eType 4.2 Series One ride height

[eTypeG]

Can anyone let me know what the correct ride height (front and rear) should be for a series 1 4.2?, and the correct way of measure it.

[Heuer]

Front Suspension:

[eTypeG]

Hi, many thanks for the reply, I will check my car ASAP. I am more concerned about the rear ride height it looks low to me. Fom the centre of the rear hub cap to the wheel arch it measures approx 10.25 inches, the front measures approx 12.25 inches. The car is on standard wheels/tires.

[kingzetts]

If I recall correctly the upper surface of the sill should be horizontal. The rear ride height is not adjustable on a standard car, so if the front ride height is correct and the rear too low then there is a problem with the rear springs or shocks. Tired springs is the most likely issue, followed by incorrect springs which are too short or too soft for the car, then (less likely) shocks having the wrong lower spring plate to lower mounting bolt distance. Tired shocks do not affect ride height.

[eTypeG]

Many thanks for the reply, I used my spirit level on the surface of the sills and they are spot-on level!!!. So it must be just me - I am not used to owning a car that has a rear bumper that sits below knee height!!!.

[kingzetts]

FWIW, I just ran a tape measure over my '62 3.8 OTS which was set to factory standard height during its rebuild a couple of years ago. The rear wheel to arch distance measured from the centre of the spinner is 9.75" and the front height is 10.25". Car is on 185x15 tyres on 15" wires.

I am 6' and the rear bumper is just above my knee joint.

[pmansson]

For the second time in about 5 years, the rear left corner is half to three quarter of an inch lower than the right side. Visible from a few meters behind the car. The first time it was almost an inch. This was rectified when the car was in a garage in England. Wonder why the problem has come back....
Weaker torsion bar perhaps?
It cannot really have moved without several splines being damaged, or....?

[PhilBell]

My 1962 fhc sat a little low at the rear (rear arch top sat at wheelrim level) when I bought it restored. Someone told me that some (early?) cars has aluminium spacers on top of the rear springs so I bought a set from SNGB. I fitted them as part of a damper upgrade to Koni Classics – the result was correct-looking ride height and no more bottoming of the exhaust on fast, bumpy roads.

[PeterCrespin]

FWIW, I just ran a tape measure over my '62 3.8 OTS which was set to factory standard height during its rebuild a couple of years ago. The rear wheel to arch distance measured from the centre of the spinner is 9.75" and the front height is 10.25". Car is on 185x15 tyres on 15" wires.

It could be on four flats, or no tyres at all and it would still read the exact same.

[kingzetts]

Peter,
Not sure why you found it necessary to be sarcastic about something I wrote 5 years ago......

But taken IN CONTEXT, this thread was about ride height. Tyre sidewall depth and spinner centre to wheel arch distance work together - ground clearance for a given spinner centre to arch distance would be reduced with lower-profile tyres, so both pieces of information were relevant to the discussion in my view.

[PeterCrespin]

Sarcasm was not my intent John. I offered a fact about ride height measured spinner to wheel arch. People sometimes use it but it can be misleading as that distance can easily vary between original tubs, and especially between 'repaired' tubs fifty years later. That's why Jaguar used fixed points measured to ground, not bodywork.

Sidewall height is relevant of course, but you didn't mention it. You just said 185x15.

This is a high-quality forum - probably the best anywhere for E-types. That doesn't happen by accident - it requires vigilance, without which you can be sure eventually we'd be no better than "Rice Rockets Weakly." Anyway, that's my view and I'm sorry if you felt I was taking a pop at you, I wasn't.

Pete