Using washers to drop the car.
12-30-2007, 04:34 PM
#52
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OC
Posts: 2,319
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
AMG E55, Stage 1, Strait Pipe from Primary Cats
Not at all, It is personal preference to get your car to your desired look...personally I cannot stand wheel gap so I bet it looks great.
06-26-2008, 12:18 PM
#55
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
w220
I read about doing this on benzworld when I first got the car. Wasn't sure at that point what to do so I left it alone. After reading this I think I'm going to try it. Thanks for sharing!
06-27-2008, 11:35 PM
#56
MBWorld Fanatic!
just don't adjust the rear slider too much; the rear struts can lose all air and completely dump the back end then you'll have to raise it again which will cause strut damage and make the pump work really hard.
06-28-2008, 04:27 PM
#58
Junior Member
Hi Gentlemen,
My 320 also seems to be "too high" on LF and "too low" on RR when i am parking after a ride alone.
But have you ever been taking measures of the the car after parking when both front seats have been occupied with persons similar in weight ?
(iot engine shutoff before leaving the car)
I have found that if I do this, and park the car on a completely level surface it is almost exactly level (within a couple of millimeters).
Take a look here for explanation of Corner-weighting:
http://www.instant-g.com/Data/weightbalance.html
If you consider basic chassis & suspension theory I believe there is a reason for the Airmatic system to have just a one ride height sensor at the rear.
If it were to have one at each side at the rear, it would adjust the RR up almost similar to the ride height leveling upwards of the LF which occurs when seating in the drivers seat.
This leveling makes the LF to carry even more of the LF-biased cornerweight. But, allowing the RR suspension to be somewhat lower when the chassis squats and without the leveling system at rear trying to correct the ride-height at RR functions that the already much biased cornerweight towards LF doesn`t become even greater biased by levelling RR.
And voilà, You have a car which is optimum cornerweighted at all times (but look a little funny with the "sagging" RR)
The tradeoff for this optimizing will be that you will most likely find when doing most of the driving alone in the car, the RR will wear slightly more at the inside because of a tad more neg. camber followed by the squat towards RR.
If most of your driving is performed with just the driver in the car I believe through my knowledge about optimum cornerweighting that we will have to accept these cars somewhat funny stance after a "one man ride".
One can`t adjust the cornerweight to become more optimized by lowering LF. (Use the the Balancecalculator)
The only thing it will get You is a more level car at the rear, but as a tradeoff a car who will have its front suspension angles "out" by the drivers bodyweight (and maybe a little less tire wear at the inside of RR)
Which is best ?
I will have to answer this in no other way than that the front suspension is the most important.
Among other things, take into consideration the front wheels higher loading through curves, and the fact that cars with different front camber will tend to have problems with unruly riding in a straight line because the wheel with most neg camber will stride more inwards. (try to get a cone lying flat on the floor to roll in a straight line, a wheel with camber behaves exactly like it)
So fellow S-class drivers, which is the most important factor for You !
A car whitch is optimized in every respect and roadholds at least as good as pedigree sportscars and at the same time delivers comfort like a dream (but still tilt/squat a bit to the right standing in the parking lot)
I`ve been driving Porsches since -92 and my (new to me) -99 S320 is thrilling me greatly with its handling. Almost like the extra 300 kg isn`t even there
......or would You rather have a car that is not as optimized as it can be out on the roads, and sometimes have this peculiar squat stance with small tilt when parked ?
IMHO one will have to have an outstanding vanity to choose the latter
Please forgive me my poor English.
Suspension guru`s - correct me if I am wrong
!
My 320 also seems to be "too high" on LF and "too low" on RR when i am parking after a ride alone.
But have you ever been taking measures of the the car after parking when both front seats have been occupied with persons similar in weight ?
(iot engine shutoff before leaving the car)
I have found that if I do this, and park the car on a completely level surface it is almost exactly level (within a couple of millimeters).
Take a look here for explanation of Corner-weighting:
http://www.instant-g.com/Data/weightbalance.html
If you consider basic chassis & suspension theory I believe there is a reason for the Airmatic system to have just a one ride height sensor at the rear.
If it were to have one at each side at the rear, it would adjust the RR up almost similar to the ride height leveling upwards of the LF which occurs when seating in the drivers seat.
This leveling makes the LF to carry even more of the LF-biased cornerweight. But, allowing the RR suspension to be somewhat lower when the chassis squats and without the leveling system at rear trying to correct the ride-height at RR functions that the already much biased cornerweight towards LF doesn`t become even greater biased by levelling RR.
And voilà, You have a car which is optimum cornerweighted at all times (but look a little funny with the "sagging" RR)
The tradeoff for this optimizing will be that you will most likely find when doing most of the driving alone in the car, the RR will wear slightly more at the inside because of a tad more neg. camber followed by the squat towards RR.
If most of your driving is performed with just the driver in the car I believe through my knowledge about optimum cornerweighting that we will have to accept these cars somewhat funny stance after a "one man ride".
One can`t adjust the cornerweight to become more optimized by lowering LF. (Use the the Balancecalculator)
The only thing it will get You is a more level car at the rear, but as a tradeoff a car who will have its front suspension angles "out" by the drivers bodyweight (and maybe a little less tire wear at the inside of RR)
Which is best ?
I will have to answer this in no other way than that the front suspension is the most important.
Among other things, take into consideration the front wheels higher loading through curves, and the fact that cars with different front camber will tend to have problems with unruly riding in a straight line because the wheel with most neg camber will stride more inwards. (try to get a cone lying flat on the floor to roll in a straight line, a wheel with camber behaves exactly like it)
So fellow S-class drivers, which is the most important factor for You !
A car whitch is optimized in every respect and roadholds at least as good as pedigree sportscars and at the same time delivers comfort like a dream (but still tilt/squat a bit to the right standing in the parking lot)
I`ve been driving Porsches since -92 and my (new to me) -99 S320 is thrilling me greatly with its handling. Almost like the extra 300 kg isn`t even there
......or would You rather have a car that is not as optimized as it can be out on the roads, and sometimes have this peculiar squat stance with small tilt when parked ?
IMHO one will have to have an outstanding vanity to choose the latter
Please forgive me my poor English.
Suspension guru`s - correct me if I am wrong
!
Last edited by Magnus Rostadmo; 06-28-2008 at 08:22 PM.
08-07-2008, 05:20 PM
#60
Super Member
Thread Starter
The front should have similar sensors. The back may be different so you may have to go on model specific sub forum to get your answers.
10-08-2008, 03:47 AM
#61
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1999 E55 AMG
S55, has anyone done this with an s55 with the abc suspension. I am all down to try it as it seams to work greta with just the airmatic, but slightley concerned with the abc suspension option, any insight or experience? Thansk.
10-08-2008, 08:12 AM
#63
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i just realized, correct me if im wrong but isnt the abc suspension hydraulic not pnuematic? i read the post and ive seen people argue that paying 1200 for a lowering module is way safer but in reality i rad up on those and the do exactly what the washers r doing to the sensors, the lowering modules trick the airmatic thiniking its higher than it actully is and it lowers it so in reality the lowering module is doing what the washers are doing but just electronically instead of mechanically. just my 2 cents
10-08-2008, 04:21 PM
#64
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 S500 4Matic
You are right. ABC is a hydraulically controlled (i.e. pressurized oil based) steel spring suspension. So, not a pneumatic (i.e. pressurized air based) system, like the AirMatic.
01-02-2009, 02:48 PM
#68
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
w220
Thank for taking the time to share this with all of us. I sincerely appreciated reading your post
Hi Gentlemen,
My 320 also seems to be "too high" on LF and "too low" on RR when i am parking after a ride alone.
But have you ever been taking measures of the the car after parking when both front seats have been occupied with persons similar in weight ?
(iot engine shutoff before leaving the car)
I have found that if I do this, and park the car on a completely level surface it is almost exactly level (within a couple of millimeters).
Take a look here for explanation of Corner-weighting:
http://www.instant-g.com/Data/weightbalance.html
If you consider basic chassis & suspension theory I believe there is a reason for the Airmatic system to have just a one ride height sensor at the rear.
If it were to have one at each side at the rear, it would adjust the RR up almost similar to the ride height leveling upwards of the LF which occurs when seating in the drivers seat.
This leveling makes the LF to carry even more of the LF-biased cornerweight. But, allowing the RR suspension to be somewhat lower when the chassis squats and without the leveling system at rear trying to correct the ride-height at RR functions that the already much biased cornerweight towards LF doesn`t become even greater biased by levelling RR.
And voilà, You have a car which is optimum cornerweighted at all times (but look a little funny with the "sagging" RR)
The tradeoff for this optimizing will be that you will most likely find when doing most of the driving alone in the car, the RR will wear slightly more at the inside because of a tad more neg. camber followed by the squat towards RR.
If most of your driving is performed with just the driver in the car I believe through my knowledge about optimum cornerweighting that we will have to accept these cars somewhat funny stance after a "one man ride".
One can`t adjust the cornerweight to become more optimized by lowering LF. (Use the the Balancecalculator)
The only thing it will get You is a more level car at the rear, but as a tradeoff a car who will have its front suspension angles "out" by the drivers bodyweight (and maybe a little less tire wear at the inside of RR)
Which is best ?
I will have to answer this in no other way than that the front suspension is the most important.
Among other things, take into consideration the front wheels higher loading through curves, and the fact that cars with different front camber will tend to have problems with unruly riding in a straight line because the wheel with most neg camber will stride more inwards. (try to get a cone lying flat on the floor to roll in a straight line, a wheel with camber behaves exactly like it)
So fellow S-class drivers, which is the most important factor for You !
A car whitch is optimized in every respect and roadholds at least as good as pedigree sportscars and at the same time delivers comfort like a dream (but still tilt/squat a bit to the right standing in the parking lot)
I`ve been driving Porsches since -92 and my (new to me) -99 S320 is thrilling me greatly with its handling. Almost like the extra 300 kg isn`t even there
......or would You rather have a car that is not as optimized as it can be out on the roads, and sometimes have this peculiar squat stance with small tilt when parked ?
IMHO one will have to have an outstanding vanity to choose the latter
Please forgive me my poor English.
Suspension guru`s - correct me if I am wrong !
My 320 also seems to be "too high" on LF and "too low" on RR when i am parking after a ride alone.
But have you ever been taking measures of the the car after parking when both front seats have been occupied with persons similar in weight ?
(iot engine shutoff before leaving the car)
I have found that if I do this, and park the car on a completely level surface it is almost exactly level (within a couple of millimeters).
Take a look here for explanation of Corner-weighting:
http://www.instant-g.com/Data/weightbalance.html
If you consider basic chassis & suspension theory I believe there is a reason for the Airmatic system to have just a one ride height sensor at the rear.
If it were to have one at each side at the rear, it would adjust the RR up almost similar to the ride height leveling upwards of the LF which occurs when seating in the drivers seat.
This leveling makes the LF to carry even more of the LF-biased cornerweight. But, allowing the RR suspension to be somewhat lower when the chassis squats and without the leveling system at rear trying to correct the ride-height at RR functions that the already much biased cornerweight towards LF doesn`t become even greater biased by levelling RR.
And voilà, You have a car which is optimum cornerweighted at all times (but look a little funny with the "sagging" RR)
The tradeoff for this optimizing will be that you will most likely find when doing most of the driving alone in the car, the RR will wear slightly more at the inside because of a tad more neg. camber followed by the squat towards RR.
If most of your driving is performed with just the driver in the car I believe through my knowledge about optimum cornerweighting that we will have to accept these cars somewhat funny stance after a "one man ride".
One can`t adjust the cornerweight to become more optimized by lowering LF. (Use the the Balancecalculator)
The only thing it will get You is a more level car at the rear, but as a tradeoff a car who will have its front suspension angles "out" by the drivers bodyweight (and maybe a little less tire wear at the inside of RR)
Which is best ?
I will have to answer this in no other way than that the front suspension is the most important.
Among other things, take into consideration the front wheels higher loading through curves, and the fact that cars with different front camber will tend to have problems with unruly riding in a straight line because the wheel with most neg camber will stride more inwards. (try to get a cone lying flat on the floor to roll in a straight line, a wheel with camber behaves exactly like it)
So fellow S-class drivers, which is the most important factor for You !
A car whitch is optimized in every respect and roadholds at least as good as pedigree sportscars and at the same time delivers comfort like a dream (but still tilt/squat a bit to the right standing in the parking lot)
I`ve been driving Porsches since -92 and my (new to me) -99 S320 is thrilling me greatly with its handling. Almost like the extra 300 kg isn`t even there
......or would You rather have a car that is not as optimized as it can be out on the roads, and sometimes have this peculiar squat stance with small tilt when parked ?
IMHO one will have to have an outstanding vanity to choose the latter
Please forgive me my poor English.
Suspension guru`s - correct me if I am wrong
!
01-04-2009, 02:57 AM
#69
MBWorld Fanatic!
whoa, ur car is slammed bro! puts some 20s on there and you are done! congrats on the lowering...good way of saving a thousand bucks or more with not going with a elm. why not lower it via star tho? Ive heard some horror stories about the washer method, but once again, those are just stories.
01-13-2009, 07:25 AM
#70
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: D.C. METRO AREA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nissan GT-R cobb/midpipe/ic piping/wastegate actuators/tials
The "horror" is about ignorance and those pompous asses that think having others do the thinking for you is the only way of solving a problem. These are the same people that paid $3k for a macbook pro when they had pc laptops that were 5x better for $1k.. 
01-13-2009, 08:54 AM
#71
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
04 S430 (sold),05 X5 4.4i, 02 325i, 87 560SL, 85 Alfa Romeo
NO body who actually works with their computer would have made such a statement...Geez..
YOu're obviously not the creative type or anyone who care about being productive at all..... and obviously your knowledged of the evolution of windows it limited..
mabey you should have said PC laptops were 5x cheaper which they are and there is a fine reason for that (but that's another thread).... but you will have a very hard case showing better. and believe me or not my macbook is the best windows xp machine I have ever seen.Recognize...LOL
I have a three inch stack in invoices of all of the PC's I have custom built and sold so I think I an qualified to make that statement..
DO you own or ever had a Apple other that your IPoD? I'm assuming not.
I have seen computers evolve from creating very smart people who new how to harness the power to making them powerless slaves who feel reboot and reinstall the driver on a daily basis is 'normal'.
Nothing running windows will EVER be "better" than ANY mac. sorry dude you are sooo misinformed... Anything running VISTA should be recalled, but then there would be worldwide panic and M/S would be broke in a week so its all hush hush...because most of society are so computer illiterate they can be blamed for years till the next O/S comes out.
JMO.
BTW. start a new thread or something.. don't taint Flongs wonderful thread with computer ignorance please...
01-13-2009, 08:57 AM
#72
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: D.C. METRO AREA
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nissan GT-R cobb/midpipe/ic piping/wastegate actuators/tials
Right right, because computers are all about cgi (which apple has ALSO fallen behind in now), I'm actually apple certified to build and repair the pieces of garbage and would never buy an ipod. I wish you knew about half the stuff you claim do know here- like how apple couldn't even create their own OS so they had to go to a third party vendor to do so for them. Makes me sad that somebody would buy a mac, then use it to run windows xp- shows how much you know...
Are you kidding me here? But hey- they are shiny and look really nice and you could look really cool at starbucks.
Are you kidding me here? But hey- they are shiny and look really nice and you could look really cool at starbucks.
01-13-2009, 09:32 AM
#73
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
04 S430 (sold),05 X5 4.4i, 02 325i, 87 560SL, 85 Alfa Romeo
Right right, because computers are all about cgi (which apple has ALSO fallen behind in now), I'm actually apple certified to build and repair the pieces of garbage and would never buy an ipod. I wish you knew about half the stuff you claim do know here- like how apple couldn't even create their own OS so they had to go to a third party vendor to do so for them. Makes me sad that somebody would buy a mac, then use it to run windows xp- shows how much you know...
Are you kidding me here? But hey- they are shiny and look really nice and you could look really cool at starbucks.
Are you kidding me here? But hey- they are shiny and look really nice and you could look really cool at starbucks.
I am an industrial programmer and all of my software is windows based/ familiar? siemens, Allen Bradly, Control Logix. etc.. SO I am actually running a windows partition on my Mac for this purpose...
Are you kidding me?? the whole point of having a Mac is to take advantage of the OS. beside the above reason I would not have windows on here at all.. but's its nice to be able to do the things I do.
I have cross platform advantages nobody has in the industrial environment but you wouldn't know anything about that since you are just some guy with a certificate.
You can be as sarcastic as you please it doesn't bother me one drop.
Your sarcasm is turning to igorance so I won't get into and argument with you but here's some rebuttal to you comments.
First.I don't have to claim anything I make a great living with what I do.
like I said. from a creative standpoint ( I also have full production Studio in my home ) terms like plug and play, and multitasking are not even true with any windows product and therefore not very productive in this environment. It has been Apple and YES third party geniouses that have made this industry a success
It was Bill Gates and his partner that "borrowed" the concept of windows from Apple AFTER they contracted the used of DOS from some narrowminded execs at IBM back in the day. SO they are the third party raiders here. and all they could come up with was a DOS based shell? Do you know anything about DOS?
Since you need educating here's the facts. Windows started out as a shell and has evolved from a shell and today is nothing more than a fat resource using hybrid of a SHELL.
Unix based GUI was native and has been since the motorola chips were being used in Atari's and the first Apple computers in the 80's . Were you born then?
Again I don't have to make claims about anything..Currently my home is fully networked, hard and wireless, I run a G5 in my Studio and another G5 that I double as a fulltime FTP server that is connected to 5 other studios in the country and 2 overseas, and an internal file server that I stream ALL of my Media Movies to my Flatscreen over my network via the Apple TV all attached to 2 of three networked printers in my office,and I also monitor my home security over the web via internal IP cameras and ALL My sh&t works..
Oh and I Work/travel with my macbook and use it to synch my 3500 song music library to the A/T as well.
So you have your opinion.. and I have mine. bye.
Last edited by my06clk; 01-13-2009 at 10:12 AM.
04-26-2009, 12:57 AM
#75
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 S500 02 X5
I do believe My06clk just put your *** on Blast, fool.
I've run washers since 07. No problems other than pretty extreme rear tire wear. I'm going back to stock height on AMG 18s. I think the drop casued the rear camber to wear the tires so badly. My mechanic is leery of dropping the W220 and the new 2d Gen air shocks ain't cheap! I started a new thread since I gotta get back to stock height. If anyone knows please PM me. Hijack over.
I've run washers since 07. No problems other than pretty extreme rear tire wear. I'm going back to stock height on AMG 18s. I think the drop casued the rear camber to wear the tires so badly. My mechanic is leery of dropping the W220 and the new 2d Gen air shocks ain't cheap! I started a new thread since I gotta get back to stock height. If anyone knows please PM me. Hijack over.
