Notices
964 Forum 1989-1994
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Ride Height

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 27, 2008 | 11:26 PM
  #1  
dfinnegan's Avatar
dfinnegan
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,363
Likes: 25
From: NY, USA
Default Ride Height

Recent threads got me thinking about ride height so I referenced this thread and measured my car.

I used the Cast Boss Rear Axle Trailing Arm for the rears and came up with:
  • Fr Lft: 109 mm
  • Fr Rgt: 110 mm
  • Rr Lft: 179 mm
  • Rr Rgt: 180 mm

I also measured the fender heights at the top of the wheel well openings and found (to the nearest 1/8"):
  • Fr Lft: 24.625"
  • Fr Rgt: 24.750"
  • Rr Lft: 24.875"
  • Rr Rgt: 24.625"

I believe that my car is low, but thought it was on the order of RS height; not below!

The fender heights seem reasonable, but the mm measurements from the referenced thread seem too low.

Could it be this low? Or am I measuring at the wrong location?

For refernece I have saved the following values in my notes; I think they are accurate:

Code:
      Front Ride Height Specification (mm)
        Model           ROW             USA/CAN         My Car
        -----------------------------------------------------
        C2/C4           165             175
        RS              125                             110
        Turbo 3.3       165             175
        Turbo S2                        175
        Turbo S         125
        Turbo 3.6       155             175
      Rear Ride Height Specification (mm)
        Model           ROW             USA/CAN         My Car
        ------------------------------------------------------
        C2/C4           258             268
        RS              218                             180
        Turbo 3.3       270             280
        Turbo S2                        280
        Turbo S         218
        Turbo 3.6       260             280
Oh, and I have the M030 suspension installed.
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2008 | 12:02 AM
  #2  
Geoffrey's Avatar
Geoffrey
Nordschleife Master
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 16
From: Kingston, NY
Default

Car is too low if you are measuring from the proper points.
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2008 | 12:29 AM
  #3  
dfinnegan's Avatar
dfinnegan
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,363
Likes: 25
From: NY, USA
Default

How accurate is the comparison between the fender and the official measuring points?

It seems like the fender measurements are rather similar to others that have been posted, but the official measuring points came in low. Seems to suggest error on my part, but I feel like I measured the correct points with accuracy.
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2008 | 05:08 AM
  #4  
parsecnc4's Avatar
parsecnc4
Burning Brakes
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 754
Likes: 1
From: So. Cal (USA)
Default

Originally Posted by dfinnegan
Recent threads got me thinking about ride height so I referenced this thread and measured my car.

I used the Cast Boss Rear Axle Trailing Arm for the rears and came up with:
  • Fr Lft: 109 mm
  • Fr Rgt: 110 mm
  • Rr Lft: 179 mm
  • Rr Rgt: 180 mm

I also measured the fender heights at the top of the wheel well openings and found (to the nearest 1/8"):
  • Fr Lft: 24.625"
  • Fr Rgt: 24.750"
  • Rr Lft: 24.875"
  • Rr Rgt: 24.625"

I believe that my car is low, but thought it was on the order of RS height; not below!

The fender heights seem reasonable, but the mm measurements from the referenced thread seem too low.

Could it be this low? Or am I measuring at the wrong location?

For refernece I have saved the following values in my notes; I think they are accurate:

Code:
      Front Ride Height Specification (mm)
        Model           ROW             USA/CAN         My Car
        -----------------------------------------------------
        C2/C4           165             175
        RS              125                             110
        Turbo 3.3       165             175
        Turbo S2                        175
        Turbo S         125
        Turbo 3.6       155             175
      Rear Ride Height Specification (mm)
        Model           ROW             USA/CAN         My Car
        ------------------------------------------------------
        C2/C4           258             268
        RS              218                             180
        Turbo 3.3       270             280
        Turbo S2                        280
        Turbo S         218
        Turbo 3.6       260             280
Oh, and I have the M030 suspension installed.
I don't see how you could get the factory M030 to achieve those ride heights. Something is not right. How does your car handle? Any pictures of the car you can post for eye-balling?
Reply
Old Jul 1, 2008 | 01:09 AM
  #5  
TH996's Avatar
TH996
Advanced
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
From: Bethesda MD
Default

I am at 130mm (RS+5mm) in the front with a wheel arch measurement of 25 7/8" running Bilstein HDs + H&R reds. I had the ROW 965 3.6 springs for a short period. With the HD's set at full drop I was probably only at 145-150mm.

You must be getting some serious bump steer at that height.

After having the H&R springs installed, I drove about 20 miles to have my current ride height set and the suspension corner balanced. At that point I was running the HDs at full drop (from the combo with the ROW 965 springs above) in combination with the newly installed H&Rs. It looked great but was definitely a little squirly with respect to bump steer. I'd probably go with Evo uprights if I was going any lower. Attached is my car compared to a Carrera RS/US Cup pic I found somewhere.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
911 height adj.jpg (87.6 KB, 3289 views)
Reply
Old Jul 1, 2008 | 12:11 PM
  #6  
dfinnegan's Avatar
dfinnegan
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,363
Likes: 25
From: NY, USA
Default

Here's a current pic. It's a bit difficult to see the ride height with the shadows.

Reply
Old Jul 1, 2008 | 12:16 PM
  #7  
mr pg's Avatar
mr pg
Racer
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Default

Looking at your photo, it would appear that the rear looks about MO30 (factory sport) height, whereas the front looks more RS spec. Doesn't appear right to my eyes.
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2008 | 02:46 PM
  #8  
dfinnegan's Avatar
dfinnegan
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,363
Likes: 25
From: NY, USA
Default

Figured out that I was measuing the rears from the wrong spot!

I'm actually at 221 mm (L) and 219 mm (R) against an RS height of 223 +/- 5 mm. Seems spot on.

The fronts are still low, but I knew that.

Are they too low, at ~110mm? That is, will damage result?

I don't feel bump steer and there is a very good test turn that I drive frequently, at speed, with diagonal raised bumps across the lane.

Thanks.
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2008 | 03:23 PM
  #9  
demonfish's Avatar
demonfish
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 963
Likes: 1
From: Birmingham, UK.
Default

i run 141mm front, 241mm rear, this allows a C2 to have RS geo...

works quite well, i would prefer it lower, but it handles so much better just that touch higher.
Reply
Old Feb 23, 2010 | 01:29 PM
  #10  
92silver964's Avatar
92silver964
Racer
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: Silver Spring, MD
Default

Originally Posted by dfinnegan
Figured out that I was measuing the rears from the wrong spot!

I'm actually at 221 mm (L) and 219 mm (R) against an RS height of 223 +/- 5 mm. Seems spot on.

Thanks.
I am preparing to lower my P-car and am getting similar erroneous rear measurements as you did at first, despite referring to a couple visuals from RL. Is there a standard amount which should be added to a more accessible/shorter dimension? What did you figure out to change from the obviously low values to the dimensions listed above?

Thanks for your help!
Reply
Old Feb 23, 2010 | 02:04 PM
  #11  
dfinnegan's Avatar
dfinnegan
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,363
Likes: 25
From: NY, USA
Default

As I recall, I was under the car one day and made a careful examination and discovered the correct location to measure from. I'd have to go back under to find it again now! Sorry, I wish I could be more helpful.
Reply
Old Feb 23, 2010 | 02:09 PM
  #12  
Bill Verburg's Avatar
Bill Verburg
Addict
Rennlist Member

20 Year Member
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 12,808
Likes: 782
Default

here's the factory measuring points for 964


You can go lower than RS spec but ought to use 993RS uprights to do so
Reply
Old Feb 24, 2010 | 12:13 AM
  #13  
92silver964's Avatar
92silver964
Racer
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: Silver Spring, MD
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Verburg
here's the factory measuring points for 964
Thank you, Bill! Those diagrams showed me why I was having trouble. The measurements now seem reasonable. Thanks for your help.
Reply
Old Jun 3, 2011 | 04:16 PM
  #14  
TRPBLK's Avatar
TRPBLK
1st Gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Default 91 964 Ride Height Question

I am about to adjust the ride height on my 91 964. I am having difficultly with the rear measurement, do you need to remove the body panel? Could someone give me some guidance on how to make this measurement? From the picture i can't seem to identify the flat area shown by H arrow.

I am running Bilstein HDs w/H&R springs. Current ride height:

V: 127 mm
H: 236 mm (i think)

From fender arch to ground it is 25.5 all around car. I am thinking about rising about an 1" all around as New Yorks are not that flat and this is a road car, no track use.

Last question, are front and rear of car set to the same ride height?

Thanks everyone for all the excellent information in this thread.


Best Regards,

John
91 Triple Black Cab
Reply
Old Jun 3, 2011 | 07:17 PM
  #15  
sml's Avatar
sml
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by TRPBLK
I am having difficultly with the rear measurement, do you need to remove the body panel?
no, you do not.

but take your time. study the diagram. get a torch. feel with your hands. note the comment that 'some cars do not have this measuring surface'. it took me about 30mins to find it. obviously in hindsight it is obvious.
Reply



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 07:38 PM.