Is there a difference in stock spring heights from 81 to 83 models?

[content22207]

Just cut down an old set of stock springs to whatever height you want.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[David T]

I have seen the colors too. It might only be to match so both sides are the same height. There was only the one part number over all of the years and never any reference to any changes in ride height except in the specs for the alignment. Since cars have been in many hands and over the years people have modified cars anything could be in there as noticed by you the springs were cut. A common practice "back in the day" to chop and swap as you say. Not always done well so the best thing would be to get proper springs installed as you have already done. For minor changes you can use spacers. I do not recommend going lower than stock. Changing the ride height affects camber and toe. If you do not adjust to compensate, the handling will not be right and you will wearing your tires unevenly.
David Teitelbaum

[content22207]

Stock front springs put the suspension and steering close to their upward limits even when the car is standing still.

There is not a single development picture with the front end anywhere near production height -- it appears Lotus itself intended the front end to sit lower.

The Visioneering car had a lower front end.

I am convinced that the front end was raised on the eve of production because DMC discovered that the cars could not be loaded on American auto racks (my driveway is *LESS* steep that the ramps on a car carrier, yet I still have to creep out of it to avoid impacting the front end).

Bill Robertson
#5939

[WelmoedJ]

Springs should always be exchanged in pairs.
That way you make sure there's no difference in height and strength.

BTW: When I bought my D in Texas the front had chopped springs, lowering the front to some 16 cm (6.3 inch).
Each speed bump in the street was mine (or at least the mounts of the sway bar).
I now have new springs (DMC EU) and have a front height of 19 cm (7.5 inch).
No problems with speed bumps anymore at almost whatever speed

And the stance is still better than with the high stock front springs.
If I/m correct the Eibachs have about the same ride height as the ones from DMC EU.
I feel the D looks better with a bit lower front than front and rear at the same height.

[stevedmc]

I am convinced that the front end was raised on the eve of production because DMC discovered that the cars could not be loaded on American auto racks (my driveway is *LESS* steep that the ramps on a car carrier, yet I still have to creep out of it to avoid impacting the front end).

I always thought the decision to raise the front end was because of a US DOT bumper height requirement. The loading onto US auto racks problem makes sense too, I just heard of a DOT requirement first.

Anyway, the idea behind the different color springs makes sense to me. The reason for the different colors may have just been to keep from mixing different batches of springs.

[content22207]

That is more DeLorean mythology that just refuses to die. As an infamous dictator once said, if a lie is repeated often enough, people will eventually accept it as true.

Minimum Federal bumper height in 1981 was 16 inches. Lowest edge of the front bumper in the dimensional drawings on Page A:04:01 of the Workshop Manual (which shows a lowered front end, thank you very much) is 16.2 inches.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Jacko]

If the spring has a yellow paint smear it's for the rear. Red paint smear indicates a front spring. The wire size on a rear spring is substantially larger than the front spring.

[qwerk]

That is more DeLorean mythology that just refuses to die. As an infamous dictator once said, if a lie is repeated often enough, people will eventually accept it as true.

Minimum Federal bumper height in 1981 was 16 inches. Lowest edge of the front bumper in the dimensional drawings on Page A:04:01 of the Workshop Manual (which shows a lowered front end, thank you very much) is 16.2 inches.

Bill Robertson
#5939

Alright, so if it's a myth that Lotus raised ride height to make the handling worse, and this is a myth then what is the real reason?

[content22207]

Lotus didn't raise the nose -- DMC did that on their own. There is not a single photograph of a raised nose car at Hethel.

Remember that Lotus was only tasked with designing the car, not distributing it. I suspect that on the eve of mass importation, somebody at DMC suddenly discovered that the cars could not be loaded on American autoracks. Remember that every car imported to that point had been individually air freighted and unloaded horizontally with a scissors lift.

Makes more sense than the bumper height theory, which dimensional drawings in the Workshop Manual itself -- drawn by Lotus, thank you very much -- clearly disprove anyway (enlarge them and measure yourself if you don't believe me).

A production DeLorean's suspension is already at near full extension just sitting still. Surely Lotus did not intend *THAT*.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[DMCMW Dave]

A production DeLorean's suspension is already at near full extension just sitting still. Surely Lotus did not intend *THAT*.

Bill Robertson
#5939

And the tie rods come off the rack at a really bad angle, making the car bump steer like crazy. (Compression of the suspension causes toe-out). Even Bill Collins of DMC complained about that while on a ride with a local owner.

I have to agree with Bill R - no way did the design go out of Lotus like this. If they really wanted it that high they'd have moved the arms on the steering knuckes up to get them to line up with the rack, and they would have used longer shock absorbers.

I can't agree or disagree with the reason.