Ultimate ride height

gslender · Postby **gslender** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:26 pm

Hi all,

I'm about to install some new coilovers and have the option of adjusting the ride height (with the goal to 1st improve handling, and 2nd improve looks) - "adjusting" being lowering from a standard ride height.

Some folks just lower the crap out of the car, which can look cool, but upsets the handling (I believe because of the angles the lower wishbone goes into as you lower the vehicle too much).

So, my question is...

Does anyone have an opinion on what the best/ultimate compromise is between lowering for looks, but still provides the best handling outcome (ie lower centre of gravity, but with suspension still at angles that work) ??

BTW - Tried searching, but didn't find anything easily (a problem of forums with 000,s of posts and poor search tools).

G

Locutus · Postby **Locutus** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:10 pm

some tips here:
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=26131

the short answer is that the lowest you want to go is having the lower control arms parallel to the ground.

gslender · Postby **gslender** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:42 pm

Link doesn't have anything about ride height ..... Stud patterns yes ???

Postby **NitroDann** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:47 pm

12.5 inches from the hub centre to the guard is the best answer anyone can give without knowing more. Measuring to the guard isnt accurate enough for a race car but for you will be fine. This is about arms level. This is also 'just' legal. By about 1cm.

Dann

hamx5ter · Postby **hamx5ter** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:09 pm

Not a technical or mechanical person, but from my previous browsing of the forum i recollect that the lower arms should not be past the horizontal in order for the suspension to work at its best.

I could be completely wrong :lol:

Re. Searching the forum, using google to do a site specific search will probably work much better than the local tools.

Matty · Postby **Matty** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:32 pm

The theorists will tell you that horizontal lower control arms are better, as it maintains ideal roll centres (not too low, which adds extra roll couple) and maintains decent camber and toe patterns.

They'll also say to put the rear sightly higher than the front (as measured to the guards) so that the rake benefits underbody aerodynamics.

In practice I've seen cars with much lower rears perform very well at the track, principally (I believe) because the lowering also increases the available rear camber, hence eliminates some of the oversteer an MX-5 can develop. (You can't play with the rear camber completely independently, unless you do more suspension mods.) And aero isn't quite that important without a decent flat undertray or front spoiler.

But that's for the track; if it's just a road car, the theoretical setup above is a reasonable compromise of looks (noticeable but not too slammed), ride (not on the bumpstops) and ground clearance (speed humps). You'll probably have your own personal preference on looks vs functionality though.