Lowering Craziness - Explanations Please !

[Windza]

Can someone explain the reasoning behind putting lower springs in the rear than in the front ? Maybe I'm just getting old and things have changed, but for the life of me I don't know why anyone would want a car to sit lower in the rear than the front for any reason - looks, ride or handling. I mean, I looove lowered cars but shouldn't a car sit dead level or slightly raked toward the front? Obviously some disagree - so I want to know WHY WHY WHY ? Do some ppl like the "going on a holiday in the XD with six kids on the back seat, tank full of fuel, boot full of luggage and taking the caravan too" look ? Maybe its related to the whole driving around with stocko rims on the rear scene (as if you're a hardcore drifter or burnout king)? Or is it the kiddies jumping castle feel that you get from riding on the bump stops with your mates in the back. I musta missed something over the last few years...please enlighten me... actually - here's a poll (also on FordMods -->here<-- )

[Powdered Toast Man]

I'm with you Windza, I think it looks pox. I can understand the level sill argument and I think most times the rear ends up lower than the front in the pursuit of a level sill.

Personally I like the front to be a bit lower, gives a more agressive stance IMO. But to each there own.

The lower rear thing isn't just the last few years, you might find it's a resurgance of the 60's and 70's.

[DBourne]

yup it looks crap! slightly lower in the front makes a car look tough, slightly lower in the rear makes it look like it takes it in said rear

[sfr rob]

i have mates with tough 70's cars, mostly xy-Xf's And they give it the "gt stance" name. I reckon it looks hell tough on older cars, but i think it looks crap on late model cars.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Windza

Can someone explain the reasoning behind putting lower springs in the rear than in the front ? Maybe I'm just getting old and things have changed, but for the life of me I don't know why anyone would want a car to sit lower in the rear than the front for any reason - looks, ride or handling.

So I figure you're not much of a fan of early GT's?

[nb_351]

voted for even...
but i have to agree, on xr-y it looks tough as cause it follows the body lines... but nothing too over the top...
but look at cars like allan moffats coke mustang, was the oppoisite... high rear...
but i like close to dead even... noone looks at the sill anyway... as long as the guards sit roughly the same aswell... but depending on the car you cant get it even...

[JamesR]

maybe people like the idea of getting their cars as low as possible, but because the front wheels turn, you cant always get the front as low as the back?

[Windza]

So I figure you're not much of a fan of early GT's?

Very wrong - love them, but we're talking lowered vehicles, not standard and on that note - I'd much rather a lowered XY to sit level than down in the rear... and what about XA, XB coupes - look heaps better sitting level because their bodylines are raked...

[cowboy]

Maybe they're pretending the front is lifting coming off the line!

[charles_wif_xf]

Dead level for me. The BA is going to drop 2" all round when I get the time to do it.

[poolkeeper]

Depends what look you are going for etc...

[Bossxr8]

For handling benefits the front should be slightly lower than the rear, its called rake and it improves turn in.

[70caprigt3k]

When the back end is lower than the front it helps shift some weight to the rear and aids traction. Personally i like it, i mean not when its done stupidly it looks rediculious but done properly it looks awsome.

I am not the biggest fan of lowering but if i was going to do it that would be the way i would go.

[T-BOOST]

Dead level for me, i'd have it no other way.
I see alot of commen'dores with the front higher, but thats because they have 19'' rims on the front and 15'' stockies on the back. There just asking for trouble!

[schnoods]

I really like the gasser type of cars, but i can't see the point of lowering a car.

I have a 95 XR8 with factory suspension and although i would like to corner better in it, I'd hate for it to be lower, speed bumps are hard enough as it is with out wanting to leave the exhaust behind!

[Zed7fiddy]

Im definately a fan of the raked forward look

Heaps of VT's with 20's up here are dragging their butts aroudn everywhere

Looks horrible imo

[BlackLS]

They would lower the front more if they could, but it would cause the tyres to contact the guard.

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by BlackLS

They would lower the front more if they could, but it would cause the tyres to contact the guard.

That's what lipping is for ;)

[Windza]

Well I gotta say - my faith has been restored somewhat - there's no hicks or pilots so far and those with saggy rear-ends are in the minority :

[I FluXx I]

Iv got sl in the front and ssl in the rear. Its pretty flat but still rakes very slightly to the front. I would never have it lower in the rear than the front.

[Dezza]

Originally Posted by schnoods

I really like the gasser type of cars, but i can't see the point of lowering a car.

I have a 95 XR8 with factory suspension and although i would like to corner better in it, I'd hate for it to be lower, speed bumps are hard enough as it is with out wanting to leave the exhaust behind!

In a way I agree with you here. I lowered my car, but only went with "lows" rather than superlows or ultralows because it's a daily driver. The lows are basically the equivalent of Tickford suspension. I'm happy with how it handles now (the boat feeling from the old suspension) is gone. It looks heaps better too. I love the look of a car completely dumped, but I can't do it myself. The only criticism, my back end does sit slightly lower than the front. This was not intentional. It's got King springs lows with monroe shocks at both ends, but still doesn't sit quite level.

[DEVL-XR]

Dead level for me, just looks really nice. I also like the raked look with the front lower than the back. In a recent issue of PFM theres a blue Typhoon with this done and it looks so god damn tough!
The read being lower than the front can only be pulled off it the difference is 1cm max! Any more than that and it looks like its got a boot full of lead plus it looks damn ugly.

[Nostalgia]

For me, Late models need to sit level. 70's and 80's need a bit of rake at the front. 50's and 60's need to be tail-draggin'. :

[89 S-PACK]

slightly lower in the front is better i recon....

but its a bit hypocritical of me to talk atm...mines lowered more in the rear but it wasnt intentional. it was suggested to have slightly higher springs in the back to compensate for the weight of the lpg tank and petrol tank. i should of listened, lol

so now im putting in higher springs in the back once i have the funds for the new springs.

[Nostalgia]

To Infinity And Beyond !!!

[gtxb67]

on the coupes i think slightly lower at front. i like the protector strip line level with the sill slightly raked to the front

[RockyF75]

Cruisy - Slightly lower in back
Mean/Sporty - Slightly lower in front
Extremely low in either direction? = Tossy. But each to their own

My falcon sits a bit lower at the back, shagged springs though, not deliberate. Looks ok... well, if it was in good nick it'd look mad

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by RockyF75

Cruisy - Slightly lower in back
Mean/Sporty - Slightly lower in front
Extremely low in either direction? = Tossy. But each to their own

My falcon sits a bit lower at the back, shagged springs though, not deliberate. Looks ok... well, if it was in good nick it'd look mad

Pics please.

[RockyF75]

Originally Posted by EAadam

Pics please.

Dark now. Tomorrow if I remember

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by RockyF75

Dark now. Tomorrow if I remember

No worries. Thanks. What model ?