OME vs. Daystar Ride Quality - Imperical Results

[long_tall_texan]

Well, I have read a lot of questions/concerns about the stiffness of the ride of the OME 927 HD springs. So, I did a little scientific testing of my own. My Palm Pre has an app that can use the internal accelerometer to log vibrations, like a seismograph. So before I took off my Daystar lift, I logged a couple of runs through some parking lots with various sized speed bumps. I figured that would be a good comparison between the two. I then re-logged the same routes once I had my OME 927's installed.

Daystar Setup:
OEM Springs
Rancho RSX 17505 Shocks
Daystar 2.5" Spacer Lift
3/8" top spacer plate
3 Ring Clevis

OME Setup:
OME 927 Springs
Bilstein BE5-D916 Shocks
Daystar Top Plate
1/2" DIY Frankie Spacer

Looks like OME is a smoother ride - In all 4 tests.

Y-Axis shows G's measured by the accelerometer.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[JeepINgeek]

destined to be a sticky in the lift section...

 

[Uncle Krusty]

I see only one thing that taints you results in comparing the Springs vs. Spacers. You changed the shocks.

Changing the shocks may not seem like much, but it does turn it into a apples / pears (not quite oranges) comparrison as the two shocks are more than likely valved differently.

I won't debate the results. It was after reading several people going from spacers to springs that I decided to just wait and save for the OME 926/948springs and Ranchos - I've yet to regret it. Got a respectible 3" gain (had some sagging at 70K), and the ride difference was outstanding - again partially do to the shock upgrade.

I appreciate your effort though on the behalf of all of us. It's what makes the site so outstanding!

BTW, thank you for the spring advice - I think it was one of your earlier posts to someone that helped me decide on going the route I did withe springs...

 

[long_tall_texan]

Well, Regarding the shock change, the Ranchos in the Daystar setup were actually Blown. I found that out when I tore it apart to replace the springs. Did not plan to replace shocks. Went with Bilstein since I could get them here next day. But, since the Ranchos were blown, they were doing little to no damping. So effectively, they should have given a less resistance to bumps - therefore, lower g-forces. Although, it would take longer for the springs to quit bouncing since they were not dampening. I would have expected the Daystar numbers to be even higher if the shocks had not been blown.

 

[Ry' N Jen]

Cool test comparison Tall Texan!

 

[jnaut]

Nice job. I'm a big fan of the empirical stuff! (See my sig)

I'm assuming you took the exact same path to test each lift?

 

[long_tall_texan]

I'm assuming you took the exact same path to test each lift?

Yes. Each of the plots was over the same "bumps" for comparison. Also, all of the tests were done at the same speed. I even did them at the same ambient temperature to try to account for any changes that heat or cold may have played in the results.

 

[JeepINgeek]

again.. im impressed man!!

great work!!!

but to beat someone else to the question.. in the area of controls..

did you take the same crap before hand so as to not have any gasous releases effecting the results?

 

[jnaut]

I even did them at the same ambient temperature to try to account for any changes that heat or cold may have played in the results.

Very nice. I wouldn't have thought of that.

What about relative humidity and dew point?

Ok now I'm just being mean.

 

[long_tall_texan]

did you take the same crap before hand so as to not have any gasous releases effecting the results?

LOL. Nope. Just my fat butt in the driver's seat each time. So ±10 pounds....

 

[JeepINgeek]

LOL. Nope. Just my fat butt in the driver's seat each time. So ±10 pounds....

+1 approval rating
icon996.gif