Best shock set up?

[Delorean Industries]

Major differences between the two offerings.

___We only use the Qa1 bodies themselves. We use a high end shock shop here to custom configure the valving. Basically without doing this half of the adjustment settings are useless due to the weight bias on our cars
___ Our set up comes with lower stainless control arms and all required hardware
___ We set our front shocks up as "true" coil overs. We machine and anodize custom upper adapters to allow the configuration to clear the factory shock tower bends. This deletes the spring riding on the shock tower directly and the rubber pad. The other option while allocating for ride height adjustment still works off of the upper spring perch from the factory.
___ Set also comes with custom stainless spacers for the lower shock mounting points to our stainless control arms

___ We offer five different spring rate configurations depending on your application. We have spent a good amount of time on engineering the options based on un-sprung weight at each wheel and a variety of different engines installed in the rear. All of this makes a difference.

Rate packages include:
___ factory configuration lowered
___ Twin turbo prv
___ LS swap (additional info required from owner)
___ VR6 swap (additional info required from owner)
___ ECO-boost swap (in house only)

[Drive Stainless]

More differences:

(Drive Stainless vs. DPI)

• 8" front spring vs. 7" front spring (due to using the custom upper adapter). Longer springs mean a lower spring rate which means the baseline setting (0 clicks) will be softer.
• Rear shocks have S/S upper eyelet mount vs. stud mount. QA1's technical support recommended use of the eyelet-style mount in lieu of the stud-type mount wherever possible. My experimentation reveals that the DeLorean's rear suspension geometry will permanently deform QA1's stud mount bushings in short order. Additionally, the location of the S/S eyelet mount moves the rear shock into the center of its travel range.

I provide steel, stainless, or aluminum spacers for the front lower control arm, depending on which LCAs are being used. I have DPI's S/S LCAs (sans spring cups) myself and I really like them.

[Delorean Industries]

Our factory height configuration has 8 inch springs up front. You can't achieve a factory ride height with a 7 inch spring.

The turbo configuration uses eyelet in rear due to heavier loads. (remember you asked if ours would fit your needs)


There is also a machined boss that locates it in the rear shock hole. One set up for stock frames and a completely different design for turbo cars.

[powerline84]

If you order from Drive Stainless you will receive your order complete and quickly, with great customer service and feedback.

[eight8toy]

Great info in this thread. With both set ups is it possible to achieve the lowered ride height as opposed to the stock suspension height?

I do like the complete package offered by DPI since my stuff is all covered in surface rust and should be swapped out.

[Drive Stainless]

Great info in this thread. With both set ups is it possible to achieve the lowered ride height as opposed to the stock suspension height?

I do like the complete package offered by DPI since my stuff is all covered in surface rust and should be swapped out.

With my kit, you can establish stock or lowered ride height with the same (8") springs.

[Nicholas R]

[*]Rear shocks have S/S upper eyelet mount vs. stud mount. QA1's technical support recommended use of the eyelet-style mount in lieu of the stud-type mount wherever possible. My experimentation reveals that the DeLorean's rear suspension geometry will permanently deform QA1's stud mount bushings in short order. Additionally, the location of the S/S eyelet mount moves the rear shock into the center of its travel range.

I actually was wondering about this since both yours and DPI's photos of the kits show stud mounts on both front and back. I dont like the idea of using a stud mounted full coilover in the rear knowing that our trailing arms cause the suspension to travel both in an arc about the control arms, but also an arc about the TAB. Using an eyelet style mount with a spherical bearing makes a lot more sense given the compound curves of the suspension travel, especially since that's now the load path for the full (rear) weight of the car. How do you convert to this though since all we have is a shock tower with a hole? Is there still a stud mounted bracket that bolts in for the rod end to interface with?

[Drive Stainless]

I actually was wondering about this since both yours and DPI's photos of the kits show stud mounts on both front and back. I dont like the idea of using a stud mounted full coilover in the rear knowing that our trailing arms cause the suspension to travel both in an arc about the control arms, but also an arc about the TAB. Using an eyelet style mount with a spherical bearing makes a lot more sense given the compound curves of the suspension travel, especially since that's now the load path for the full (rear) weight of the car. How do you convert to this though since all we have is a shock tower with a hole? Is there still a stud mounted bracket that bolts in for the rod end to interface with?

I debated the orientation of the upper eyelet mount, and have tried it both parallel and perpendicular to the rear control arm mounts. it seems to work either way without any noticeable binding.

[Nicholas R]

I debated the orientation of the upper eyelet mount, and have tried it both parallel and perpendicular to the rear control arm mounts. it seems to work either way without any noticeable binding.
**photos removed**

I'd probably go with the orientation shown in your photo. The rotation from the control arms is probably more than the TAB. Though with some trigonometry we could probably calculate the optimal angle for the clevis to be at, haha.

[steve]

I went with the Drive Stainless QA1's. Good kit does the job excellently and would not go back. You can budget easily for this set up.

Matt will even walk you through the install.

Steve