Rear ride height

ALAN COCHRANE · Post by **ALAN COCHRANE** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:18 pm

Hi Everyone

At a recent car event I parked the car beside a C reg 4.2 OTS and noticed that it was sitting about one inch higher at the rear. I'd experienced ground clearance problems on previous drives which I think was caused by the strap which braces the two rear exhaust pipes together.
When I got home, with the car unladen, I measured the ground clearance along the driver's side sill and it was an even 21cm front to back.
There's 3/4inch of tyre showing between the apex of the rear wheel arch and the wheel. My wheels are standard sized 15inch diameter wires running on Vredstein Sprint Classic 185HR15 91H tyres.
Is this the normal ride height or is it too low?

Cheers

Alan

Moeregaard · Post by **Moeregaard** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:33 am

The 4.2-liter cars had packing pieces added to the rear springs, to address complaints about damaged exhaust-system components when driving over poor roads. I removed the packing from my early 4.2-liter FHC when I installed slightly stiffer springs, and the only time this was a problem was when I had a full load of people and stuff while driving over poor roads, and sleeping policemen (speed bumps) became more of a concern. From what you've just described, your ride height seems OK.

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:13 am

ALAN COCHRANE wrote: When I got home, with the car unladen, I measured the ground clearance along the driver's side sill and it was an even 21cm front to back.
There's 3/4inch of tyre showing between the apex of the rear wheel arch and the wheel. My wheels are standard sized 15inch diameter wires running on Vredstein Sprint Classic 185HR15 91H tyres.
Is this the normal ride height or is it too low?

If you want an accurate ride height answer take accurate measurements as per the manual (which doesn't use the body as a datum).

If you just want a qualitative 'looks OK/looks wrong' estimate then carry on. The bodies on E-types weren't millimetre-precise when they left Briwns Lane and they're certainly not perfectly consistent fifty years later after so many have been repaired.

Pete

ALAN COCHRANE · Post by **ALAN COCHRANE** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:01 pm

Mark

I'm of the same opinion. The car sits level side to side and front to back and looks right. Although i've had the occassional disagreement with somnambulent bobbies the car has never hit it's bump stops.
I realise any adjustment of the rear ride height would necessitate a corresponding adjustment of the front to avoid a nose down attitude. I don't want to start mucking about with the torsion bars and end up with a complete balls-up.

Pete

Which manual are you referring to. I've looked through my Jaguar Sevice Manual and can't find any mention of ride height measurement, although knowing my search skills that probably means there's a whole section devoted to it.

Alan

Moeregaard · Post by **Moeregaard** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:26 pm

Alan, just to give you a little more information to work with, and at the risk of being a little redundant, here's what I did with my early 4.2 FHC:

1. Front ride height set to Jaguar factory specs, using the procedure detailed for the 4.2-liter cars. This is shown in the Haynes and Robert Bentley manuals, as well as the factory manual. I've heard that lowering the front end will improve cornering, but I think the drawbacks outweigh any advantages for a road car, and getting into my drive would have been an even bigger problem.

2. Rear springs were those sold by XKs Unlimited in the early '90s, and they were slightly stiffer than the factory items. As I mentioned earlier, I omitted the spring spacers. One problem that afflicts LHD E-types is that the battery, driver and fuel tank are all on the left side, which over time leads to a "port list," so new springs are not an uncommon requirement.

3. Wheels were stock, with 185-15 Avons fitted.

Set up this way, the car sat level, as measured with a spirit level laid on the sill. I was happy with the handling, ride and clearance over road irregularities and random dead things (road lobsters), so I never felt any need to go further. I hope is of some use to you.

Dave K · Post by **Dave K** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:29 pm

ALAN COCHRANE wrote:Mark

I'm of the same opinion. The car sits level side to side and front to back and looks right. Although i've had the occassional disagreement with somnambulent bobbies the car has never hit it's bump stops.
I realise any adjustment of the rear ride height would necessitate a corresponding adjustment of the front to avoid a nose down attitude. I don't want to start mucking about with the torsion bars and end up with a complete balls-up.

Pete

Which manual are you referring to. I've looked through my Jaguar Sevice Manual and can't find any mention of ride height measurement, although knowing my search skills that probably means there's a whole section devoted to it.

Alan

Alan,

It tells you how to measure the ride for the 3.8 and 4.2 in the Haynes manual.

Dave

ALAN COCHRANE · Post by **ALAN COCHRANE** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:42 pm

Thanks Mark & Dave for the advice. It's much more helpful getting a detailed answer than just getting a bald statement of fact!
I'm going to take the springs off during the winter and give them a blast and paint so I'll be able to check them at that point.
The car is sitting level and I think I"ll let sleeping dogs lie.
I've just spent three hours trying to get an SNG under tray to fit. Why do these b###dy things never fit without major surgery!
Interesting point about the weight distribution on LHD cars.
On RHD cars it's more balanced- fuel tank and battery on one side and driver and spare wheel on the other.

Alan

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

The 'E' Type Forum

Rear ride height

#1 Rear ride height

#2

#3 Re: Rear ride height

#4

#5

#6

#7