Lowering more at front than rear?

YYgirl · Post by **YYgirl** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:09 pm

Hi guys, i am just wondering how much all of you have lowered your car by? i think most of you have more at front than rear? what's the reason for that?

would it handle better or worse than lowering the same all round? thanks!

Post by **smorison** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:48 pm

about 2 inches i think is enough, you can still get in and out of (most) driveways and over speedhumps. its also no so low that you rub heaps with bigger rims on.

stephen

Hez · Post by **Hez** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 1:54 pm

it will also depend if u have a kit or not. The rear was designed to be lower as standard 25mm than the front, so naturally the front has to be lower by an extra 25mm to make it even all the way.
correct me if im wrong

YYgirl · Post by **YYgirl** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 2:48 pm

oh, so if i only lower the front by about 25mm, the car would be flat? and handle better than lowering all corners equal?

Jono · Post by **Jono** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:10 pm

its best to have a harder setup at the rears, and softer setup at the fronts.....

Jono

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:50 pm

i have no idea how much my car has been lowered to coz it was already fitted with sport springs when i purchased the car from the auctions LOL...

but yeh, the rear of my car has higher ground clearance than the front, and it does look kinda funny but in a way it's good because on hard launches, there is slightly less weight transfer to the back (although my current shocks are not up to the task ....yet)

YYgirl · Post by **YYgirl** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:00 pm

hehe what does harder setup and softer setup mean? hehe

mikey : with standard suspension and springs, it still looks like the rear is higher, if i lower more at the front, then isn't it going to look funnier? hehe

Hez · Post by **Hez** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:07 pm

it looks higher in the rear becoz of the rear bumper but u can c the front is higher than the rear in the wheel arches. ie the distance between tyre and the arch. if u lower 2" all round den your front would fit nicely but your rear would go under the guards and will look diff from the front.

Jono · Post by **Jono** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:37 pm

having a harder suspension on the rear promotes turn in i think... better midcorner... if too stiff, obviously the back will skid across mid corner.. losing balance...

so yeah...

jono

ps my rears are lower than my fronts..

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:43 pm

Basic rule of thumb:

Stiff front = more understeer
Stiff rear = more oversteer

YYgirl, my car is lowered all round (front & rear), but dunno how much it's been lowered by... still need to get it slightly lower by another 10-15mm front & rear if possible.

G1 · Post by G1 » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:44 pm

basically to answer your question, i think we all agree that the car looks better when lowered more at the front, so the reason is primarily for looks...

now in terms of adverse effects in handling or ride comfort, i have mine lowered -40mm front and -15mm back and it handles like a dream... of course the apexi springs and the kyb shocks and front strut bar have a lot to do with it too, but i think youre safe yygirl either way

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:42 pm

...who can make custom-height springs for FTO? I wanna lower mine by another 10mm-15mm front and rear... Are whiteline springs any good? can it be matched to damper-adjustable shocks from other makes (ie: Koni, Pedders etc)??

Jono · Post by **Jono** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 7:54 pm

IMO i dont think lowering the front more than the rears makes a car look better... i dunno though..

with my rear wheels(17's) i can barely put a finger between tyre and wheel arch..

fronts i can fit my hand in there...

jono

FTO2sxy · Post by **FTO2sxy** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 8:14 pm

im not happy with the ride on my fto pgpx, 95 model, the shocks are to hard, is that becuase ive got 18's and 40 profile. or thats just how the shocks are???

what do uz recommend for a more comfortable ride??

KillaFlop · Post by **KillaFlop** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 8:20 pm

heh heh it could b just the syd roads, i hate em...
i got 17z and 40 profile and riding up n down parra road makes me feel like walking...

YYgirl · Post by **YYgirl** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 11:06 pm

oh thanks guys! everyone has different opinions??

i do not understand the issue about oversteer and understeer anyway. hehe

G1 · Post by G1 » Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:24 am

ok you can decide for yourselves, here are the 3 different heights i have had

top: -40mm front, -15mm back with 205/40/17 tyres
middle: -2" front and back with 205/40/17 tyres
bottom: standard height with 215/45/17 tyres

YYgirl · Post by **YYgirl** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:41 am

oh thanks very much jiwan! made you go into all the trouble!

rxboy · Post by **rxboy** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:41 pm

Who stole my ROH Adrenalins?

Good job G1! That's a great way of comparing these setups. I prefer the top setup. How does this setup affect performance in terms of oversteer/understeer and ride comfort?

G1 · Post by G1 » Tue Aug 19, 2003 9:43 pm

yeah i miss my adrenalins...

thats the setup i have now(top), except i now have stock wheels. i think my car has a pretty good balance between oversteer/understeer.. its very hard to lose my back end unless i seriously push it over the limit.... seriously it drives so much nicer around corners than when i had standard height..

ride comfort obviously suffers a little, but its definitely bearable. actually on the softest setting it doesnt feel much harsher than the standard setup.