In that case (lower in front, no change in rear) plan to re-aim all 4 headlights, too.
Printable View
Good point. Easy enough. I drove a 71 Nova street/strip car (way more strip than street) as a daily driver for at least a decade. The front sub frame on that car was about 4 inches off the ground. I've set up Mopars, Fords and others for the 1/4, so I'm pretty familiar with suspension mods and what to expect. And no, I'm not making any attempt to set this up to drag. That would be just about the dumbest thing I could think of to attempt with a DeLorean. It's a collector car that turns heads and gets an amazing amount of attention. I just want it to look good and cruise reliably.
Thanks. Good luck with the work. I think our cars are different than other cars in terms of "lowering".
Because our cars left the factory cartoonishly nose high (and the reason wasn't documented or disclosed), lowering means returning the car to its design height. I noticed that the stock front springs made for an undesirable positive camber, and with no adjustment afforded, that told me that was not intended.
There is a good discussion on the intent here: http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?15...sioneering-Car
I always thought that the front end was raised in order to conform to bumper height laws in America. The idea was to have all bumpers at roughly the same height. Side note- The car looks so much better lowered in front. I would like to put mine somewhere between freakishly high (how it came) and where it was designed to be (seems too low to me).
Thank you!
Yeah, I chose that height because here in Florida, we have deep rain gutters and inclined entrance ramps / driveways to contend with. My previous C5 Corvette scraped the lower (rubber) air dam every time, even when approaching the ramps at an angle. It was only the rubber portion and there were integrated metal skids to try and protect the painted fascia above it, but hearing that scraping sound was unnerving, especially when you hit the skids. :eek7:
I wanted to avoid that with this car that I intended to drive. Plus, I was aiming for an even gap around the wheel arc.
Sure. I'll verify measurements etc. and send you a PM. ( It might be a couple days.)
Yeah, I read that discussion as well, but there was some dispute too. Then a theory about adjusting to get the cars onto the transporters. If anyone has a source that confirms the reason, that would be most helpful.
This debate over the height and if it was changed and why has been going on for many years. I agree the "look" of the tires in the wheel wells makes it appear that the stance is too high. To date no one has produced any solid documentation to substantiate any "change". There has been a lot of speculation and good logic for it but nothing you can point to and say what was done and why. If a change was made it had to have occurred very early on during the production, probably before. From very early after the first deliveries people have been lowering the height. "Back in the Day" they would swap the springs front-to-back, and cut a turn out of the rear springs to put in the front. Very crude but cheap and you didn't have to buy any parts, besides no one was offering any parts to lower the cars back then even if you wanted to buy them. Because the toe is set for the "correct" ride height and the ride height has no mention of ever being changed it appears that the height is what was designed, at least once production got going. Same for the rear, if you lower the rear you MUST adjust the camber and to do that you either cut and weld the lower links or make them adjustable. Maybe one day James Espey or Steven Wynn will find documentation that can tell us more about this.