Setting ride height, what's your prefence of measurement point?

[jaffaz32]

Very curious what is right and what people prefer.

When running 16/17s 17/18s there is a bigger gap between the top of tire and rear arch when compared to the front.

So do you measure..

1. Gap between arch and tire?
2. distance between arch and the ground?

Just curious really as everyone will have different preference.

It's interesting when looking at lowering springs as Tanabe, H&R, Eibach etc. all lower the car the same on all corners however the Tein S-Tech i believe lower the rear more than the front.

 

[TURBO2GO]

You measure between center of control arm point and level alignment machine front, and center of toe link bolt and ground. It is all on a diagram I have reported in the suspension section.

 

[nsxtasy]

When running 16/17s 17/18s there is a bigger gap between the top of tire and rear arch when compared to the front.

Not by much. When using the optimal NSX tire sizes, the outer diameters of the tires is about equal to stock, and differences in ride height from stock are minimal. More specifically, here is how much the ride height changes from the '91-93 stock size when using non-stock tire sizes:

Front:
205/45-16 +0.10"
215/45-16 +0.27"
215/40-17 +0.35"

Rear:
245/40-17 -0.07"
255/40-17 +0.09"
255/35-18 +0.08"
265/35-18 +0.22"

The differences from stock are even smaller on a '94-05 NSX.

To put the above numbers into perspective, the difference in ride height between brand-new tires, and tires that have worn down to the treadwear indicator bars and need replacement, is about 0.25". When's the last time you noticed a ride height difference because the tires are new or worn? :biggrin:

 

[stuntman]

0.25" is a lot!


Many people measure from the ground to the front or rear jacking points. All that matters is you're apples:apples to whoever you are comparing to in terms of consistent immoveable measuring points.