Suspension height is different front->rear
 

Hey everybody,
I ordered some lowering springs for my 1993 ES, a 30mm drop both front and rear, but when i measured the gaps between the wheels and the arches, the rear was about 2-3 centimetres lower than the front!
Whats the reason for this? is it just from suspension sagging over age and hopefully my new springs will sort it all out, or did i just waste $250 on the wrong set. :(

Any help appreciated!

Also, i have my subs in the boot, but thats barely pushing 20 kilograms. I wouldnt think they would make it sit that low. :/

Reverse rake!! It happens. I know on the 3es, theres a few sets available. Your kit and another that is 1.5"/1" to account for it so it doesn't do what yours is doing.

Basically, you got what you paid for - its normal...

Oh no no, i havent put my kit on yet, this is just after measuring the stock suspension.

Oh so much fail here:

-You are measuring wrong, ride height should be measured from hub center to fender.

-Almost every car has a bigger cutout front fender than rear, typically for greater clearance of the turning wheels.

-The higher cutout in front doesn't really mean you are "riding lower" in the rear.

-The only way to assess the sagging is to compare to the specs in the service manual

-Make sure to measure both L and R sides, most cars have a "heavy side" in a FWD typically the side where the transaxle sits, you'll find the ride heights are probably different all around.

-Most lowering springs lower a bit more in the front than rear because the customers like a little "rake"

1. Thats how i was measuring, its 33 centimetres out back compared to 36 up front. Only ~5mm change between left or right sides.

2. That makes sense, although it still looks pretty silly. Its certainly noticeable.

3. I hope not.

4. I'll do that tonight

5. Already done

6. Hope so!

Thanks for your input, even if it did have a bit of attitude. :p
I'll check the manual and see how it sits when i put the new springs on.

Oh ok you were measuring right. I have the 01 Service manual I'll see what the specs are...

Sorry I didn't mean any attitude just offering some tips, maybe I need more smiley faces ;-)

EDIT: Checked the Service manual, it measures only ground clearance no specs for the ride height component, measured from ground to suspension pieces.

I measured my USDM 2001 ES300 with 16 inch stock wheels:
LF:14.75 (37.5 cm)
RF:14.625 (37.1cm)
RR:14.75 (37.5 cm)
LR:14.75 (37.5 cm)

It does seem this body style has a pretty even cutout front vs rear, looks like you have a bit of sag, hopefully springs not junk in the trunk ;-) My car has 89k miles (143k Km) and most recent year so perhaps on the low end of spring sag, for comparison.

The aftermarket springs should fix that right up.

Thanks for that info!
If anything i thought the 1993 would be sitting higher than a 2001 :P Seems to be the same.
Im running 18 inch wheels, but with low-pro tyres so the overall diameter is same as stock.

Im hoping it is indeed spring sag, although the change between front and rear is very weird in my opinion :S I didnt notice it when i bought the car. Im thinking if it isnt the springs, or what i have in the boot (it really shouldnt be, like seriously.) Then perhaps my shocks might be shot.

The last time i remember seeing it any lower i was moving and had it filled up with all my possesions.

If the shocks are shot, ill probably be going with some new OEM ones, I cant afford heavy duty ones. Unless someone can tell me a really really good reason that i need them. :D

Oh, and it was just the "Oh so much fail" that got me, i apologise if it wasnt your intention :thumbup: