatics front, Lakewood rear) isn't available for this vehicle (Beretta). So I'm trying to find alternatives in the same price range ($150-$300) without drastically changing the suspension.

>>16733745
Springs can come in different rates and still have the same ride height.

>>16733756
Not when your a cheapskate. I have $600 and need to save some money to put in my own pocket. Plus, I still have to deal with sway bars and/or links.

Protip to everyone: if a guy asks you if you can upgrade the handling of a '92 Beretta for less than $1k, the answer is no.

Excel-G's are shit, ran them once, never again. I've had good luck with Gas-a-Just, a bit stiffer then stock, but not stupid.

>>16734186
Dude just redo the bushings, and maybe a new set of stock springs w/ new shocks..

Beretta's are not meant to be sports cars.

>>16734186
you are a retard for thinking you can upgrade the suspension on a 92 anything for less than 2000 and make money

>>16734223
I've never run Excel-Gs, I have run Gas-A-Just, but completely forgot how they behave. Thanks for your input.
>>16734255
That's why I took it, seemed like a challenge.
>>16734271
All the rest of the suspension is new. Hell, the links are new, but I'm not sure I'm happy with them. Most of it comes down to alignment in the end anyway. But God damn does this thing understeer.
You are right though.

>/o/ on literally any engineering topic
facedesk.svg

Okay, here's a crash course on what dampers do. The springs hold up the car. They're what absorbs all of the forces of the road acting on the wheels and isolate the chassis from those forces. However, if you have no dampers and you hit a bump, the car will continue to bounce and bounce and bounce indefinitely (until friction slows it down). So, you use dampers to cut off that bouncing much sooner. That's what they do.

Now, if your dampers aren't stiff enough, they won't stop the bouncing in a reasonable amount of time. If they're too stiff, they will prevent the tires from being able to move independently from the chassis and reduce grip. Think of it this way: when a wheel hits a bump, it travels upward over the bump. But because of inertia, it continues to travel upward after clearing the top of the bump. This is where you need a spring to push the tire back down to the road. A damper can't do that. It will slow the ascent of the tire, transmitting more upward force to the chassis, and slow the descent of the tire, keeping it out of contact with the ground. Neither of those is what you want.

Now imagine that you have immensely stiff dampers and you hit a bump. Instead of the wheel traveling upwards, now its your entire car. Depending on the height, ramp angle, and speed that you hit the bump, your car might be accelerating upwards at >5-6G for a short period of time. That's a force of well over 5000 pounds on a single axle of a very light car. Your wheels and wheel bearings and other load-bearing structures aren't designed for those kinds of forces. Also, now you have nothing above the car to push the tires back down to the road, and you're just relying on gravity. That's not good for traction.

tl;dr: body movement is bad, dampers set to >65% critical damping increase body movement, and you're fucking up the handling of your car because you're under the mistaken impression that uncomfortable = fast.

>>16733355
how the fuck should we know? buy them all and stick em on a dyno and find out for yourself

>>16734834
>That's why I took it, seemed like a challenge.

When the performance aftermarket is virtually non-existent, and there are few if any performance parts available to swap off of other models, its going to nigh impossible to make a performance car out of it.

>>16735670
>""impossible""
Read the Milliken book, then make a shock dyno out of a Harbor Freight circular saw motor and an eBay load cell, then buy a bunch of Bilstein parts and go to town.

>>16735007
Your post was completely unnecessary. I'm looking for stiffer rear shocks to curb body roll/squat in the rear, while looking for softer Macpherson struts to increase body roll/squat in the front. This has the effect of causing the rear end to kick out more in a turn (decreasing understeer/increasing oversteer). I'm not trying to find a shock with 0% dampening (like a solid metal tube).

Just to trigger you I'm running -0.6 camber in the front, -0.4 in the back, and I'm gonna set front toe to 0.07 toe-out on the left and 0.05 toe-out on the right. Might even move caster a tad forward.