Lowering my front end to the original specs

[RammJaeger]

I've read a lot about how they raised the Delorean's front end up to meet US federal bumper height standards which also had the effect of making the car not handle as well as Lotus had designed. Is there a "standard" or "recommended" method for lowering your Delorean down to the original Lotus design specs? I'm really not looking to put some fancy suspension system on the front, I'd just like it to ride at the original design height.

[Dangermouse]

I believe the modern standard is to buy "lowered" or "euro" spec springs from your favorite vendor. That's what I plan on doing one day. There are several threads on here about it.

The old way of cutting the springs doesn't have many fans these days.

[RammJaeger]

I believe the modern standard is to buy "lowered" or "euro" spec springs from your favorite vendor. That's what I plan on doing one day. There are several threads on here about it.

The old way of cutting the springs doesn't have many fans these days.

Yeah I've seen lots of threads about lowering the front end. I just haven't seen any that say "here is how you lower it to the original specifications" or "here is a kit for lowering it to the original specifications". Basically I want the car to look and handle the way Lotus designed the chassis/suspension to function.

[louielouie2000]

Yeah I've seen lots of threads about lowering the front end. I just haven't seen any that say "here is how you lower it to the original specifications" or "here is a kit for lowering it to the original specifications". Basically I want the car to look and handle the way Lotus designed the chassis/suspension to function.

There are multiple kits out there: DMC Texas has the Eibach kit; John Hervey's Special T Auto has a kit, PJ Grady has a kit, DeLorean Cars (UK) has a kit. You've got options.

[Farrar]

The weird thing is those "federal bumper standards" never existed.

Did you check this service bulletin (http://dmcnews.com/bulletins/ST-34-12.81.html) and compare your car's height with the recommendations for alignment?

I have the Eibach kit installed. I will go out and measure mine to see how it compares with the TSB.

[David T]

The most "official" spec can be found in ST-34-1/82. The height has always been the same in all official documents. If the car was ever intended to be lower there is no mention of it in all of the Delorean service literature. Many owners have lowered their cars. The venders sell different parts and kits to do it. The old "cut, chop, and swap" method involving the springs is now discouraged. Be warned, if you do lower the car you reduce the amount of rebound travel and you take the chance of hitting things like steep driveways, raised manholes, etc. You should also get adjustable rear lower control arms so you can adjust the camber on the rear wheels and you will need to realign the front end to get the Toe to spec.
David Teitelbaum

[Chris 16409]

I would get Ed Uding's lowering springs for the front. The rear doesn't really need to be touched, it's good as is:

http://www.delorean.eu/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=20_143&products_id=95063&osCsid=84ab80a60e1b60ec3348481ceeb9e8e8

[LordFly]

Yeah, the deeper you dig into the whole "raised for north america" thing, the less evidence there actually is. The best spec I could ever find was overall roof height in the owners manual, stated at 44.88". My (I assume) stock springs have the car sitting about 1.5 - 2" above that. Most likely the result of a quality issue with the springs, which seems to somehow get taller over time....

[Rich]

Devon, Farrar and David are correct. The bumper height story is a myth.

Not only is there no evidence there was a U.S. bumper height rule change that led to a "lifting" of the ride height of the Delorean just before production started there is evidence that the bumper height laws remained unchanged during the time in question.

I looked it up:

20577 20578

The last change to the bumper height standard before production started was for model years 1974-1978. Lotus was selling cars in the USA all that time and was well aware of the rules when they engineered the car for Delorean.

There were indeed bumper rule changes going on around 1980-1983 as shown, but not having to do with bumper height.

Let's put this one to bed.

[louielouie2000]

There are multiple theories behind the front end height on DeLoreans. Obviously the original prototype & Visioneering cars had lower front ends.

Bill Robertson had a theory about the change in ride height which I think makes a lot of sense. He thinks the cars front ends were raised to ease the loading & unloading of the cars onto the American transporters. If you watch this video, the breakover angle is pretty steep at the top of the carrier (skip to the 2:28 mark), it's possible the center of the car could bottom out if it was any lower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUZfzZNbizs

And it looks like the front ground effects might drag against the ramps on the transporter if the front end were lower. Obviously the transporters in the first part of the video at the DeLorean factory were designed for low cars, but the American transporters at the end of the video definitely weren't.

We also have to keep in mind John DeLorean lived in the San Diego area back when these cars were being developed. This means he was well acquainted with very steep driveways & roads, and how much of an issue low slung sports cars have in these environs. Perhaps he had the cars raised for usability? We'll probably never know.

[Rich]

I'm really not looking to put some fancy suspension system on the front, I'd just like it to ride at the original design height.

Is there a fancy suspension for the D? There are a selection of aftermarket springs and shocks. Other possible upgrades involve stiffer bushings and a strut tower brace. Only the springs determine the ride height front and rear on original shocks. Most aftermarket rear D shocks come with rear ride height adjustment collars.

Nobody knows what the original design ride height is with any authority.

One fact is that with Eibach springs the front height of a D is such that the tie rods both become nearly horizontal, which vastly reduces bump steer. An OEM D will usually have the tie rods tilting up to meet the steering rack. You can look at an array of other cars noting that the tie rods on them are relatively horizontal.

You can draw your own conclusions.

As mentioned in the thread there are other springs to choose from as well.

For your consideration this example shows a D with OEM and Eibach setups all around, respectively. Click each image a second time for more res.
20580 20581

In this case the car on Eibachs is set so the rear ride height (on aftermarket shocks with adjustable spring collars) matches the front ride height as measured at the tub jack points and crossmembers with full fuel. It happens to be at ~5.1in/13cm at the crossmembers. After this mod the car tracked and handled better. It was fully aligned to spec in both conditions.

[Delorean Industries]

Is there a fancy suspension for the D? There are a selection of aftermarket springs and shocks. Other possible upgrades involve stiffer bushings and a strut tower brace. Only the springs determine the ride height front and rear on original shocks. Most aftermarket rear D shocks come with rear ride height adjustment collars.

Nobody knows what the original design ride height is with any authority.

One fact is that with Eibach springs the front height of a D is such that the tie rods both become nearly horizontal, which vastly reduces bump steer. An OEM D will usually have the tie rods tilting up to meet the steering rack. You can look at an array of other cars noting that the tie rods on them are relatively horizontal.

You can draw your own conclusions.

As mentioned in the thread there are other springs to choose from as well.

For your consideration this example shows a D with OEM and Eibach setups all around, respectively. Click each image a second time for more res.
20580 20581

In this case the car on Eibachs is set so the rear ride height (on aftermarket shocks with adjustable spring collars) matches the front ride height as measured at the tub jack points and crossmembers with full fuel. It happens to be at ~5.1in/13cm at the crossmembers. After this mod the car tracked and handled better. It was fully aligned to spec in both conditions.

O yes. There is a very fancy suspension for the D.

[jawn101]

O yes. There is a very fancy suspension for the D.

Dun dun dunnnn. Taking all bets. Inboard shocks in the trunk, anyone?

[Delorean Industries]

Dun dun dunnnn. Taking all bets. Inboard shocks in the trunk, anyone?

Its against my religion to make any invasive modifications to the car. :)

[jawn101]

Its against my religion to make any invasive modifications to the car. :)

Well now I'm even more interested... :)

[Farrar]

Nobody knows what the original design ride height is with any authority.

IMHO, the Visioneering car was spot on.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297042_254873781212218_2134909597_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/316512_254874021212194_522657160_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/298292_254873937878869_881620783_n.jpg

[Roman Legion]

IMHO, the Visioneering car was spot on.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297042_254873781212218_2134909597_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/316512_254874021212194_522657160_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/298292_254873937878869_881620783_n.jpg

The car really did look out of place back then surrounded by those other cars.

[RammJaeger]

The underbody and suspension of the DeLorean were based largely on the Lotus Esprit, with a four-wheel independent suspension, coil springs, and telescopic shock absorbers. The front suspension used double wishbones, while the rear was a multi-link setup. In its original development stages, the car is said to have handled quite well. Considering that Lotus's reputation was built largely on the handling prowess of the cars the company produced, the DeLorean's smooth ride wasn't a surprise. A last minute change in the vehicle's factory ride height – belived to be due to a change in the U.S. regulations, had an adverse effects on the car's handling capabilities and gave the car a “nose high” look. Many owners have subsequently replaced or modified the front and rear springs to return the ride height and handling to the original design specification.

That is from the Delorean Museum website (http://www.deloreanmuseum.org/car.html). Is that information not true? What are these "original design specifications" that they are referring to?

Also, if I went with the Eibach lowering springs, is there anything else I have to do to the car?

[dustybarn]

I have read that the D meets the bumper/headlight height regulations even if the front end is significantly lowered. Period pictures of the Visioneering car and the Lotus development mules certainly show a much lower front end than was eventually marketed. I respectfully disagree that the high nose was intended from the beginning. I find it hard to imagine that Lotus would deliberately engineer so much bump steer into the front suspension.

We do know that C. R. Brown was dissatified with the front ride height (along with a lot of other things!)

http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?6807-Memo-040881-Product-Evaluation-Summary-CRBrown

[David T]

That is from the Delorean Museum website (http://www.deloreanmuseum.org/car.html). Is that information not true? What are these "original design specifications" that they are referring to?

Also, if I went with the Eibach lowering springs, is there anything else I have to do to the car?

The caption you are referring to from the Delorean Museum is the kind of stuff that perpetuates the myth of changed ride height. Lotus Engineering was well acquainted with all of the regulations necessary for the American market. It was their biggest market and they sold most of their own cars to the US. No one is saying the ride height was NOT changed, what we are saying is there is no OFFICIAL notice of it. If it happened pre-production there is no evidence of it and it never happened during production. It is plausible that it could have been changed because of the angle of the track bars at the official height which WILL cause bump-steer. Lotus would know better that to do that. That fact lends *some* credibility to a lower original design height. BTW Lotus was fully aware of what it takes to load and unload cars. Lotus cars are shipped without the front spoiler attached. You do not have to lower the car to level the track bars, there are other possible fixes, lowering the front end is only one way.
David Teitelbaum

[Farrar]

OK, so does someone with an Eibach-equipped DeLorean have access to a circa-1979/80 car carrier? If so, take the front spoiler off and see if you have enough clearance to load and unload the car. :D

[Mark D]

Could it be possible that the ride height was a supplier/quality issue rather than an engineering design issue?

DMCH has all the drawings for each part, so it wouldn't be that difficult to check. Nick did all kinds of measuring and spring rate testing on actual parts so we could compare actual physical parts to the drawings. It would be interesting to know if the parts actually meet the specs on the print or if they were being made out of tolerance.

http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?6949-Stock-spring-dimensions&p=101674&viewfull=1#post101674


I also remember this thread from a while back that had an internal memo from CR Brown that discusses the front ride height being too tall. I wonder if this would have ever been fixed if the company had lasted longer.

http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?6807-Memo-040881-Product-Evaluation-Summary-CRBrown&p=98896&viewfull=1#post98896

[Patrick C]

Ben Byrd told Ken Koncelik that the car was originally intended to have 15" wheels on both the front and the rear. This could account for the larger wheel gap in the front when a 14" wheel was substituted. I believe the car on the trifold brochure has 15" wheels on the front and the rear.

http://www.babbtechnology.com/Collect/trifold/main2.gif

[Henrik]

Its against my religion to make any invasive modifications to the car. :)

So push/pullrod suspension in the trunk... on a D built from scratch? (Your website has a pic that looks like a spaceframe for a D, no?)

[Farrar]

I believe the car on the trifold brochure has 15" wheels on the front and the rear.

I believe that's the Visioneering car, which had 14" fronts and 15" rears.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/298357_254871701212426_1093029154_n.jpg

[Patrick C]

I believe that's the Visioneering car, which had 14" fronts and 15" rears.

At times. But I believe at some point it had 15" wheels on both ends, with different sized tires. Take a look at this shot of the Visioneering car. Yes, those are hubcaps, but they are still the same size on the front and the rear.

http://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/314047_254874837878779_1451289828_n.jpg

[Farrar]

I believe at some point it had 15" wheels on both ends, with different sized tires.

First I've heard of it, but there's a lot I don't know about the company and its beginnings. It's an interesting thought. I wonder if it will be officially corroborated at any time in the future. There's nothing about it in Mr. Sutton's book, that I can recall. Perhaps it will turn up elsewhere.

[delornut]

While there are no federal height regulations regarding headlights several states require a minimum of 25" from the middle of the lowest headlight to the ground. Somehow hidden headlights get around that as in some vintages of Corvettes but the DeLorean with lower front springs doesn't. That may have played a role in raising the front suspension. Crash testing may have as well. Even though the lower front end still meets U.S. bumper height regulations, 19" to 20" for passenger cars, there's the possibility that meeting federal damage cost requirements for low speed impacts weren't met with the car lower. What ever there had to be a method to the madness or they wouldn't have raised it. They don't design cars around car haulers and they didn't raise the MG's of that era and screw up their look and handling for no reason. Certainly Lotus didn't set out to to dial the handling out of the car either. There were crazy rules being dreamed up almost weekly by the Ralph Nader types during those years.

Bruce Benson

[LordFly]

At times. But I believe at some point it had 15" wheels on both ends, with different sized tires. Take a look at this shot of the Visioneering car. Yes, those are hubcaps, but they are still the same size on the front and the rear.

Keep in mind rim size alone has nothing to do with overall tire diameter. You could easily put a 15" rim on the front and get something like a 195/50/15 to achieve roughly the same size wheel.

[delornut]

While there are no federal height regulations regarding headlights several states require a minimum of 25" from the middle of the lowest headlight to the ground. Somehow hidden headlights get around that as in some vintages of Corvettes but the DeLorean with lower front springs doesn't. That may have played a role in raising the front suspension. Crash testing may have as well. Even though the lower front end still meets U.S. bumper height regulations, 19" to 20" for passenger cars, there's the possibility that meeting federal damage cost requirements for low speed impacts weren't met with the car lower. What ever there had to be a method to the madness or they wouldn't have raised it. They don't design cars around car haulers and they didn't raise the MG's of that era and screw up their look and handling for no reason. Certainly Lotus didn't set out to to dial the handling out of the car either. There were crazy rules being dreamed up almost weekly by the Ralph Nader types during those years.

Bruce Benson

Bumper height measurements should have been 16" to 20" for passenger cars. My typo.

Bruce Benson

[David T]

While there are no federal height regulations regarding headlights several states require a minimum of 25" from the middle of the lowest headlight to the ground. Somehow hidden headlights get around that as in some vintages of Corvettes but the DeLorean with lower front springs doesn't. That may have played a role in raising the front suspension. Crash testing may have as well. Even though the lower front end still meets U.S. bumper height regulations, 19" to 20" for passenger cars, there's the possibility that meeting federal damage cost requirements for low speed impacts weren't met with the car lower. What ever there had to be a method to the madness or they wouldn't have raised it. They don't design cars around car haulers and they didn't raise the MG's of that era and screw up their look and handling for no reason. Certainly Lotus didn't set out to to dial the handling out of the car either. There were crazy rules being dreamed up almost weekly by the Ralph Nader types during those years.

Bruce Benson

That 's exactly how the Delorean go the 85 MPH speedometer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David Teitelbaum

[LordFly]

That 's exactly how the Delorean go the 85 MPH speedometer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's just for the silly American ones. Canadian ones had REAL speedometer ;)

[DCUK Martin]

If you look at the floor line on many a stock DeLorean, it actually slopes up towards the front. Regardless of an original 15" front wheel requirement, this is clearly not a deliberate design. One effect of lowering the front is much more stability at high speed due to losing the high pressure air pocket under the car.

I'm with Bruce, I don't think the bumper height had much to do with it, but the headlight height may well have - the MGB also got longer springs to bring the headlights up to a required height. The headlights and bumper being intrinsically linked on the DeLorean may have give rise to the myth - perhaps because "bumper" and "fascia" are more or less interchangeable.

[ramblinmike]

I am very surprised that something as significant as altering the spring height wasn't indicated on any literature still floating around from DMC. The whole geometry of the front suspension is significantly changed, so why isn't there some kind of documentation paper trail? DMCH has all of the original engineering drawings for the car. Wouldn't the answer to put the 30-year-old speculative arguments lie somewhere in those files?

[Kenny_Z]

The car really did look out of place back then surrounded by those other cars.

There's still nothing like them. And Farrar is right, that Visioneering car has a great stance. I'm curious, does it still exist?

[Patrick C]

And Farrar is right, that Visioneering car has a great stance. I'm curious, does it still exist?

Privately owned in Michigan last I heard.

[mr2nut123]

We have just lowered mine with Eds springs. What an amazing difference to stock springs! Not only for drivability but the stance is massively improved with the nose not pointing at the skies.

Just make sure you have good spring compressors for taking the old ones out. Scary job.

[jmettee]

I put Rob Grady's on mine this past winter - love them. Dropped the front approx 1-1/4" & the tires are not "tucked" under the fenders. Steering/handling are much improved AND the frame height at the crossmember is right at 5.5" with a full tank of fuel (the correct height for alignment).

I've seen cars with the Eibach springs & the sit another 1/2" lower (lower than the 5.5" alignment spec).