When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
That info would corroborate my numbers for the US cars but the info appears to be incorrect for the RoW 3.6T. I have seen RoW 3.6T's come in at the numbers I noted. Other sources I have says it should be 10mm higher than the documents you posted. However the spec book uses the numbers you posted. AFAIK they were only 20mm lower than US spec not 30mm. It is possible there is confusion over if it was 20mm lower than US spec or 20mm lower than RoW 3.3T spec.
It would appear the TSL used the same setup as the RoW 3.6RS. The part numbers for the shocks and springs are the same although the new superseded version ends in 81 vs 80.
These are the shocks and springs I just installed in the US spec cup car and the settings would put it at 40mm lower than the RoW 3.3T.
So clearly the TSL and RoW Carrera 3.6 RS shared all the same suspension components.
My car is set at 155mm F and 250mm rear. My car sits about the same as this original RoW 3.6T. When I went 10mm lower it was a very different gap between the wheel wells and tires. I am also not aware of the TSL having 235 front tires vs the rest of the 3.6T's with same wheels that ran 225's up front. Maybe Carlos can chime in on that. That would put the rolling dia over .7" different than what they ran on the 3.6T's and flachbau's .
This is an original RoW 3.6T seems to me the ride height is quite similar and if anything higher than my car.
Interestingly the springs for sale around the world I can find are for the US spec 94 turbo and not the RoW version. The springs are what lowered the cars ride height.