1FSTAMG

I have a 2002 C32 with about 70k miles on it. The wheels are 19" and tires are 265/30/19 and 235/35/19. I just bought it last week and the wheels/tires are the only mod according to the previous owner. My concern is that the rear ride height is perfect. Maybe a 1" fender gap. The front sits a bit too high to me. There is a 3" fender gap. My question is, do C32's normally sit like this? Does the rear have an autoleveling suspension that is sagging maybe? Or maybe it's not autoleveling but the springs are sagging? I'll post a pic tonight so u all can see.

Any thoughts? I'd like an even gap all the way around.

rlee02135

thats the way it sits normally.

c32AMG-DTM

+1

Mine sits that way too - while it seems bizarre, that's just how they came. If you want an even drop F&R, your best bet is coilovers - KW, H&R, or Bilstein PSS9s are all popular. If that's a bit pricey, go with Renntech (if they still sell them? they've taken them off of their website w203 listing?!?) or H&R springs - but you need to use the #4 spring pads in the rear to make sure it doesn't drop too much...

jgsx

Both Renntech and H&R springs drop the rear too much -- it is not even. I have installed both on my vehicle, and yes, I used #4 pads. I wonder how it would look/behave with stock rear springs and Renntech in the front

c32AMG-DTM

You know, I've wondered this myself - I'm confident the "look" question is that it would look fine... more concerned about the "behave" question, mixing and matching different suspension would seem to be a bad idea, I'd think.

Don't people sometimes "cut" a factory spring to drop a car? I wonder if the front AMG springs could be trimmed enough to drop the car 1-1.5", and leave the rears alone, without any major problems... has anyone tried this? I know it's probably not optimal, just wondering if it's been attempted.

BTW, jgsx, I've noticed your posts on this topic before, and that even with Renntech springs (supposed to be the most level of the bunch) and #4 pads, your R sits significantly lower than your F. But that seems to disagree with most owners who've used lowering springs - they all tend to state "if you use #4 pads in the back, you'll be good" - so I see one of two options here... one is that your car, for some reason, is different than most when it comes to suspension issues, or two, you're more discriminating on drop levels than the average owner...

Code3 Performance

I went with the TEIN springs, and I love them. Perfect ride height front and rear. #4 pad in back, and no rubbing at all, even with the car loaded up.

jgsx

The difference is that I'm using 19" Bremmas with wide tires in the rear. During the winter, I switch back to the stock 17s. The car is fine with 17s. The 17s have so much more sidewall that the small difference in drop between the F and R is not noticeable. Once you slap 19s on there with very low profile sidewalls, the gap difference is much more noticeable since the wheel is so much closer to the fender.

Fifth Ring

You can't use fender gap to judge ride height. The body is designed to have more gap in front than rear. If you evened them up, you'd probably have your nose too low.

C32ken

i am wondering the same thing, the only way to find out is to get the stock AMG rear spring rate and compare it to the H&R rear, if they are the same, then you can use stock rear and H&R front. Anyone here knows the stock spring rates?

jgsx

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. You'd be changing the corner weights. Like Fifth pointed out, the car is supposed to be "lower" (when looking at fender gap) in the back.

C32ken

you can remove current pad and change to thinner pad to lover the rear and leveling the car. i know the gap will not give you the levelling you want, most cars are like that.... and it will change the front to rear weight distribution yes.

Lagunatic

It's normal. Apparently the Renntech springs will lower the front more than the back for a more even ride height. Considering them myself.

FrankW

correct.

I have my coilover set to pretty even gaps front and rear. The nose is lower.