^^^^
That's right, I had some of the first Koni FSD's for the Golf in the UK and they leaked after about 55k miles. Koni, via Awesome, gave me my money back and I spent a whole lot more on KW-V3's which I'm very happy with. Bilstein would be my other choice.
I'm told that my version of the FSD's were later revised.
IIRC, your Konis were rated for the extra weight of the diesel donkey. The lighter GTI petrol engine caused your Konis to 'top-out', which blew the top valves.
Didn't you advise that Koni have subsequently released some FSDs for the specific weight range for the petrol GTI?
....Just to confuse matters further, it was the Eibach springs which bore the mark of the diseased donkey on the box.
Now you've confused me!
I thought the FSDs were a complete suspension leg - ie spring and damper. Or are the FSDs just a damper, and you need to use a 'separate' spring (either OEM or aftermarket)?
I questioned it with both supplier Awesome and Eibach at the time but was reassured all was okay.
Hmmmm . . . IIRC, we discussed this in detail a while back. The crucial point, in general about suspension 'upgrades', and very specifically in your own case - is that springs are designed to work over a quite a tight and restrictive weight range. So a poverty spec Mk5 Golf, with say a lightweight all-alloy 1.2TSI engine, no aircon, 5speed manual box, lightish 52Ah battery, etc - will have a spring from say weight range 'A' (maybe 400kg). Whereas the same car but with a heavy all-iron diesel engine, heavy(er) 6speed DSG, power take off (on the gearbox) for the rear haldex, air con, heavy 75Ah battery, etc - would need a spring 'Z' (maybe 650kg) to achieve the same ride height.
And when you first raised the issue (I think you said you had some work at VWR, and they said they didn't feel right) - we discovered your FSDs were for the TDI (I don't think they'd released a GTI spec FSD) - I advised you to discuss with all your various suppliers (Awesome, VWR, etc). VWR basically agreed with me on the importance of the correct weight range - but now, and forgive me if I've got the wrong impression - but I feel that Awesome are basically 'burying their heads in the sand'. Yes, they gave you a refund - but it seems the refund was based on a 'faulty' product (thereby passing the buck onto Koni), rather than the refund being based on a product 'not fit for purpose' (which is 100% Awesomes responsibility).
I may be a little piccky <sp?> and pedantic on this issue - but I think it's quite an important point. I certainly don't wish to blame Koni for a failing product - even when products are
correctly specified, from whoever the manufacturer - they will all wear out eventually. But if a trader has tried to pass the buck for their own c0ck ups - then we really need to know. And I'm not trying to beat up on Awesome either.
[Great to see you again yesterday]
Likewise.
I bet you thought I must have sh@t the bed - me being there so early!