Visit The Dirt Forum for More Information

Author Topic:   Ride heights can't be right
tilley88
Member
posted November 26, 2002 12:13 AM
First mod, need help- ride heights seem high. '99 Shaw copy, '68-'72 Chevelle clip.

LF-5 3/4" RF-6 1/4"
Lr-7" Rr-7 1/2"


Where do I read these numbers more accurately?


CUSTOMPERFORMANCE
Member
posted November 26, 2002 08:28 AM
If you are measuring from the ground to the bottom of each corner those #'s dont look too bad.


tilley88
Member
posted November 26, 2002 11:06 AM
Yeah, from the floor to the bottom of frame at the most forward and most rearward points. This is correct?


jklostermann
Member
posted November 26, 2002 01:02 PM
I like to measure ride heights as fallows;

In the front where the main frame rails meet the dog leg in the stock clip.

In the back I measure where the trailing arms bolt to the chassis. This should be part of the same frame rail that you measured from in the front.

AS far as the heights go personally I would drop them about 1/4 inch. But there again every one has there own preferences.

tilley88
Member
posted November 26, 2002 05:09 PM
How important is frame design and wheelbase in determining ride height?


2nd2none
Member
posted November 26, 2002 05:11 PM
i've ran my heights on my dirtworks as low as 5" LF, 5 1/2" RF, 5 1/2" LR, 6" RR and up to 6" LF, 6 1/2" RF, 6 1/2" LR, 7" RR, now the car did work better being up higher.


PEDDLER
Member
posted November 27, 2002 07:08 PM
I feel front frame heights should be adjusted in relation to the lower A arms.

I try to keep the lower A arms on a flat and level plain and read the frame heights from there. The car seems to work and roll over better being a little higher.
RF 6 1/2 ,,,LF 6 1/4 rear is measured between the lower bars and axle tube.


zoomy#74
Member
posted November 27, 2002 07:52 PM
You're car may have run better with the higher settings because you had more roll and better weight transfer.


2nd2none
Member
posted November 29, 2002 01:48 AM