Front ride higher than rear
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,781
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
'05 A4 1.8TQM6
Front ride higher than rear
How come the rear is nice and low, probably about an inch clearance from the tire and the front is like 3 inches? Is there an explanation to this or just the design? I always figured that since the engine and long hood is mounted up front, the front should be lower, or atleast even out front and back clearance...kinda looks like my car is lowered in the rear but not the front :p
-G-
-G-
#3
I am not too sure about this, but after cars get old, it seems like the back ends seems to further sag, possible with rear passengers. There is this one car I see everyday (old Mercedes wagon), where it seems as if the back bumper is a few inches off the ground.
However, now you only have to lower the front end!
However, now you only have to lower the front end!
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Wink](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,781
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
'05 A4 1.8TQM6
Originally posted by pks485
I am not too sure about this, but after cars get old, it seems like the back ends seems to further sag, possible with rear passengers. There is this one car I see everyday (old Mercedes wagon), where it seems as if the back bumper is a few inches off the ground.
However, now you only have to lower the front end!
I am not too sure about this, but after cars get old, it seems like the back ends seems to further sag, possible with rear passengers. There is this one car I see everyday (old Mercedes wagon), where it seems as if the back bumper is a few inches off the ground.
However, now you only have to lower the front end!
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Wink](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
-G-
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: LI, New York
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
87 190E 2.6/1995 M3
Originally posted by pks485
I am not too sure about this, but after cars get old, it seems like the back ends seems to further sag, possible with rear passengers. There is this one car I see everyday (old Mercedes wagon), where it seems as if the back bumper is a few inches off the ground.
However, now you only have to lower the front end!
I am not too sure about this, but after cars get old, it seems like the back ends seems to further sag, possible with rear passengers. There is this one car I see everyday (old Mercedes wagon), where it seems as if the back bumper is a few inches off the ground.
However, now you only have to lower the front end!
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Wink](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: LI, New York
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
87 190E 2.6/1995 M3
Re: Front ride higher than rear
Originally posted by GDawgC220
How come the rear is nice and low, probably about an inch clearance from the tire and the front is like 3 inches? Is there an explanation to this or just the design? I always figured that since the engine and long hood is mounted up front, the front should be lower, or atleast even out front and back clearance...kinda looks like my car is lowered in the rear but not the front :p
-G-
How come the rear is nice and low, probably about an inch clearance from the tire and the front is like 3 inches? Is there an explanation to this or just the design? I always figured that since the engine and long hood is mounted up front, the front should be lower, or atleast even out front and back clearance...kinda looks like my car is lowered in the rear but not the front :p
-G-
Trending Topics
#9
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
98 MB C280
i've noticed this on the 4cyl 202's. i compared a few 280's to my 220 and the front seems to be lower on the 280. maybe the lighter engine. but wouldn't MB use smaller pads to flatten it out like the 280's? i got #3 in the front.
#10
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1999 C230K, 2003 C240
It's quite simple yo... Its not that the front suspension is higher.. What makes it look higher is that the fender in the front is always higher than the fenders in the back.
Trust me.. your car is level in height. It's all about the fenders..
Trust me.. your car is level in height. It's all about the fenders..
#11
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1996 C220 (W202) and E320 (w210)
![Confused](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif)
![Confused](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif)
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#12
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,781
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
'05 A4 1.8TQM6
haha. see what's really strange is when i'm in traffic, on a flat road and look to my left, there's a big office type building with the reflective glass and my car looks higher in the rear and the front is lower, so it's like a sleek look ![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
-G-
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
-G-