Notices
924/931/944/951/968 Forum Porsche 924, 924S, 931, 944, 944S, 944S2, 951, and 968 discussion, how-to guides, and technical help. (1976-1995)
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

suspension cluelessness - rear is lower?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-20-2002 | 11:22 AM
  #1  
Operator's Avatar
Operator
Thread Starter
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
From: CT, USA
Post suspension cluelessness - rear is lower?

First I just want to say that I am mostly very clueless about suspensions and all the technical jargon that goes along with them... (like most everything else, but probably even a bit more).

In any case. It appears that the back of my car is riding lower than the front.... what could be the possible symptoms? I don't think I have adjustable anything unless it came stock with the car.. (no M030 option or anything). Some people say its just because of the ind. suspension but... I dunno about that.. although.. if I park on a forward incline the rear does sit up more.. but thats probably just physics at work.

Anyway, just a little insight in to this topic would be nice, I don't think I can actually explore it much on my own, but who knows?
Old 08-20-2002 | 01:32 PM
  #2  
Skip's Avatar
Skip
Addict
Rennlist Member


Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,820
Likes: 5
From: Virtually Everywhere...
Post

A few possibilities:

- the 944 sometimes gives an optical illusion that the rear is lower because: a. the wheel arches are lower on the body than the fronts, and b. the rear wheel are inset of the body so far that the angle at which you look down on the car causes paralax (a distortion of lines)[especially on stock wheeled post 85.5 cars - no rear spacers]
- there are ride height eccentrics on the rear trailing arms that allow the rear height to be adjusted by just less than an inch. They could have been change, or simply come loose.
- torsion bars do not normally suffer from fatigue, but can if the car was driven primarily on roads with woops (what I call them), or driven with eccess weight in the rear (passengers, dead hippies, etc)

You can measure the difference of front-to-rear ride height, rake, by comparing the distance between the body lower skirt area and a level surface. Take your measurements at the areas just fore and aft of the doors, between the body and ground. Another way is to lay a 48" level against the underside of the body.

Ideally, the 944 should have positive rake - ever so slightly, the rear higher than the front. Keep in mind the amount of load in the car, and the amount of gas in the tank may change your measurements.

If you need to raise (or lower) the rear, this may be done by the rear ride height eccentric - if you need to lower (or raise) the front, then this must be done with springs, or other such aftermarket devices.

Good Luck!
Old 08-20-2002 | 01:56 PM
  #3  
FirstPorsche's Avatar
FirstPorsche
Instructor
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: Connecticut
Post

I have a 1987 944S and have noticed the same thing on my car whether it has a full tank or not (1 gallon of gas weighs 6 pounds or so?). I read somewhere a while back, either on this forum or in an issue of Excellence, that Porsche had to raise the front of the 944 to meet U.S. bumper height requirements. That is why most 944s are higher in the front than the back.

Any other thoughts out there?
Old 08-20-2002 | 01:59 PM
  #4  
Skip's Avatar
Skip
Addict
Rennlist Member


Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,820
Likes: 5
From: Virtually Everywhere...
Post

They raised both the front and rear ~20mm to satisfy the feds for import. Euro front springs are shorter, and the spring plates are adjusted differently (or torsion bars indexed differently)

Skip
Old 08-20-2002 | 05:00 PM
  #5  
Operator's Avatar
Operator
Thread Starter
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
From: CT, USA
Post

cool
thanks Skip
theres even a tech session on it...

so can i just lift the rear of the car with 2 jackstands and do this? is removal of the wheels necessary? im not quite sure where to measure from... i guess that little bar that sticks out to the floor distance? im thinking mine might be loose ever since i had that little accident... hmm.....
Old 08-20-2002 | 09:13 PM
  #6  
Skip's Avatar
Skip
Addict
Rennlist Member


Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,820
Likes: 5
From: Virtually Everywhere...
Post

Yes, entire rear must be off the ground.

You don't have to remove the wheels, but that makes it a bit easier. Some folks find this easier to do with the stabilizer removed - I don't see the need.

You can use any fixed point to measure ride-height, so long as it's the same on both sides. Fender arches are okay, but not all bodies are perfect... and the front and rear arch height will be different (~1/2"). The easiest measurement I can find is the lower sideskirt about 12" from each wheelwell - toward the center... that area gives an easy to define look at rake.

How bad was the accident?

Skip
Old 08-20-2002 | 10:07 PM
  #7  
Operator's Avatar
Operator
Thread Starter
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
From: CT, USA
Post

needed a new drivers side quarter panel from it... you dont remember my posts with pics? basically the quarter panel was all that was damaged.. right in the flare.... i hope
Old 08-20-2002 | 10:26 PM
  #8  
Skip's Avatar
Skip
Addict
Rennlist Member


Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,820
Likes: 5
From: Virtually Everywhere...
Post

[quote]Originally posted by Operator:
<strong>you dont remember my posts with pics?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Me? Remember? Surely, you jest...

S



Quick Reply: suspension cluelessness - rear is lower?



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 11:34 PM.