Ride height

Can anyone tell me the correct ride height for an S/130 and where to measure it please?

Mine seems a bit high at the back compared to others I’ve seem and it definately has a nose down stance. The distance from the wheel centres to the wheel arch would be the easiest to measure.

Pics attached - I’ve lightened them to show the top of the tires.


From a photo I have on my office wall the tops of my tyres are just covered by the wheel arch lip so yours is certainly sitting high at the rear end.

Have your recently jacked up the back end? If so grab the bottom of the tyre and pull out towards you!

Thanks Phil,

No, it hadn’t been jacked up prior to the photo - it always looks like that.

Is this caused by the spring length? I read somewhere here that a lot of springs available now are longer than original…?

I have the same problem at the back - it sits very high. I’m saving up for new dampers etc for the back and hoping this might sort it. I can fit 5 fingers between arch and wheel at the back though, and I’ve definately seen +2’s with a much lower stance… thoughts?

I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that ‘5 fingers’ is the correct height. Mine looks pretty much like most others, and that’s about the gap.
Mark

6"Bottom of chassis to ground. Quote from Lotus workshop manual. Sit two people on the Centre line of the car whilst tightening up the suspension nuts and bolts or two bags of cement (big ones)

Oohh! I like Black - nice looking car Mark :smiley:

I’ve had a look at the wishbone angles and mine cant downwards about 10 or 15 degrees out from the chassis.

The diagram in the manual shows them as perpendicular to the road - should they be like this?

Robbie,
I hope you mean parallel to the road! Not sure if you can use that as an exact measure but they should be roughly parallel, that gives them the correct action in bump and rebound.
Gordon’s spot on, load the car then tighten the suspension. How you get under there is another question, a pit or car hoist helps!
Mike

Doh! Yes sorry.

As it’s just the rear that’s out, could I do while the back is on ramps or does the car need to be level?

Longer rear springs may be the problem. Although the spring is stopped from extending to far by the D plates at top and bottom of the rear struts a longer spring will stop the car settling to its natural ride height. Only way to tell would be to measure how much of the damper shaft is protruding but dunno how you’d do that!

Car needs to be level before you slacken and retighten rear suspension components.

Ok, thanks all for the replies.

Last question: I don’t know when I’m going to get time to do this so am I overstressing anything if I continue to use the car?

Hi There

Mine used to be like that and uneven as well. The car had new rear springs (fitted by the prevoius owner) which I replaced with ones from a 1968 car. It now sits nicely at the back and dead flat as well. It was interesting to note that all the free lengths on the springs (old, new and the weak one) were the same.

Berni

Interesting Berni, I have noticed a lot of earlier cars sit lower than later ones - I just thought they had worn springs!

Looks like I may be able to have a go tomorrow. Problem is, how do I get two people on the centre line of the car???

Hi Robbie

I can’t see how tightening up the suspension after adding weight to the car is going to make any scrap of difference whatsoever - unless you plan on leaving these two people in the car permanently.

The only solution lies with the springs. Try the Elan trik bits web site www.elantrikbits.com as they manufacture adjustable rear spring platforms.

BTW my 1968 +2 is a 5-finger job at the rear as well, but only after I decided to take the spare out for city driving - usually 4 fingers but I’d like it to be lower, too.

Best regards

I have put new rear spring on my car and the length was as specified in the manual. What bothers me more than the back being a bit high is the way the front tyres are so close to the wheelarch. I just put new springs and shocks on the front and if anything it sits a bit lower!
Could I have the wrong tyres? They are Toyo 175R13 86T.
Chris

Your tyres look massive, are they 175/80?? They look too big for 175/70’s and a bit on the large side…

I just took the car out and it is rubbing on the front nearside wheelarch. The tyres on it were recommended by club lotus a few years ago. They have been on the car for six years and have always been a bit tight. Since putting on the new springs and shocks they are touching.
I just spoke to the tyre suppliers and they confirm that they are a 175/80. I am thinking of changing to the same as I have on the spare- Falken FK-07U 175/70R13 82H. I have read so many threads on tyres with so much conflicting opinion that I am not sure what to do.
Does anyone else use 175/70 ?
Chris

Chris

Have a look at:

carbibles.com/tyre_bible.html

which as well as lots of other useful info on tyres and wheels includes a calculator so that the rolling diameter of different tyre sizes (widths and aspect ratios) can be considered.

175/70 R13 are about 35mm smaller in diameter than 175/80 R13 so would make the car 17.5 mm closer to the ground, and give you 17.5 mm more clearance on the arch than with your current tyres. Originally the tyres were 165 R 13 which would have been an 82% aspect ratio - ie 165/82 R13.

One thing to note though is that tyres of nominally the same size can vary slightly in actual size from manufacturer to manufacturer.

Tried to send a pm with this info but struggled to get it it to go!!

Best wishes Dave

Thanks Dave, Just the sort of information I needed.
Chris

I use 185/70 R13s at the moment they don’t rub anywhere and to me don’t look over big.

The car had Toyo 175/70 R13s on it when I got it and they never rubbed but I think my car sits higher than yours

The tyres on your car do look rather big, they never looked like that on my car, just looked at my old pictures, seems kinda odd

Matt