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

    • So, now all you need to do is connect the 2 or 3x 12v feeds into the unit to permanent 12v, ACC 12V and IGN 12V that you can find in the spot behind the stereo, and the earth, and then it will switch on with the car.
    • Yes then it will turn on but I want the car features to work  
    • My thought is if you were just moving it forward and the upstream geometry remained the same, then no difference at all. But because the current one has the filter direct into the AFM inlet, you effectively have the best chance of a completely symmetric air flow profile upstream, and in, the AFM, whilst the aftermarket inlet thingo has a (small, to be sure) bend between the filter and the AFM. That would bias the flow to the outside of the bend (downstream of the bend) which might well reduce the size of the signal seen by the AFM, for the same total flow rate. Having said that: If you're proposing to make your inlet look like a hybrid of your existing one and the aftermarket one, such that there is no bend where the filter is clamped on... then I say it will be just fine. If there is going to be such a bend, then, if you can align the insertion of the AFM blade such that it is at right angles to the plane of the bend, then there is a better than even chance that the centreline velocity where the blade is will remain more or less the same, and the velocity will just be a little faster to the outside of that, and just a little slower to the inside. **This is not professional investment advice and you should consult a suitably qualified ouija board, tea leaves or the intestines of a goat for more accurate prognostication.
    • Hi Tao, Thanks for your reply.  It's been a while and I managed to get the valve stem seals replaced with the head on the car.  Unfortunately this didn't solve my issue, the car still smokes a lot after idling (to be honest during idle you can see a bit of blue smoke from the exhaust), same after deceleration. I will try disconnecting the valve cover breathers, do I leave the PCV valve in? By engine oil drain pipe, do you mean the turbo oil drain?
    • What about if you just give it direct 12v and earth?
×
×
  • Create New...