Rear Suspension Sitting Lower Than Front.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Zeuseidon

Haha TCoat, I know you like to stir pots. But I don't think a total roughly 1/4 inch is "nothing" and OCD.

If my post about height differences offends you, you could have simply scrolled past.

Because I don't say what you want to hear does not mean I am "stirring the pot and if my response bothers you you could have ignored it. How is it now 1/4 inch? It started as an 1/8th which is indeed NOTHING. It is a car suspension and things will vary by small amounts. It isn't a precision made Swiss watch.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Zeuseidon

Damn... I was told by a couple sources they did. Oh well.

If that's the case, would the bumpstop actually effect static height?
Seems to me they would only effect compressd height?

Stock springs you're probably right, but with any amount of lowering you are into the stock bumpstops, the Swift springs are likely designed to utilize the stock bumpstops which is why it's sitting lower right now.



FYI, the 'internal bumpstop' elicits some fantastic thing you have no access to, but the reality is it's the same piece of polyurethane hidden inside the strut body. Skip to 6 minutes to see the front strut disassembled:

It's how Bilstein can offer a high quality strut at an affordable price, it's the same basic damper unit they sell for every other car with a different body and internal shim stack.

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by Zeuseidon

That's actually a good idea... I have a new exhaust coming this week, so I'll check then when I'm down there...

Also looks like there's three mounting holes for the SPL arms. If I put it to the outer most it should raise the ride height in the back.

Just trying to make sure I'm not compensating for a faulty part.

I believe it's the other way around for the shock mounting holes on lower control arms. With the shock mounted to the outer most hole it will increase the angle of the shock making it sit lower. Mounted to the inner most hole it should make the shock more upright (less angle) making it sit a little taller. This will also change the effective spring rate at the wheels (softer the on the inner hole, stiffer on the outer hole)

[Zeuseidon]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Because I don't say what you want to hear does not mean I am "stirring the pot and if my response bothers you you could have ignored it. How is it now 1/4 inch? It started as an 1/8th which is indeed NOTHING. It is a car suspension and things will vary by small amounts. It isn't a precision made Swiss watch.

The Front should be 1/10 lower than rear. So if the rear is 1/8 inch lower than front, it's "roughly" 1/4" lower than it should sit. I said "roughly" because obviously 1/8 + 1/10 = .225 which is "roughly" 1/4" difference.

And I wasn't saying you were stirring the pot here. Simply, you've been known to do elsewhere on this forum.

I was looking for help. Not snarky comments that lead to nothing of value.

[Zeuseidon]

Originally Posted by solidONE

I believe it's the other way around for the shock mounting holes on lower control arms. With the shock mounted to the outer most hole it will increase the angle of the shock making it sit lower. Mounted to the inner most hole it should make the shock more upright (less angle) making it sit a little taller. This will also change the effective spring rate at the wheels (softer the on the inner hole, stiffer on the outer hole)

Hmm, that's interesting. I can see how that'd be. I'll have to take a look at it this week.

[swarb]

Originally Posted by Zeuseidon

Forgot to add in a couple things! I do have SPL Rear Lower Control arms as well. I also was talking with the company I purchased the package from and communications seemed to stop once I checked everything they asked me too.

Even sent pictures of the LCA's to make sure they were installed correctly.

Also I was comparing the Stock wheel/fender measurements to what mine are currently. That's where I was getting the measurements from.

Originally Posted by Zeuseidon

Haha TCoat, I know you like to stir pots. But I don't think a total roughly 1/4 inch is "nothing" and OCD.

If my post about height differences offends you, you could have simply scrolled past.

Did you measure the stock height or did you use some numbers posted?
Not all cars are made the same and slight variances are there.
1/8th inch is 3.175mm.
Everywhere else in the world, they use metric.
For example if they(Swift japan) convert that 30mm drop to what equals out to 1.1811 inch.
So would they call that a 1 1/8th inch or 1 1/4?

Where did you measure the height? Fender to center or rim? fender to edge or rim? Edge of fender? Rubber protector on fender? Ground to fender?
3.175mm isn't exactly easy to measure, what did you use? a caliper? a ruler? a measuring tape? Depending on how you use the measuring tape, if the end of it is not taught, the measurement is off. Rear cambers under compression more than the front, that would throw your measurement off also.

1/8 inch is nothing. It depends on how you measured it. And how you got that measurement, if you looked it up on the internet for the "before" or you actually measured it yourself.

[cjd]

Originally Posted by solidONE

I believe it's the other way around for the shock mounting holes on lower control arms. With the shock mounted to the outer most hole it will increase the angle of the shock making it sit lower. Mounted to the inner most hole it should make the shock more upright (less angle) making it sit a little taller. This will also change the effective spring rate at the wheels (softer the on the inner hole, stiffer on the outer hole)

The LCA probably is higher toward the inside with these springs, making this doubly true.

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by cjd

The LCA probably is higher toward the inside with these springs, making this doubly true.

Not sure how much of a difference in height would result from the different mounting holes as they're probably lined up pretty close together. Then again, he is talking about 1/8" ride height difference.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Zeuseidon

The Front should be 1/10 lower than rear. So if the rear is 1/8 inch lower than front, it's "roughly" 1/4" lower than it should sit. I said "roughly" because obviously 1/8 + 1/10 = .225 which is "roughly" 1/4" difference.

And I wasn't saying you were stirring the pot here. Simply, you've been known to do elsewhere on this forum.

I was looking for help. Not snarky comments that lead to nothing of value.

You wanted help with saying it is a non issue. My original statement was not intended to be "Snarky" although I can see how it could have been taken that way. It is an 1/8th of an inch and no doubt that is well within the permeated tolerance.

[Zeuseidon]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

You wanted help with saying it is a non issue. My original statement was not intended to be "Snarky" although I can see how it could have been taken that way. It is an 1/8th of an inch and no doubt that is well within the permeated tolerance.

Haha Well I apologize for being a Butt-hurt Betty and misinterpreting your intentions.

I've edited my original post because I agree 1/8" is a trivial amount.

However, as I have said numerous times throughout the thread it is at 1/4" lower than the rear should be and that's assuming a 1/4" error threshold from stock numbers. Which more than trivial.

I have received some good advice so far, I will trouble shoot the items brought to my attention, and see if anything changes.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Zeuseidon

Haha Well I apologize for being a Butt-hurt Betty and misinterpreting your intentions.

I've edited my original post because I agree 1/8" is a trivial amount.

However, as I have said numerous times throughout the thread it is at 1/4" lower than the rear should be and that's assuming a 1/4" error threshold from stock numbers. Which more than trivial.

I have received some good advice so far, I will trouble shoot the items brought to my attention, and see if anything changes.

No prob. The written word can easily be misinterpreted and in rereading it did look like my first response was being snippy when it was supposed to just be short.
The listed stock measurement is more of a guideline and a general statement than a fixed and invariable value. Even if at a 1/4 inch I would not worry about it. You may be chasing a ghost that you will never catch if your car was that much off to start with.
Mine is a good example of how imprecise these numbers can be since I am on RSR Super Down springs that nominally say they drop 1.4 in front and 1.6 in the rear. In reality my car is closer to 1.7 in front and damn near 2 in the rear.

[Zeuseidon]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

No prob. The written word can easily be misinterpreted and in rereading it did look like my first response was being snippy when it was supposed to just be short.
The listed stock measurement is more of a guideline and a general statement than a fixed and invariable value. Even if at a 1/4 inch I would not worry about it. You may be chasing a ghost that you will never catch if your car was that much off to start with.
Mine is a good example of how imprecise these numbers can be since I am on RSR Super Down springs that nominally say they drop 1.4 in front and 1.6 in the rear. In reality my car is closer to 1.7 in front and damn near 2 in the rear.

I agree, and think you may be right about chasing a ghost.

I just wanted to make sure that it's nothing more than my OCD. Which can be severe with things of this nature.

It seems I at least messed up by not reinstalling the bumpstops on the rear. So if anything this wasn't all for naught.

I will however mess with the 3 mounting locations to see if that will change anything with the geometry and raise the rear a little and will report back.

[Cole]

I'd recommend getting in touch with SPL and seeing if the entire LCA makes the rear sit lower than stock, regardless of what mounting point is used. The only companies who advertise it are PBM and stance, but I've heard about other brands also mounting lower.

If this has been mentioned, disregard what I've said.

[Zeuseidon]

Originally Posted by Cole

I'd recommend getting in touch with SPL and seeing if the entire LCA makes the rear sit lower than stock, regardless of what mounting point is used. The only companies who advertise it are PBM and stance, but I've heard about other brands also mounting lower.

If this has been mentioned, disregard what I've said.

If it has I missed it, this could save me from swapping back to stock LCAs just to see if it is the SPL LCAs. So I like the idea.

Smarter not harder gents!

**Update Edit** SPL said they are built to stock height specifications. However, the three different mounting positions will effect height. He didn't not know by how much. But he did say the inner most mounting location should raise and outer most should lower.