Ride Height, Where is yours set? Options

[qa1142]

I did search and saw 4" at dounuts....

Where is yours set and where do you measure?

[redshift]

I don't measure, but if I did, my car would be right at 4+ on the front, and near 5 at the rear.


M

[ArtechnikA]

my donuts are flush with the tops of the jackstands ...

[ClayPerrine]

5 feet 10 inches from the floor to the donuts.

(It's sitting on the lift with no rear suspension).

[redshift]

BAHAHAHAHA!

Let me interject that my butt would be lower, if I had the ability to make that happen.

I like the front at 4, and the rear at 4.0001, for just a touch of rake, to make the car rotate a lil better, when planned.


M

[SGB]

Like Miles, mine (car that is) sits ass-up, too. It's really low in front. I guess about 4.5 and 3.5 inches at the dough-nutz

[qa1142]

Ok
So from 1/1000" for rake to ~1" and 3.5 - 4" at front dounut.

Nice to see Redshifts chassie is that straight (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/dry.gif)

Any advantage for 3.5" vs. 4.0" in street applications?

[Mueller]

front ride height number is sorta useless* if you go by the rule of ensuring your front a-arms are parallel with the ground, once that is set, rear donuts to be .50" inches higher than front


*too many variables, too many different tire diameters being used for a "general" number, a car with 205/50/15's will have a different ride height with his a-arms being // than a car with 195/50/15's setup the same way

[redshift]

I set mine up by feel, drop it, drive, drop it, drive.. any lower than it is now (in front) makes it roll too much in cornering.

I have slammed them to the ground, and beyond the 4 inch range.. it's a scrapey, bumpy ride.


M

[qa1142]

Why parallel?

PS I do have 205/50 -15's

[SGB]

Mike is right. I have a bump steer kit that lowers my steering rack. I set the front by setting the steering arms parallel to the ground surface, then adjusted rear with the adjustable spring perches on the bilstien shocks I've got. I dunno how you change stock equipment ride height in the rear...
the closer to level, the less bump induced steering deflection.

[ClayPerrine]

QUOTE (qa1142 @ Jul 5 2005, 12:48 PM)

Why parallel? PS I do have 205/50 -15's

Actually, I don't think that is correct.

If you look at the geometry of the front suspension, the arms should go downward as you get farther outboard. If they are parallel or angle upward, when you compress the suspension into the outside of a hard corner, the suspension will add positive camber to the wheel, exactly what you don'twant in a corner.

If they angle downward, just the opposite happens. Compressing the suspension adds negative camber.

[qa1142]

Nice to see we all agree on how to do this

(Insert "I love this group" here) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/chairfall.gif)

PS Clay, I though I needed some drop in a-arm also, but I don't know, don't race or auto-X yet and trust all you dogs with help on my baby!

So when you all are done arguing I'll decide what to do.

[eeyore]

To be anally, obnoxiously techincal. Maximum negative camber is achieved when the a-arm and strut are at right angles to each other (red). There is still minor negative camber gain even if the a-arm is parallel to the ground (green).

[ClayPerrine]

QUOTE (Cloudbuster @ Jul 5 2005, 01:06 PM)

To be anally, obnoxiously techincal. Maximum negative camber is achieved when the a-arm and strut are at right angles to each other (red), not when the a-arm is parallel to the ground (green).

That is what I was trying to say. If the arm is pointed slightly downward, the negative camber increases with suspension compression.


You don't corner a car without some compression of the outboard suspension. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

Another thought, if the arm is slightly downward, there is less negative camber when driving straight, so the tires will wear more evenly.


YMMV....

[KenH]

If you get the a-arms much lower than parallel you may run out of shock travel.

Ken

[Trekkor]

I just went and measured mine.
The maple bar is 6" and the jelly filled is...What?...oh (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/dry.gif)

The front is 4.25" and the rear is 4.5" off the ground with 205/50's.

KT

[nebreitling]

i agree about the shock travel issue. my front is now set at about 4" off the front donut, which would be too low unless i cut the bump stop down (might be too low anyway) -- but don't do this unless you know exactly how much travel your shocks can take: bottoming out your shocks without bump stops ain't gud.

then there is the geometry question as mentioned above, both with bump steer and camber under load. more static camber will help with the degree of camber gained in a turn in a lowered car, but at that point, you will have an extremely aggressive alignment.

[Joseph Mills]

QUOTE (qa1142 @ Jul 5 2005, 12:25 PM)

I did search and saw 4" at dounuts.... Where is yours set and where do you measure?

Here's some more data ta crunch.

I measure at the doughnuts.

Front ride height is 4-1/2" (205/50 15")

Rear ride height is 5-1/8" (225/50 15")

Front A-arm drops slightly to the outside.

At one point the F was 3-3/4" & R was 4-1/4". TOO low. Suspension was continually on and off the bump stops in AX turns. It was really upset with itself. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

You can go too low.

Raising the car back up to the current ride height, combined with a tight corner balance & conservative neg camber has done the trick for me.

Makes me wanna pop for some dropped spindles. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif)

[nebreitling]

joseph -- i'm wondering what you mean by 'conservative' camber? what are you running? (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/beerchug.gif) n