Koni GTS Coilover Discussion

[RopeJumper13]

I’ve been tracking these since they were announced at SEMA 2023. Curious if anyone has these on their radar. Planned release is around February 2024.

Product highlights:

• KONI DNA in a stylish coilover setup, with world-class Sport adjustable technology
• Both ride height and valving adjustability
• Full kit, including top mount, ready to install
• Dual purpose for on road and on the track
• Perfect for amateur motor enthusiast
• Option to customize spring rates to suit vehicle setup
• For 1”-4” lowering, depending on application

Koni Press Release
Application Guide

Looks like the same application will be available for the 2015-2024 GTI. Top hat isn’t adjustable. Hoping these will also support less than 1 inch for the GTI. Rebound only adjustment is a great sign (similar to Koni Yellows).

 

[2LEEGIT]

You got me at -
• Rebuildable / revalvable

Any idea of price point?

 

[RopeJumper13]

I’m expecting around $1600-$1800 but there hasn’t been any official announcement. Would expect these to compete with the B16 & ST XTA.

 

[scrllock]

@DerHase

 

[DerHase]

Definitely going to be following the progress of them. If the price is right, and the base valving/spring rates aren't completely terrible, they might be what pushes me to buy coilovers.

I too am interested in the true "max" ride height... because I'm working on some stuff right now that confirms what I thought: lowering the car is fucking terrible is basically every single way (except center of gravity).

 

[scrllock]

Weird that they advertise customizable rates and valving but don't offer R fitment, though I suppose Fortune Auto is the same way.

Looks like a great budget option compared to Ohlins that offers a number of advantages over B16/KW stuff.

@up4speed I'd check these out too

 

[tigeo]

Bummer no 50mm or heavier awd set. These should be good.

 

[tigeo]

they do....
https://www.h-r.com/en/article/?articlenr=RSS-48-851-2/1-VS&datasuppliernr=5060
https://www.h-r.com/bin/RSS4885111V.pdf

The GTS are just there 1way TT version of there previous 2way MT track day kit they released in 2017, Koni has been the damper supplier for H&R for some time now since they lost the contract with Bilstein.

Interesting and thanks! I also like your signature quote. AHAHAHAHAH

 

[1970something]

… I too am interested in the true "max" ride height... because I'm working on some stuff right now that confirms what I thought: lowering the car is fucking terrible is basically every single way (except center of gravity).

For someone with a set of Eibach 1” lowering springs (and Bilstein B8s) sitting in the garage, could you elaborate a bit?

 

[DerHase]

For someone with a set of Eibach 1” lowering springs (and Bilstein B8s) sitting in the garage, could you elaborate a bit?

Camber curve goes to shit and bump steer is worse (albeit tolerable, but it's still moving in the wrong direction).

Also when lowered 1.0in, you have 1.9inches of shock shaft showing. Bump stop is 2.17in tall for reference. You'll want to trim the bottom rung off which will bring it to ~1.57in.

Our cars ride the bump stops at nearly all times that weight is transferring (and that is by design).

FWIW I have 034 lowering springs going on myself. I wouldn't worry too much about a 1in drop, it DOES help center of gravity of course. This is basically going to be an experiment of mine to see if lowering is indeed worth it or not. Worst case scenario, next step will be MK7R front springs and back to the OE rears (or something else similar but a tad higher in rate).

I should be posting a video about all this, measurements I took, etc. within a day or two but here's a summary of the ride height part:

In short: These cars really don't have enough bump travel in stock form... and lowering them just makes the situation considerably worse. A lot of what I've found explains why my car at stock ride height on track was able to punch way above it's weight grip-wise. All these things need is some better shocks, some camber, and some roll stiffness IMO. I also think playing around with adding suspension packers to the stock front shocks AT STOCK RIDE HEIGHT (so bump stops engage sooner) may help the car take a "set" earlier and transition faster. Needs to be played with to know for sure though, but suspension packers are cheap and easy to experiment with.

Edited for clarity. Hopefully.

 

[tigeo]

Camber curve goes to shit and bump steer is worse (albeit tolerable, but it's still moving in the wrong direction).

Also when lowered 1.0in, you have 1.9inches of shock shaft showing. Bump stop is 2.17in tall for reference. You'll want to trim the bottom rung off which will bring it to ~1.57in.

Our cars ride the bump stops at nearly all times that weight is transferring (and that is by design).

FWIW I have 034 lowering springs going on myself. I wouldn't worry too much about a 1in drop, it DOES help center of gravity of course. This is basically going to be an experiment of mine to see if lowering is indeed worth it or not. Worst case scenario, next step will be MK7R front springs and back to the OE rears (or something else similar but a tad higher in rate).

I should be posting a video about all this, measurements I took, etc. within a day or two but here's a summary of the ride height part:

View attachment 298627

In short: These cars really don't have enough bump travel in stock form... and lowering them just makes the situation considerably worse. A lot of what I've found explains why my car at stock ride height on track was able to punch way above it's weight grip-wise. All these things need is some better shocks, some camber, and some roll stiffness IMO. I also think playing around with adding suspension packers to the stock front shocks (so bump stops engage sooner) may help the car take a "set" earlier and transition faster. Needs to be played with to know for sure though, but suspension packers are cheap and easy to experiment with.

If you are going to try packers why trim the stops? Are you looking to just fine-tune the jounce contact point to be v. close to the damper at static ride height but no in it like you get without trimming/like my car is? The one thing about the jounces is that while being contacted in my case at ride height, the spring rate of that first bit is very low so not really doing much above the coil spring's rate, would be interesting to see the curve for it so you can figure what combined rate is between jounce and coil over the bump travel distance. I'm also interested in the APR bump stops...wonder how those would work for you here?

 

[DerHase]

If you are going to try packers why trim the stops? Are you looking to just fine-tune the jounce contact point to be v. close to the damper at static ride height but no in it like you get without trimming/like my car is? The one thing about the jounces is that while being contacted in my case at ride height, the spring rate of that first bit is very low so not really doing much above the coil spring's rate, would be interesting to see the curve for it so you can figure what combined rate is between jounce and coil over the bump travel distance. I'm also interested in the APR bump stops...wonder how those would work for you here?

Sorry, had two separate trains of thought:

1. If lowered, you pretty much need to trim the stops (at least up front, tackling the back tonight). Stock bump = 55mm. Lowered 1.0in = 48mm shock shaft showing. So bump is 7mm compressed at ride height.

2. If NOT lowered, you have roughly 18mm of shock shaft showing WITH the bump stop installed, not cut. I think in THIS case, we could get better response/etc by adding 4-6mm (maybe more?) of suspension packers to engage the bumps a little bit earlier. Without cutting.



One day I'll rig up a corner weight scale in my press so I can measure coil spring rates and bump stop spring rates... but that's low on my list of priorities (for now).

 

[tigeo]

Sorry, had two separate trains of thought:

1. If lowered, you pretty much need to trim the stops (at least up front, tackling the back tonight). Stock bump = 55mm. Lowered 1.0in = 48mm shock shaft showing. So bump is 7mm compressed at ride height.

2. If NOT lowered, you have roughly 18mm of shock shaft showing WITH the bump stop installed, not cut. I think in THIS case, we could get better response/etc by adding 4-6mm (maybe more?) of suspension packers to engage the bumps a little bit earlier. Without cutting.



One day I'll rig up a corner weight scale in my press so I can measure coil spring rates and bump stop spring rates... but that's low on my list of priorities (for now).

Ok, that makes more sense now. Your rears should have plenty of room, my OE stops were 0.5" longer than the GTI/R rears so I went with the R jounces for a little more free travel (same length as yours but have a plastic insert in the top...maybe yours have that too?). My measurement show the 2.6" internal Bilstein jounces on my front B8s are compressed 0.9" at ride height with a total of 1.7" of max travel....those things must be really soft!

 

[00Zero]

Camber curve goes to shit and bump steer is worse (albeit tolerable, but it's still moving in the wrong direction).

Also when lowered 1.0in, you have 1.9inches of shock shaft showing. Bump stop is 2.17in tall for reference. You'll want to trim the bottom rung off which will bring it to ~1.57in.

Our cars ride the bump stops at nearly all times that weight is transferring (and that is by design).

FWIW I have 034 lowering springs going on myself. I wouldn't worry too much about a 1in drop, it DOES help center of gravity of course. This is basically going to be an experiment of mine to see if lowering is indeed worth it or not. Worst case scenario, next step will be MK7R front springs and back to the OE rears (or something else similar but a tad higher in rate).

I should be posting a video about all this, measurements I took, etc. within a day or two but here's a summary of the ride height part:

View attachment 298627

In short: These cars really don't have enough bump travel in stock form... and lowering them just makes the situation considerably worse. A lot of what I've found explains why my car at stock ride height on track was able to punch way above it's weight grip-wise. All these things need is some better shocks, some camber, and some roll stiffness IMO. I also think playing around with adding suspension packers to the stock front shocks (so bump stops engage sooner) may help the car take a "set" earlier and transition faster. Needs to be played with to know for sure though, but suspension packers are cheap and easy to experiment with.

Makes sense that the car uses the bumps tops nearly all the time when corrnering

I remember reading part of the Mk7 Clubsport S was a softer front bumpstops and if you look at the Mk8 is uses the same from bumpstop as the Clubsport S and the longer rear that my Sportwagon has. It also makes sense that most lowering springs aren't much stiffer (a few %) as they are just into the bump stops more (effectively increasing the rate by using the stops more)

I'll need new shocks soon and I was pondering using the APR stops and packers to play around with more bump travel but if they are engaged that quickly ill likely give up more than I'll gain at stock ride height.

FYI, Based on the shock info I can get the rears (from Bilstein, and Koni) have more damping relative to the front (about 30%, I assume this ratio follow stock). The FSD have about even damping front to rear (about 5% stiffer in front). I have some stiffer liner rate springs and height adjusting perches to go in the spring with my stock shocks to test it out.

Edit: forgot to menton bumpstop length nearly correlates with quoted ride height difference between models, so bump travel on the front is almost the same across the platform.

 

[JerseyDrew77]

Interesting and thanks! I also like your signature quote. AHAHAHAHAH

Seems like he's salty about something or someone on here. Lol...