1.5 dci does 115 without any slipstream yet the brakes on that are good enough to snap your neck compared to a skoda fav or felly

I don't doubt it - but that's probably mostly to do with the amount of servo assistance they have built in. My first car was a Hillman Hunter, a slightly bigger car than a Fav but about the same weight, and it had no brake servo at all - the brakes were fine, I could lock the wheels if I jumped on them moderately hard. By contrast, not many years ago I had a Fiat Uno diesel (another 19cwt car) with very heavily servo'd brakes and when the drive to the vacuum pump failed one day the thing was really quite alarming to drive - I had to put pretty much my entire weight on the pedal. The Fav is drivable with the servo disconnected: your Clio would probably be only just.

well, the Clio is probably still on its roof in the tat yard now unfortunately (the slope on the side of a frosty road hit me back in feb) but anyway seeing as I’m 18 and now earning enough money to tat with my cars and happily fix anything I screw up on them and have plenty of money in my pocket. I just want to learn about it, on the plus side im a steel fabricator/welder and want to have ago at a few cars and be capable of upgrading and repairing anything that’s thrown at me.

I just want to learn about it

Well, good point, faffing around is the best way if you don't mind the risk of wasting some money and/or time along the way! But my advice, strictly for what it's worth, is to leave the brakes as they are and work on the handling as the most rewarding area. I've always wanted to try a strut brace in a Fav. The basic handling is not at all bad, especially if you do as I did and put good quality gas shocks on there and some mildly uprate rims and treads. And if you're a welder you'll knock a strut brace together in no time.

Chris, Richard's probably mostly right. Where I can't say he's right it's lack of personal experience to back up what he's saying, rather than that I think he's actually wrong.

Richard, cheers for the report of brake fade on the hill; it backs up a long-standing argument of mine that you should always use engine braking to control speed down hills, and wheel brakes as a backup.

Chris, I've never used braided stainless hoses, but I know people who've reported a firmer pedal. That said, some of them reported improved feel, and others reported reduced feel, from otherwise the same spec (well apart from new fluid). Either way, if the fluid starts heating, it does get cooled faster by the thin metal sheath rather than several mm of rubber.

I thought about knocking up a strut brace, but didn’t know as to wether they made any difference it’s not something I have looked into. The handling of the fav is pretty decent I think for a car of its year in its category, it’s certainly better than the Corsa's with and without power steering and the AX was appalling but it’s still far too sloppy. I couldn’t find any lowering springs that drop any lower than 35mm though and I don’t rate chopping springs. As for the shocks, I have been told differently about gas and oil shocks and wouldn’t know what to buy.

I thought about knocking up a strut brace,

If you can find one from a Felicia it will be a direct bolt on Not entirely sure exactly which models have them though.

yeah, me being me id probarbly end up making one for the sake of having a go. are they any good? would it be any good to have a go at slapping on a strut brace and making up an arb to go with it?

the actual size of the disc plays a bigger part in the equation, basically bigger diameter = more leverage, also don't overlook the possible gains by improving the cooling to the discs.. also stiffer suspension springs can reduce braking distances dramatically...

without going into the pro's and con's of wider tyres, basically more rubber on the road will give you more grip so you would be less likely to lock up the front brakes in heavy braking. but don't over-do it because if they are too wide you will compromise handling in the wet... in my opinion don't go any wider than 195mm tyre width

don't bother with drilled discs, they are an absolute menace.

totaly true, plus if you dont have power steering it would make it har to turn while still or slow(tire thing) and holes in the disk or any thing to that matter makes the disk easyer to brake in pieces(has happen) also, the size of you wheel (total circumference) is a factor,for example standart tires are 165/75R13 if you use 195/55R13 you would get better braking since the tread is whider but the total circumferences of the wheel is smaller (dont know exactly how much it would improve braking feel for you) i changed my wheels to 175/75R13 and feel mor grip but less braking (bigger total circumferences by 3%) so i think you would feel more grip and braking if you use the 195/55R13

my car (felicia face lift 2000 GLX) has a couple of turns cut away from the suspencion so it is stiffer and i can vouche that turning braking and acceleration feel diferent, but better

I tried to get some 185 50 r13's, and couldnt find anywhere that can get me any. Plus i wouldn't want a budget brand, I like the goodyear Eagle F1's. Do 195's fit on the standard wheels? I beleive they are 5j wheels.

As many times before, rim width should be 70 to 95% of the tread width (source more or less any road tyre manufacturer), so re-arranging gives:-

Max tread = wheel width in mm / 70% = 5 * 25.4 / 0.7 = 181mm. I'd be prepared to push that to run a 185 section, but nothing wider on a 5J.

basically more rubber on the road will give you more grip so you would be less likely to lock up the front brakes in heavy braking

That's sort-of true but not the whole story. In the dry, on a good clean, smooth road surface, the tyre width makes no difference to the static grip, and effectively none to the forward/backward grip (hence accelerating and braking) either. All that matters is the coefficient of friction, which is a function of tyre material but not contact patch area. Width comes in handy under real conditions of cornering and bouncing on surface irregularities, where it reduces the tendency of tyres to twist, warp and generally lose control at friction values significantly below those dictated by coef of friction.

Because tyre twist is the limiting factor, lower profile tyres also help, as do wider rims, and the reason for the limit on tyre width for a given rim is as much to do with the tyre bulging over the sides and adding more twist as anything.

As for gas and oil shocks: they all use oil as the damping medium, but gas ones contain pressurised gas which reduces the tendency of the oil to foam and lose efficiency under hard driving, which is why gas shocks (all else being equal) give better ride control in real conditions. However, all else is not equal, and manufacturers often make gas shocks more resistant than 'regular' ones. Not all gas shocks are equal! Normal car handling is set by manufacturers as a compromise between ride control, ride comfort and cost. Some aftermarket shocks are very much more geared towards control and nuts to comfort (Bilstein, for instance), some aim to improve control but without sacrificing comfort (Monroe SensaTrac or whatever they've renamed that range now). You have to read between the lines of the catalogues, or ask around experienced folks for specific advice.

Spring lowering is a classic example where you trade comfort for control. However, if you don't alter the shocks you won't be making the most of the potential gains, because higher-rate springs (which is what chopped springs become) need different damping - can someone confirm the direction it changes in? My mental arithmetic suggests you might need _less_ damping. I've never chopped springs on my own motors because it attracts too much police attention. Of course, there's another aspect to it - chopped springs lower the centre of gravity of the car and cause it to roll less, too. So you see none of these things is entirely simple!

a chopped spring is not the same as a higher-rate spring, the tension of a spring is a product of the guage (thickness) of the spring steel used and the number of coils and thier diameter

chopping down springs can give you some benefits if you cut them in the right place, the trouble is the only place you can cut a spring is at the bottom, and as we all know the tension on a spring is not linear, they are progressive, so cutting the bottoms off may not alter the handling at all except at the very limits of it's travel, but by far the biggest risk is bottoming out the damper and damaging the seals. you could try fitting a longer bump stop to avoid this but by far the best way is to get dampers with shorter pistons..

In the dry, on a good clean, smooth road surface, the tyre width makes no difference to the static grip, and effectively none to the forward/backward grip (hence accelerating and braking) either. All that matters is the coefficient of friction

ok... so you are going say 30mph, and you stamp on the brake pedal... the front wheels lock up because the braking force at the calipers is more than the grip of the tyres on the road surface... but it's simplest terms, once the wheels have stopped turning and the car is still moving you are wasting braking force because you are no longer turning kenetic evergy into thermal energy because the wheels aren't turning.... now you fit wider wheels/tyres and do the same, you now have more static grip so the brakes can't overcome that grip so easily and hence the wheels will stay turning for longer

a chopped spring is not the same as a higher-rate spring

You're right, but chopping a spring does in fact give it a higher rate as a side effect. I could go through a lengthy and boring explanation, but it's easier if you just think about the extreme - chop the spring to one turn or less and it will be practically unbendable!

once the wheels have stopped turning and the car is still moving you are wasting braking force because you are no longer turning kinetic evergy into thermal energy because the wheels aren't turning

Yes you are! The kinetic energy is turning into thermal energy at the point where the tyres meet the road. In fact this will heat up the rubber and cause friction to increase, as a result of which you can get shorter stopping distances by locking the wheels. This is obviously only any use if you definitely want to stop dead straight, because you've got absolutely no steering control when this happens.

now you fit wider wheels/tyres and do the same, you now have more static grip

No, you have exactly the same static grip, that's just what I was saying. If you take a 15cwt Morris Minor on 135/80 tyres, and a 15cwt Lotus on 235/45 tyres, lock all 4 wheels and try to drag them on a tow rope, you'll need exactly the same amount of force to move either car.

But in practical terms, under normal everyday driving conditions, wider tyres do indeed give you better control both forward/backward and side-to-side, short of aquaplaning.

er.. ok

But don't wider tyres spread the load weight of your car so that its easier to lock up in the wet, whereas a narrower tyre has a smaller foot print concentrating the weight of the car into smaller contact area and increasing the grip in the wet? I think that makes sense

Just remember when you see rally cars in the snow and wet they have skinnier tyres under the wide arches:) just that in this country with our good weather something to think about:rofl:

But don't wider tyres spread the load weight of your car so that its easier to lock up in the wet:

yes, hth

But don't wider tyres spread the load weight of your car so that its easier to lock up in the wet, whereas a narrower tyre has a smaller foot print concentrating the weight of the car into smaller contact area and increasing the grip in the wet

Not really, no. But 'wet' isn't a well-defined condition. When the road is just damp - i.e. no standing water) - wider tyres still win for the same reasons as in the dry. When there's deep standing water (more than the a few mm) you're better off with skinny tyres which exert greater local pressure and are better able to displace the water, avoiding full-on aquaplaning. In snow, again you want skinny tyres with narrow blocks/wide sipes which can cut through, or at least into, the snow and get some grip.

This is all theory, but in reality does it all work? I can tell you now in the wet my car is dangerous to drive quick. Wheels spin pulling off reasonably gently, lock up with moderate braking and when I had the old wheels and 195/40/15 tyres the traction in wet or dry was exceptional, especially compared to the standard tyres I have now.

This is all theory, but in reality does it all work?

Yes - BUT!!!!....

There are some very big differences between different brands of tyre of the same notional size, rating etc. An example from my own experience: I once had some budget radial treads on the front of a Fiat, 175/60/13, 'Dark Horse' I think they were called. They were pretty much OK in the dry but AWFUL under any kind of wet conditions. Just lethal. Later, on the same car, I had some Yokohama A539 treads, exactly the same size on the same rims, no modifications to the suspension in the mean time. They were slightly better in the dry but OUT OF SIGHT better in the wet. Cost something like twice as much as the cheap ones and more than worth it. That was an education - I haven't bought cheap treads since.

Tom, I can't remember the maths now, but Richard is correct; cutting a bit off a coil spring does increase the poundage spring rate; whether it increases it fast enough that you increase the actual loading before the spring becomes coil-bound is another thing I can't remember. What is pretty certain is that, if you take more than about an inch of length off and retain standard length dampers you run the risk of the springs unseating on full droop.

Chris, what you've said about your experience I believe, but as Richard says, compounding makes a lot of difference, particularly in the wet. I think Richard has met the "Woosung Dark Spin" tyre too!