|
|
||
|
||
| 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
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Disco Frank |
|
|||
|
some old school muscle cars were factory lower in the back for some weird reason and cars like a nice stang look good this way
but on anything modern level or raked towards the front and with the front rake u can accomedate for what you said, mates in back, tank of fuel etc
_________________ RIP SCOTT |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| joolz |
|
|||
|
Yeah what is it with fords now dumped more in the rear like the Commodore. Its impracticle as with a loaded car the rear drops more than the front. I have mine level if not a fraction lower on the front depending on how much fuel.
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| pugsley |
|
||
|
Don't some falcons need lower springs in the back to make it look level.
I'm sure i have heard this discussed on here before 
_________________ EF GLi Wagoon |
||
| Top | |
||
| URZ2NV |
|
||
|
I like my car pritty low but at the same time i want her level as i do tend to have things in the boot and usually have mates in the car so for me its better to have her level.
|
||
| Top | |
||
| wicksy |
|
|||
|
i got my car lowered same height all round, but now with a sub box the a*** sits a little lower now lol
_________________ Now i have a EF XR8 5spd.........mmmmmm 5L |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Windza |
|
|||
|
Quote: Don't some falcons need lower springs in the back to make it look level.
I've never heard the lower springs in the rear of the falcon to make them level - my EF had s/lows all round and sat even (until I black and deckered the fronts) andt the fairlane has lows in the rear with s/lows front and sits pretty much spot on... |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Brett3158 |
|
||
|
{USERNAME} wrote: 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
Valiants, Chryslers, Dodges all had a torsion bar front end. So to firm up the front suspension the torsion had to be wound up which resulted in the front being higher than the rear. Apparently the racing Chargers and Pacers lost a few mph top end in order to corner by having the front higher than the rear. There is no reason for a ford or holden with coil front end to have the front higher. |
||
| Top | |
||
| URZ2NV |
|
||
|
Yea it is strange but some people do like that look and personally i do but would not do it to my car and Windza i absolutely love your Fairlane.
|
||
| Top | |
||
| Damo |
|
|||
|
some people refer to lower in the back as gangsta lean. Haha. I prefer to have the back a touch lower. Just personal preference.
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Steady ED |
|
|||
|
Lower in the rear, anyone who says different is either not from Victoria, and hence has no taste, or has the mental age of a retiree and should be driving a camry.
_________________ ED XR8 Sprint - S-Trim, V500, 249rwkw |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| BenJ |
|
||
|
I have to say that for me it has to be level if not a little higher in the back.
At the moment mine sits just lower in the back, and it annoys me so much I have ordered 10mm spacers to do something about it. BenJ
_________________ {DESCRIPTION} - Current Ride |
||
| Top | |
||
| revcore |
|
|||
|
Windza, What rims are they on your Fairlane?.....They look awesome!
_________________
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| phongus |
|
|||
|
I have lows (or xr springs *shrugs*) in the rear and stock at the front. Levels the car out rather then having the a** higher then the front. I think putting super lows in the rear (if you have no gas tank and a huge sound system) and lows at the front, the car sits level...so I was led to believe since my car sits level with low rears and stock fronts.
I have an EL Fairmont. phong =P~
_________________ phongus = Post whore 2006 |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| skidder |
|
|||
|
it depends on shocks and seat heights as well as springs....i have seen superlows that dont even tuck tyre on some cars and are almost to the rim on others
_________________ {USERNAME} wrote: Cramping in the hand from having it on your Wang for an excessive period of time is a definate con. Seriously do people google "f**k up modifications for Fords owned by Jews" and get linked straight to this site nowadays? AU,factory fitted tickford kit/IRS, t5,Sports ryder/KYB: gone. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 46 guests |
