When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Just a question asked out of curiosity although the answers might serve as an interesting data base. This may have been asked elsewhere but I haven't seen anything in a compiled list.
For the record, list your fender height and what you have for suspension mods and tire diameter.
Knowing the stock height would be helpful. Any showroom cars out there?
My heap has Intrax springs (called lowering springs but I can't say how much under stock they might be).
Tires are BFG Sport Comp 2 with a 245/50/16 front at 25.7" and 255/50/16 rear at 26.1" (so says Tire Rack).
Fender heights are 25 1/8" front and 26 1/8" (+/-).
I have drop zone lowering springs, Front fender 25-3/4 and rear is 28".
Front tire is a MT sportsman 28x7.50x15 (28" dia) and the rear tires MT Sportsman ST 275/60/15 (28.1" Dia but mine are aired down to 24psi so they are 27" dia)
UMI tubular a-arms
UMI adjustable pan hard bard
Founders panhard bar reloction kit
UMI Adjustable torque arm
Lakewood rear control arms
UMI lower control arm relocation bracket
Lakewood 70/30 front strut and lakewood 50/50 rear shocks
I have weight jacks so I can make whatever height I want. I've run lower and higher. These numbers seem to keep the car from sledding except I still need to avoid large speed bumps. Everything is tucked up pretty well under the car.
Front: 25 3/4" arch height with a 255/40-17 Nitto NT05 tire , 800 lb/inch springs
Rear: 26 3/4" arch height with a 275/40-17 ET Street S/S drag radial , 150 lb/inch springs
255/40-17 Nitto NT05 @ 25.08" and 275/40-17 ET Street S/S @ 25.7".
Looks like a fair number for the ET Streets. Mine are at 25.5" but I've used up some rubber. Straight edge and tape measure says the Nittos are shorter at 24.5" on a 17x9 wheel. There's about 3500 miles on the front tires. I'm on the 3rd set of rear tires in the same timeframe.
(FYI - Nittos are known to be on the small side, height and width)
Thought I'd throw in a spread sheet with some of the replies. I've tacked it on to the first post. It's nothing more than a reference as there are many arguments as to why this information is useless.
Nonetheless, it's posted here for all eternity.
It's not a question of ride height. It's a question of fender height.
And fender height is what you see when you're looking at the car.
I'm in complete agreement with you regarding what's "proper" and what isn't.
This isn't a scientific thread, as posted (read post #1), it's simply one of conversation.
It's not a question of ride height. It's a question of fender height.
same difference. If you all used a proper ride height measurement it could be a good reference to other people. As you are going now, it's pointless, why not make it something useful for others?
If you went from the hub center to the fender, that would be a better benchmark for anyone with a Camaro, then the tire size, pressure, temperature, DA and level-ness of the car would have no bearing on your measurement. As you're going now, any and all of those things affect the "fender height". So someone trying to figure out where X suspension parts with a car with the same options can figure out what the "fender height" might be and the tires are irrelevant. I have brought this up in the past and people get angry
Scooter's message is quite easy to understand. If you have better terminology that would provide more clarity then just say so. But don't be a twit by keeping on the path you're on.
I understood exactly what he said in post 22 about " fender height" in which I never quoted or asked him to elaborate, I quoted something entirely different which he was talking about "ride height" and tires are irrelevant. But only a twit cant distinguish between the two, btw most consider "ride height" from the rocker or ground fx to the ground
Originally Posted by QwkTrip
Scooter's message is quite easy to understand. If you have better terminology that would provide more clarity then just say so. But don't be a twit by keeping on the path you're on.
I understood exactly what he said in post 22 about " fender height" in which I never quoted or asked him to elaborate, I quoted something entirely different which he was talking about "ride height" and tires are irrelevant. But only a twit cant distinguish between the two, btw most consider "ride height" from the rocker or ground fx to the ground
I am probably of the few here that know exactly the importance of your question. Funny how others think you are simple minded. It falls on def ears here in this forum as it does in society today. The children will continue to close their minds the way their parents raised them.
Yes this post is useless because it lacks so many variables. Its funny how I am probably the only person who will everr read this thread and know exactly the differences on every car in this spread sheet and how usleless that is to anyone else reading this.
With that said...My car was 24 3/4 fronts, 25 1/8" rears and 25.7 " tires....and never ever rubbed...Why? because of so many variables your heads would explode.
With all due respect to those that have posted and dissed this thread,please READ the first post. Then re-read it. If you have decent reading comprehension then you will understand that I am after one thing , and one thing only and that is the fender height of your third gen.
That's it.
I don't care how you got there. If you have have anti-gravity pods and thrust vectors on each corner, if I want to know, I will ask.
Read the first post again. Fender heights.
Factory Stock With OE Size P215/65R15 Goodyear Eagle Gt's. 27.5"[/IMG]
I know for sure that stock factory ride height is higher than that, especially in an early car that sat higher than the later cars (for sure the 82-84, maybe later cars sat higher than the later cars), especially if on the OE 215/65-15 (about 26.1" tall) tires.
My '87 which has factory tags on the springs sits the closest to stock that I've seen and I joke that the car is a 4x4. The front suspension is completely stock and is currently on 265/40-17 Firestone Firehawk Wide Ovals (25.3" tall) sits 28.25" on the driver's side and 28.5" on the passenger (my passenger side fender has the jack point smashed probably causing the discrepancy:
Driver's side
Passenger's side, shot at a weird angle but is measured straight.
With early 26.1" tall tires that would be a fender height of 28.65 and 28.9" and with later 25.7" tall tires that would still be a fender height of 28.45 and 28.7" I'd be very comfortable saying that later cars had a factory fender height of ~28.5-28.75" and I wouldn't be surprised if the early 3rd gens were at 29"
The rear on my car isn't a good example for a factory number. I still have the unmolested rear springs but I swapped Moser 9" ford in it which looks like it has taller spring pockets so I pulled the rear spring isolators out to compensate, ending up sitting slightly lower than stock. On matching 295/35-18 tires (26.1" tall, matching factory 15" tire heights), both sides of mine sit at an even 29", and I'm pretty sure that is a little short of the factory rear height. I'm betting that the early cars on 15's were at 29.5" or maybe a little more and the later cars on 16's were at right around 29" or a little more.
Passenger side, I didn't bother uploading the driver's side since it's literally identical.
The car is slightly lighter than stock which could result in slightly higher ride height but it's still 3460# which is still within the factory weight range for these cars. It's also an '87, 31 years old so there has to be some sag in the springs, just not as much as typical. The 2 combined likely end up being a wash.
FWIW, I just had the original front right strut explode (covered everything in hydraulic fluid and oiled down the brake on that side), so I'll be pulling the front suspension apart sometime soon and will be able to confirm all factory parts, but as far as I can tell EVERYTHING in the front suspension is factory, it doesn't even appear to ever have been aligned (and the tie rod sleeves are seized).
Here is a pic to show how high this thing sits. You have to remember that these things were designed in the late 70's, when even sports cars had more ground clearance than most modern cars. This thing has more clearance by a couple of inches than my 2012 Taurus SHO:
If you went from the hub center to the fender, that would be a better benchmark for anyone with a Camaro, then the tire size, pressure, temperature, DA and level-ness of the car would have no bearing on your measurement. As you're going now, any and all of those things affect the "fender height". So someone trying to figure out where X suspension parts with a car with the same options can figure out what the "fender height" might be and the tires are irrelevant. I have brought this up in the past and people get angry
That would give a number that was more easily comparable from car to car. It would also be something that I would be A LOT less likely to trust the numbers posted, since everyone would be eyeballing it and easily off by 1/4" or more on setups easy to eyeball and I wouldn't be surprised if some people managed to measure 1/2 or even 1" off with wheels like my Z06 wheels which have flat centers. Even having them post pictures isn't a solution since you can see that in my pictures because of phone camera lens distortion the measurement that I got doesn't _exactly_ match the measurement.
Since people are posting fender lip heights and tire size/height it's easy enough to use those 2 numbers to compare. You could take the spreadsheet and add some columns that show what it would be with a standard size tire (either the 26.1" that the car was designed with in mind or the 25.7" that most got/people shoot for) or even calculate a lip to hub center height. I may take the spreadsheet and do something like that with it later.
You could take the spreadsheet and add some columns that show what it would be with a standard size tire (either the 26.1" that the car was designed with in mind or the 25.7" that most got/people shoot for) or even calculate a lip to hub center height. I may take the spreadsheet and do something like that with it later.
I think what you describing is already a component of the spreadsheet. Included is the difference between the "stock" fender height posted (along with the tire diameter).
In my case I'm 2.373" and 1.375" (front and rear) under what was posted as original.
Your information regarding stock is height has yet to be added to that list.
I think what you describing is already a component of the spreadsheet. Included is the difference between the "stock" fender height posted (along with the tire diameter).
In my case I'm 2.373" and 1.375" (front and rear) under what was posted as original.
Your information regarding stock is height has yet to be added to that list.
Your information compares how the whole combination sits compared to stock, making it useful for appearance purposes, but not how the suspension is changed which would be more useful for some to compare suspension geometry (I believe that this is scooter's point and Dean's cocky response). Add in my information how you want it and then I'll update the spreadsheet to do what I'm talking about and maybe a few other things, then you can pick what you want to keep.
FWIW, the lowest I've gone is on my '83 Crossfire TA, and that was 24-7/8" even on a 26.1" tire F (235/60-15 on stock 15" wheels) and 25-5/8" with a 27.1" (255/60-15's) and nothing rubbed, but everything was very close on the front.
That one was usually raced on 245/60-15 Hoosier slicks on 15x8" corvette rally wheels on the front and rear (the fender heights were about 25-1/8" and 25-3/8") and just barely showed signs of rubbing on the very outside edge of the top of the inner fender liner (like you would see that the rubber touched the plastic, but not hard enough to rub marks into either, just a clean spot.
It was occasionally run on 245/50-16 Hoosier slicks (should be 25.7" tall) on 16x9" knockoff corvette rally wheels which put the fender heights at 24-5/8" and just a hair under 25" in the back. That didn't rub anywhere but was slower than on the taller 15's.
That one didn't have a rubbing problem but ground clearance was tight. My girlfriend at the time borrowed the car and called me from a gas station because she was stuck on one of the inground gas tank filler caps and I had 2 occasions where I smashed the transmission pan on a bump in the road (This thing was my daily driver in college).
This thing was lowered by cutting the stock WS6 springs till I had the spring rates that I wanted and then experimenting with different spring isolators till the ride height was usable (originally the night I first cut the front springs I drove it home sitting on the bump stops).
Updated the spreadsheet and added a title.
This should keep things in perspective. It's a visual thing. Not scientific.
Now if a science discussion breaks out, then I'm all for it. But remember the thread's intent.
Thanks.
But now, it needs to be determined what exactly was the stock fender height?
As 83 cross fire said, it depends on the year. I know mine stock was pushing all of 28" or more
Originally Posted by skinny z
Updated the spreadsheet and added a title.
This should keep things in perspective. It's a visual thing. Not scientific.
Now if a science discussion breaks out, then I'm all for it. But remember the thread's intent.
Thanks.
But now, it needs to be determined what exactly was the stock fender height?
As 83 cross fire said, it depends on the year. I know mine stock was pushing all of 28" or more
I guess then if I were to expand the spreadsheet, I'd have to include a range of OEM fender heights. And I'm sure that even among various options in the same model year there will be differences.
That's fine. This is hardly scientific. It's more of a conversation piece as I have mentioned.
For you guys that are running front fender heights < 26" how much suspension travel do you have? Are these cars that only are driven to car events like shows, AutoX or a dragstrip? Do you have streets you can't drive down or parking lots you can't turn into because of a curb angle or a speed bump?
For you guys that are running front fender heights < 26" how much suspension travel do you have? Are these cars that only are driven to car events like shows, AutoX or a dragstrip? Do you have streets you can't drive down or parking lots you can't turn into because of a curb angle or a speed bump?
I can handle most the small speed bumps on public roads but will avoid the taller speed bumps in parking lots. Most my driving is small town or rural so I don't encounter the difficult obstacles of the urban jungle.
Front suspension travel is fine. Rear suspension travel is woefully insufficient and constantly hitting the bump stops. I can't do anything about it until I get different wheels that tuck the tires further under the fenders.
Vogtland lowering springs on 1990 Formula WS6 (~18,000 miles). Stock wheel/tire (245/50-16).
Measuring to bottom edge of fender:
Before: FL: 27-5/8"; FR: 27-7/8"; RL: 27-13/16"; RR: 28-1/8"
After: FL: 26-9/16"; FR: 26-3/4"; RL: 26-5/8"; RR: 27"
FWIW, I'm pretty happy with height, stance and ride. Front seems to be about the same; rear seems a little firmer. I'm also running KYB AGX adjustable shocks/struts.
Nice before and after pics. What were the springs advertised as drop amount? If it was an inch, they nailed it.
I'll update the list accordingly.
Advertised drop is 1.4 inches, so it's currently sitting just a bit shy of that. I'll check it again in a few weeks to see if it changes any, but I imagine it's pretty much where it's going to be.
06-30-2018, 01:33 PM
same difference. If you all used a proper ride height measurement it could be a good reference to other people. As you are going now, it's pointless, why not make it something useful for others? 
. The boys were out playing in the marbles, though 
.
