Nose is too high

decampos

decampos

Well-Known Member
Messages
252
Reaction score
3
Location
Los Angeles and North London UK
The gap between the top of the wheels and the wheelarch are noticeably more so in the front than in the rear.

I first thought that maybe something in the rear had sunk but it looks more as though the large gap in the front is clearly incorrect (in comparing the gap to the gaps in period photographs).

Any idea what might be going on?

Mighten the only way to correct it would be to buy shorter front springs? (or cut the current ones).

Any help very much appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • pointy_nose.jpg
    pointy_nose.jpg
    74 KB · Views: 355
hmmm

Shorter springs are one way to go, but first, did this just happen (something changed) or did you only now notice it?

Sometimes new shock absorbers take a while to "bed in" during which time the ride height may change.

Worst case, the rear is settling from shock tower failure. A careful inspection (perhaps removing the "elephant skin" liner may be appropriate. Tower failure may be aggravated by stiff shocks.

The front of many, if not most, USA coupes was higher by design due to front bumper height regulations. This was accomplished by putting a circular aluminium spacer between the top of the front shock bearing and the body. Most of us have taken the spacer out by now. Spacer height varied but about 1/2 inch.

Another reason for the lower rear might be Jimmy Hoffa in the trunk. Or you're still using leaded fuel, which of course is much heavier than the alcohol blend the USA has been inflicted with ;)
 
Honolulu said:
Shorter springs are one way to go, but first, did this just happen (something changed) or did you only now notice it?

Sometimes new shock absorbers take a while to "bed in" during which time the ride height may change.

Worst case, the rear is settling from shock tower failure. A careful inspection (perhaps removing the "elephant skin" liner may be appropriate. Tower failure may be aggravated by stiff shocks.

The front of many, if not most, USA coupes was higher by design due to front bumper height regulations. This was accomplished by putting a circular aluminium spacer between the top of the front shock bearing and the body. Most of us have taken the spacer out by now. Spacer height varied but about 1/2 inch.

Another reason for the lower rear might be Jimmy Hoffa in the trunk. Or you're still using leaded fuel, which of course is much heavier than the alcohol blend the USA has been inflicted with ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. I inspected the rear shock towers and they looked as they should (as far as I could tell). I went for a shorter spring kit on the front (bought from Jaymic here in the UK). Seemed like a lot work for the difference of about an inch or so. Perhaps I forgot to do some important part of the procedure. Does look a bit better though

The difference in hight between an old spring and new shorter one looked incredible (see pic). What gives? Do springs get longer with age?

springs.jpg

side_view.jpg
 
I'd say springs get softer with age, which means they are shorter when the wheel is compressed by a bump on the road and longer when hitting a hole. Measuring their lengths outside is not a good indication, the short one has to be naturally harder so when installed it would compress less.

Time to try helium balloons in the trunk and a mother in law on the passenger seat...
 
Height

Just for curiosity,
Was there an aluminum spacer at the top of your struts, between the upper bearing and the body? Very good advise from "hono"
 
pamp said:
Just for curiosity,
Was there an aluminum spacer at the top of your struts, between the upper bearing and the body? Very good advise from "hono"
Click to expand...

Hi Pamp. No, there were no spacers. I was looking out for them as I'd been tipped off about them on another thread. Also what there wasn't was a sealing washer for one of the bearings, was full of crud and crap and could barely turn. Was worth doing the whole job as I was able to notice and correct the situation. Car deffo rides/handles much better even if I am still somewhat pointing at the sky.
 
decampos said:
The gap between the top of the wheels and the wheelarch are noticeably more so in the front than in the rear.

I first thought that maybe something in the rear had sunk but it looks more as though the large gap in the front is clearly incorrect (in comparing the gap to the gaps in period photographs).

Any idea what might be going on?

Mighten the only way to correct it would be to buy shorter front springs? (or cut the current ones).

Any help very much appreciated.
Click to expand...

well anyway the standard position of thw car is like you mentioned, always a bit more gap in the front wheels than in the rear wheels,
the correct way to check it is if you park your car in an horizontal road, you will see that the waist line of the caris also horizontal, lets say parallel to the road
in that condition you will see that the gap is bigger in the front wheels than in the rear wheels , but that way your car was designed
i will only be worried if the car is not parallel and more, the gap is bigger also,

not knowing how it looked like before the spring change, i would say that you are now in the correct settings, that probably meant that your springs were ...?????

how does it behave and handle ?, as mr.arde says probably your new springs are harder than the old ones

regards




regards
 
Last edited:
deQuincey said:
well anyway the standard position of thw car is like you mentioned, always a bit more gap in the front wheels than in the rear wheels, the correct way to check it is if you park your car in an horizontal road, you will see that the waist line of the caris also horizontal, lets say parallel to the road in that condition you will see that the gap is bigger in the front wheels than in the rear wheels , but that way your car was designed i will only be worried if the car is not parallel and more, the gap is bigger also, not knowing how it looked like before the spring change, i would say that you are now in the correct settings, that probably meant that your springs were ...?????

how does it behave and handle ?, as mr.arde says probably your new springs are harder than the old ones

regards
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip, the waistline is exactly parallel to the road. So I'm happy with that.

The photograph in the first post is a 'before' pic (with a different set of rims), but here's a side-by-side comparison (though it would appear I'm incapable of taking a photograph from the same angle twice).

before.jpg

after.jpg


Though I was at first mildly unimpressed with the difference, considering the difference in height of the old springs with the new when comparing them on the bench, it's clearly 'more' correct now and it handles noticeably better. I'm over the moon.
 
My bet is that someone replaced the original front shocks with good gas ones and pumped the car up an inch which is why it looked like a speedboat. The car looks right to me as it sits and will drop a little as the new springs soften up. What you have for new springs are stiffer than the old ones, so they don't need to be compressed so much to hold the car up. Feels better, hunh?
 
That's interesting. I didn't consider that. Car does feel better now and it sits just right in my view.

andyleonard said:
My bet is that someone replaced the original front shocks with good gas ones and pumped the car up an inch which is why it looked like a speedboat. The car looks right to me as it sits and will drop a little as the new springs soften up. What you have for new springs are stiffer than the old ones, so they don't need to be compressed so much to hold the car up. Feels better, hunh?
Click to expand...

side.jpg
 
I am in the middle of this same project - what size tires are you running? Did you measure the distance of the middle of the fender arch to the ground before/after the install? Did you replace your shocks too - if not do you know what you have in there - maybe some bilsteins would lower it further than the gas brand on there now (koni? kyb?). When I replaced my oem hydralic rear shocks with bilsteins the back went up 3/4 inch so like Andy said this could be the case with your fronts. Am hoping the new springs will lower it back down, along with the front. My measurements curb to fender arch (through the center line of the wheel) before this project were:

Front Driver: 26 1/8"
Rear Driver: 26 1/4"
Front Passenger: 26 1/2"
Rear Passenger: 26"

I will post the after measurements once all is together - still waiting for parts
 
Last edited:
Stevehose said:
I am in the middle of this same project - what size tires are you running? Did you measure the distance of the middle of the fender arch to the ground before/after the install? Did you replace your shocks too - if not do you know what you have in there - maybe some bilsteins would lower it further than the gas brand on there now (koni? kyb?). When I replaced my oem hydralic rear shocks with bilsteins the back went up 3/4 inch so like Andy said this could be the case with your fronts.
Click to expand...
Tires are 205/70/14. I measured the distance between the top of the tire and the bottom of the wheelarch, Now that the springs have 'settled' the difference is almost 2 inches.

I didn't remove or replace the shocks. I assumed that they'd be original but as a sealing washer was missing, someone's definitely been in there before though there's nothing in the history to confirm that.

Might not be useful but here's my thread appealing for information about the procedure:
http://www.e9coupe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10091

Stevehose said:
Am hoping the new springs will lower it back down, along with the front. My measurements curb to fender arch (through the center line of the wheel) before this project were:

Front Driver: 26 1/8"
Rear Driver: 26 1/4"
Front Passenger: 26 1/2"
Rear Passenger: 26"

I will post the after measurements once all is together - still waiting for parts
Click to expand...
Maybe post some before/after pics when you're done. Will be interesting to see.
 
Last edited:
I saw your thread - I made a strut nut installation socket to do the simultaneous tightening of the nut while holding the shock rod steady process. Bilstein recommends against spinning the nut with an impact wrench on reassembly so this tool will come in handy.

Everything is disassmbled, cleaned and repainted - just waiting for spring pads and strut bearings. There are a few helpful threads that have helped me greatly in this process and hopefully the hardest part of the project is behind me.
 
I took out the AC spacers and put Carl’s lowering springs in but only in the front. I’m very happy with the stance but wish the rear track was a wee bit wider, it just looks narrower than the front. The fender lips aren’t rolled and so far none of the tires have rubbed :smile:. ~ John Buchtenkirch

!1abc109.JPG
 
John Buchtenkirch said:
I’m very happy with the stance but wish the rear track was a wee bit wider, it just looks narrower than the front. :smile:. ~ John Buchtenkirch

View attachment 4000
Click to expand...

Yes, the rear track of the CS is quite a bit narrow than the front. Have not heard this term for a while, but many in the day used to describe the coupe (especially with 6X14 rims) when viewed from the rear as the "crab legged look"...big shell and pronounced inward tucked skinny legs.
 
bert35csi said:
Yes, the rear track of the CS is quite a bit narrow than the front. Have not heard this term for a while, but many in the day used to describe the coupe (especially with 6X14 rims) when viewed from the rear as the "crab legged look"...big shell and pronounced inward tucked skinny legs.
Click to expand...
To my eyes our coupes are backwards, the front track should be narrowed slightly (so the turning tires don’t throw stuff on the side of the car and also for more tire clearance) and the rear track should be wider. Admittedly I probably feel that way because of life long hot rod influences. ~ John Buchtenkirch
 
i would say that you are in need of some 8" wide rims w/ 225/50-16's on the back. everyday when i back out of my driveway ... i see the car sitting in the garage, and it now looks so much better with the wide rubber on the rear shoes. it handles quite a bit better too.
 
So we read that the "before" measurements were:

Front Driver: 26 1/8" Rear Driver: 26 1/4"
Front Passenger: 26 1/2" Rear Passenger: 26"

and the car is "twisted" with the right front and left rear higher. Howcum? There are a couple possibilities and in my own approximate order of preference:
1 parked on uneven (but not visibly so) ground,
2 constant weight of the driver makes that corner lower,
3 car wasn't straight to begin with,
4 car sagged or bent over time from an "incident"
5 car sagged or bent over time from normal acceleration/deceleraton stresses,
5 Jimmy Hoffa in the trunk (is there any smell?), or
6 brother-in-law left his bottle under one of the seats.

But what really matters is not the visual stance (though for most of us this is the telling point), but the weight of the car at each wheel. Thus the racers (SCCA comes to mind) will put scales under the wheels and balance the car via adjustments in spring perch heights. As it happens, the rest of us without coilover suspensions can't as easily do that (but it can be done).

But y'all knew that, didn't you?
 
Probably a little of all of those suggestions! I have read other's measurements here and the drivers side typically is a little higher. Will be curious to see the after measurements.


Honolulu said:
So we read that the "before" measurements were:

Front Driver: 26 1/8" Rear Driver: 26 1/4"
Front Passenger: 26 1/2" Rear Passenger: 26"

and the car is "twisted" with the right front and left rear higher. Howcum? There are a couple possibilities and in my own approximate order of preference:
1 parked on uneven (but not visibly so) ground,
2 constant weight of the driver makes that corner lower,
3 car wasn't straight to begin with,
4 car sagged or bent over time from an "incident"
5 car sagged or bent over time from normal acceleration/deceleraton stresses,
5 Jimmy Hoffa in the trunk (is there any smell?), or
6 brother-in-law left his bottle under one of the seats.

But what really matters is not the visual stance (though for most of us this is the telling point), but the weight of the car at each wheel. Thus the racers (SCCA comes to mind) will put scales under the wheels and balance the car via adjustments in spring perch heights. As it happens, the rest of us without coilover suspensions can't as easily do that (but it can be done).

But y'all knew that, didn't you?
Click to expand...
 
I have 215-65-14's on my stock rims and they have a nice beefy width to them and I really like how they look vs stock size 195's or even 205's.

rsporsche said:
i would say that you are in need of some 8" wide rims w/ 225/50-16's on the back. everyday when i back out of my driveway ... i see the car sitting in the garage, and it now looks so much better with the wide rubber on the rear shoes. it handles quite a bit better too.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top