> > I have come to the conclusion that the HD's are intended as upgrade replacement
> > shocks intended for the stock springs.  I know this sounds rather sacrilegious,
> > considering the many satisfied Bilstein HD customers using much stiffer
> > springs.  I think the reason why stiffer springs work is that they do not flex
> > as much under load, so there is not as much stored energy to damp out.

I've done much research on the subject and this is what I've found
out (actually, I just got off the phone with Bilstein to confirm):

HD & Sports (for our car) have the SAME valving.  The difference is
that the Sports have a 1" shorter shaft (easy Wally!) and are meant
for lowering applications of more than 1".  The reason you don't put
Sports on a non lowered car is that when the suspension is fully
extended, like when you catch air (hopefully never) the shock is
fully extended before the springs are.  This is obviously not good for
the shocks.  Its an issue of suspension travel here.

So to recap, according to Bilstein:  0 to ~1" use the HD's, more than
1" lowering use the Sports.

> > I am actually contemplating Konis on the rear of my '96 GTi VR6 too...This
> > makes me wonder exactly how much stiffer the Neuspeed HD's are compared to
> > regular Bilstein HD's.

I *had* a set of these and there are a few differences:

1) They have standard HD Valving with 1" shorter shaft
2) The fronts have pre-96 spring perch height (17mm higher than the
96 - struts)
3) The rears have the adjustable spring perch height

Neuspeed Bilstein Sports have the more agressive valving, AFAIK.

Cheers,

----
Jeff Newton