Stock ride height or lower?

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by Hanzo

Wonder why they don't just make the car lower from the factory? BMWs are pretty low from the factory.

Subaru & Toyota had a clean slate to put the wheel arch wherever they wanted in relation to the chassis to get the look and stance they desired, irrespective of actual chassis ride height or ground clearance. This is a classic case of the engineers not communicating with the stylists to create an aesthetic that would be perfect at production ride height. OR, they did communicate and simply failed to understand the stance preferences of the customers.

[Hanzo]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Subaru & Toyota had a clean slate to put the wheel arch wherever they wanted in relation to the chassis to get the look and stance they desired, irrespective of actual chassis ride height or ground clearance. This is a classic case of the engineers not communicating with the stylists to create an aesthetic that would be perfect at production ride height. OR, they did communicate and simply failed to understand the stance preferences of the customers.

The only thing I could think of is the government pedestrian impact height regulations. That's why most exotic cars has ride height adjustment.

[Asphalt]

Originally Posted by Hanzo

The only thing I could think of is the government pedestrian impact height regulations. That's why most exotic cars has ride height adjustment.

thats a good point. maybe that is the case. well whatever the reason i hope we get a good amount of aftermarket choices that aren't too expensive to fix the wheel gap

[2fast4you]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Subaru & Toyota had a clean slate to put the wheel arch wherever they wanted in relation to the chassis to get the look and stance they desired, irrespective of actual chassis ride height or ground clearance. This is a classic case of the engineers not communicating with the stylists to create an aesthetic that would be perfect at production ride height. OR, they did communicate and simply failed to understand the stance preferences of the customers.

If I remember correctly, there was an interview with the chief engineer (in one of the multitude of videos posted here) where he mentioned they could have made the ride height as low as an exotic, but they wanted to retain "everyday drivability", which translates to me snow and those crap-ass roads we Americans drive on.

[Hanzo]

I hope Subaru/TRD offers a lowering spring. I like OEM parts.

[old greg]

Originally Posted by Hanzo

That's why most exotic cars has ride height adjustment.

Actually, they have that because of speed bumps and gutters. See the

for proof.

[Hanzo]

Originally Posted by old greg

Actually, they have that because of speed bumps and gutters. See the

for proof.

That's another reason as well.

[Kunzite]

Originally Posted by 2fast4you

If I remember correctly, there was an interview with the chief engineer (in one of the multitude of videos posted here) where he mentioned they could have made the ride height as low as an exotic, but they wanted to retain "everyday drivability", which translates to me snow and those crap-ass roads we Americans drive on.

Retaining "everyday drivability" is a good thing, IMO For me, that means at least a decent ground clearance and not so hard suspensions. I wouldn't buy a car that doesn't meet those, period.
Of course, others would want their cars lowered and harder suspensions; an option to do so would make everyone happy.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by 2fast4you

If I remember correctly, there was an interview with the chief engineer (in one of the multitude of videos posted here) where he mentioned they could have made the ride height as low as an exotic, but they wanted to retain "everyday drivability", which translates to me snow and those crap-ass roads we Americans drive on.

Interesting, however that seems to relate to chassis ride height or suspension geometry, none of which dictates where they position the fender in relation to the tire. BMW manages to make reasonably tight fender gaps, whereas Chrysler has enormous wheel gap for no apparent reason.

[2fast4you]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Interesting, however that seems to relate to chassis ride height or suspension geometry, none of which dictates where they position the fender in relation to the tire. BMW manages to make reasonably tight fender gaps, whereas Chrysler has enormous wheel gap for no apparent reason.

Yes, however that was from translated Japanese or limited English, so it's an assumption he was referring to chassis ride height rather than wheel gap. Also, you have the issue of suspension travel: BMWs typically have less suspension travel and higher spring and damper rates compared to Toyota which allow for tighter wheel gaps. Chrysler does have enormous wheel gaps to deal with winter weather, pot holes, speed bumps, rail crossings, etc.; they're designed for American roads as opposed to BMW which are designed for European roads and adapted for the U.S. through minor suspension adjustments (spring and damper rates, bump stops, etc).

[Steve]

Originally Posted by 2fast4you

Yes, however that was from translated Japanese or limited English, so it's an assumption he was referring to chassis ride height rather than wheel gap.

So, if they admitted that the chassis ride height is optimally lower than stock, why would they not leave plenty of room in the wheel-fender gap for play.

The target market for this car is tuners and enthusiasts. Most of these cars suspensions will NOT be left in stock form. It would be a bigger headache to have to modify the fenders of every car that was lowered significantly.

From the pictures of the under-body and various angles the car has more than plenty of bumper clearance at stock height. The car doesn't look like its wheel gaps are too big, it looks like its jacked up. Which is a good thing because it will be perfect once lowered.

For example look at all the tuned 86's at the Auto Salon, wheel gaps went bye-bye once optimal suspension systems were swapped in.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by 2fast4you

..... Also, you have the issue of suspension travel: BMWs typically have less suspension travel ...

Are you making assumptions or do you have actual data?

[2fast4you]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Are you making assumptions or do you have actual data?

I don't possess the actual data, it's a generalization from engineers at H&R springs.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by LSxJunkie

One thing to remember about lowering a car is that you change the angle of the control arms and, additionally, the angle of the hubs. You can align around this, but you cannot align around the way you've changed the position of the wheel in it's travel arc. It is this change in suspension geometry that, although will not affect a street car in a debilitating manner, has led many a race team to use drop spindles to drop a car in conjunction with coilovers to corner balance and adjust damping. This also allows you to keep your full suspension travel.


Just food for thought. I doubt 97% of owners will be pushing their cars THAT hard, but it's something that anyone that does suspension mods should keep in mind. Especially for those of you who plan on slamming your cars.

Hey LSx, I'm curious about this and I seem to have a little trouble finding info on this...could you explain a bit more how to lower a car while preserving suspension geometry characteristics? From what I know it seems like most people either cut their springs (this messes up too many things to make me comfortable) or get coilovers that preserve the travel, but coilovers don't change the geometry.

I suppose suspensions have some flexibility to accomodate, for example, heavier loads, but the suspension can never behave as it was intended to if lowered like this.