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

    • Oh ok that makes so much sense. Thanks for clearing it up!
    • And these modern "environmentally friendly" EV vehicles also run on the same smoke! When the engine, wiring, or batteries let it escape it also stops running!
    • Yeah - I found the same information too.. 30% open is like 85% of flow etc. So it's probably going to be minor if not completely imperceptible. I also have a larger pod filter here, will swap that on and see if there's any difference. The hardest part is finding a place to uh, test this. It's quite noticable just how much having ducting to the otherwise completely open pod cools the intake temps down. It's better boxed, or shielded but driving for 30 seconds really makes it plummet to near ambient temperatures. I recall in the past when I was a RB land and had a nice flowing airbox -  - Then I took the lid off and put a pod there, and gained 9 psi of boost and about 60kw from the restriction I didn't know I had - with the controller at same duty cycle. However finding people using over the radiator intakes having similar KPA drops at WOT on built setups makes me think there restriction could be the exhaust or potentially the headers. Either way though, there's no real estate to play with and nothing that can realistically be done about it. The original dyno plot without the airbox, and the larger pod had a better curve. It was later I added the ducting and airbox, and a smaller pod to make it fit in there...
    • That's not completely truthful now is it? Any flex fuelled factory cars also had the option to run on steam.
    • Yeah so I guess your mechanic would know turnaround better than me....but I would have thought you had access to same day or overnight rack rebuilds there....any big city here in Australia has that service.   There are a couple of o-rings and seals involved, I guess the risk is the part is specific not general. Other option is if you can have it on stands in your garage for a while, steering rack removal is pretty simple (2 mounting brackets, 2 ball joints (separate by undoing the nut to the top of the threads, put a pry bar between the steering arm and control arm to put pressure on it then medium force on the side of the ball joint or top of the nut with a hammer to break it free) and then the trickiest bit is the splines to the steering rack (not too bad to undo, one nut then it slides out, but mark it first so you can reassemble it straight)
×
×
  • Create New...