SETSEROCK

Almost EVERY picture ive seen of a C32 is at least a pinch lower in the rear. My car was too low in the rear, so i adjusted the fronts (brought it down). i took them down about as far as i could (before the spring perches where touching the tires), yet it is, frustratingly, STILL lower in the back. Soooo, i figured i would just have to raise the back a little (ideally, i would want a little rake, with the front a little lower). I havent taken the rear wheels of yet, but looking in there the last time it was on a lift, i just didn't see threaded shocks in the rear. I have KW V2 coil-overs (and in the rear, the coils are not "over" the shocks, they are separated).

Anyone have these coils, or are familiar with coils on this car? Before i drive all the way to my friends shop to use the lift, i want to know exactly what im doing/looking for....


Thanks!!!

TemjinX2

here's pics of my car with d2's. I have the rear set to medium height, but still higher then stock. The front is pretty dumped.

RLx02

Temjin, why the big gap between the fender and the bumper? Did you lose that metal clip that holds them together?

FrankW

I'm guessing the clip is not holding it right and then mike just put the screw back. lol

FrankW

I posted the same thing in your thread on the 203 forum.



you need to adjust the perch in the rear UP and not lowering the perch on the front down. adjusting the front has no effect on the rear vise versa and you are correct that the rear are not actually coil-overs.

if you even the wheel gap front and rear the car has a natural rake from it's design. The underbody will be horizontal and the car will appear to have a rake. having the rear lower than the front is not good for the aerodynamic of the car if anyone cares.

here's my setup with 1-finger gap all around.

splinter

Before and after ride height adjustments are typically measured from fixed, albeit sprung, fore and aft chassis reference points (preferably the inner camber arms’ bushing fastener centerlines), not the tires’ respective fenderwell gaps. Trust you’re already aware that our C’s tinwork has a far lower fender ‘opening’ height in the rear than the front. Notwithstanding TemjinX2’s sexy pics, too low is lethargically slow on anything other than a billiard table smooth surface at anything approaching 7/10ths.

For those merely concerned with perceived aesthetics, I’ve nothing substantive to share. On the other hand, if you’re of mind to get after it through the twisty bits, there has been plenty of credible information already posted here by those running similar configurations.

As you’ve noted, it’ll serve to improve high-speed dynamics by ensuring sufficient rake, as measured from the rocker panel with an inclinometer. Sourcing higher-rate springs and having damping appropriately altered by various aftermarket manufacturers is easy and inexpensive enough. Rather curious our antiquated MacPherson strut front suspension configuration is already a “coil-over” design, and their rear damper and spring combination is, in fact, nothing of the sort, yes? You might consider adjusting in enough negative camber to achieve reasonable tire life and propping up its tortured corner(s) sufficiently in order to avoid a wheel rate approaching infinity.

TemjinX2

its a old pic. I just didn't put the metal clip back on out of lazyness.

TemjinX2

here's a newer pic with the clip on

TemjinX2

the rear is actually higher then stock and the front is at its highest setting. I think the 19'' wheels and the thicker sidewall tires gives off the illusion that the car is dumped. But i drive over speeds like stock without any scrapping.