Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just noticed in some of the threads, people are running their cars lower at the rear compared to the front. Ie, from centre of the wheel to the guard might be say 340mm and the front will be 350mm...

just wondering what the idea behind running different heights, front to back, is?? I think even the SK group buy might specificy different heights front/back

EDIT: sorry, thought i was posting in the suspension section, mods feel free to move if you think it's not in the best area

it's because the front guards are typically cut 20mm higher than the rear.

So by running the center to guard heights 10mm less at the rear you actually end up with about 10mm of rake as the front is lower

Measuring and quoting comparable heights front to rear by the wheel gaps to the top of the guards is a bit off. Its usually and more accurately measured from under the body/chassis where a part is level with the ground front to rear eg sill panel.

Thanks for asking the question SS8.

Measuring and quoting comparable heights front to rear by the wheel gaps to the top of the guards is a bit off. Its usually and more accurately measured from under the body/chassis where a part is level with the ground front to rear eg sill panel.

Thanks for asking the question SS8.

It allows people to ignore the tyre diamater. Just about every Skyline ever built is running something different. They may only be 10mm out or whatever but it is enough to make a nonsense of the measurement. Unfortunately it makes the camber settings influence the result where previously they would not.

Unfortunately it makes the camber settings influence the result where previously they would not.

How so? I'm struggling to picture it... Camber makes the wheel pivot about the lower ball joint (for upper arm adjustment), so there's bugger all height change in the centre of the wheel, not even 1mm.

260DET: Sill measurements are best used to measure rake, but for actual ride height, centre of wheel to guard is better. As djr81 said, it neglects all differences in rolling diameters, so this includes things like wheel/tyre size and even tread wear (new tyres have 8mm tread)

If you measure a stock car, you will probably find that the measurements are less on the back than they are on the front. When you lower a car, it is usually best to lower the car an equal amount front and rear. That is why you have probably observed this.

Edited by Thunderbolt
..............................................

260DET: Sill measurements are best used to measure rake, but for actual ride height, centre of wheel to guard is better. As djr81 said, it neglects all differences in rolling diameters, so this includes things like wheel/tyre size and even tread wear (new tyres have 8mm tread)

Get it now, thanks for the explanation.

It seems some people get confused, I've heard the 'lower at the back' claim before concerning rake. And thought WTF :dry:

I THINK the rule of thumb is lower front = better turn in. Quite happy to be corrected though.

I think it's to do with the centre of gravity heights front to rear, but then obviously suspension geometry starts playing a pretty big part in it too.

I THINK the rule of thumb is lower front = better turn in. Quite happy to be corrected though.

I think it's to do with the centre of gravity heights front to rear, but then obviously suspension geometry starts playing a pretty big part in it too.

Upside down Miss Jane.

Lowering the front will tend to generate more initial & indeed midcorner understeer.

Raising it will tend to allow the car to turn in better.

Sometimes it is a matter of balancing the turn in with the mid corner grip.

Rake helps the aero, providing of course it does not put aero aids such as wings out of alignment. High back particularly helps beneficial air flow under and out the back of the car.

ok ok... i haven't heard of rake before

so rake refers to the height of the front relative to the rear? So could you say a car has "positive" rake if the front or rear is higher?

To the cars have a default rake from factory??

So it's not such a bad thing to have the rear a little lower compared to the front? I like this as i've got a real low front spoiler, but my rear guards have the biggest "gap" between them and the tyre. So in terms of wheel guard gap, i could even it out a bit, but actually have the rear lower.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...