Lowering front w/o changing springs

[BlueTR3A-5EKT]

Just done an on the bench measure/comparison of lower wishbones from TR2-4

If you lay one on the other with the second one being 'upside down'  and you align the inner and outer pivot points the difference in height of the spring pan mounting of the correctly fitted wishbone to the upside down is 15mm ish.  Meaning the stub axle will rise relative to the spring fitted height ie lowering the car by 15mm ish.

Only issue I see when doing this to a sidescreen car is the clearance beneath the spring pan to chassis leg when on full rebound. Probably not an issue on a modern IRS car.

Any help?

Peter W

[Andy Moltu]

I might be missing something, but why not fit lower springs?

[BlueTR3A-5EKT]

10 hours ago, Andy Moltu said:

I might be missing something, but why not fit lower springs?

To maintain maximum amount of suspension movement.   If you reduce the spring length you reduce the amount of suspension movement before the spring goes coil bound or the bump stop is struck.

 

Peter W

[Peter Cobbold]

When a spring allows the wishbone to compress the bumpstop in a bend all the cornering forces transfer to that tyre which will give way  very rapidly indeed. Too fast to catch.

So cutting a spring to lower ride height is not advisable. Shorter springs should also be uprated to match.

[Andy Moltu]

Is the lowering just for aesthetics? Or is this a track car.

If it's essentially a track car uprated lower springs are probably your better option than lowering a standard spring. On the track you are unlikely to use the full suspension travel with an uprated spring.

On a rally car it's different you probably don't want it lowered and may benefit from a longer, uprated spring.

For a road car driven hard you probably might opt for a uprated slightly lowered lowered spring but it depends on the ride you like and the roads you will be on.  If you were in the UK these days you might need to think more of a rally set up, such is the state of the roads!