Lowering Craziness - Explanations Please !

[RockyF75]

86 XF

In sigline now

[carnutt]

Originally Posted by cowboy

Maybe they're pretending the front is lifting coming off the line!

Yep Cowboy , looks like they're doing "160" while sitting still . . Mostly the VL ... brigade out my way have the rear "dropped" .

Gotta be Level for me or a slight rake (down) to the front . I reckon if you have a slight rake to the front , it would help with the "Aerodynamics". (Wow ,big word for me & spelt right , used spell check : )

During the 70's some guys went a "little overboard" with forward rake and used to put extended shackles in the rear , up to 6" - 8" (150mm - 200mm) . Looked like they were taking a Nose Dive .

Carnutt

[Bent8]

Yeh I like the classic muscle car look where the front is slightly lower than the rear and as mentioned above, it helps with high-speed stability aswell.

Mine sits a little lower at the front but that's because the front springs are sagging a bit :(

[prydey]

if you drop your car so the sill panel runs level with the ground it will appear lower at the rear because of the difference in the guard height. front guards on most fords are higher up the body on the front.

this is my car. if you go by the gap from tyre to guard it looks lower at the back although the drive is sloping away a bit so its not too obvious in that pic. the sill panel is pretty level. with full tank it drops down another 5-10mm. i voted slightly lower at rear too. by slightly this is what i meant!

[pauly85]

this is my old commodore wagon, i put super lows in the front and lows in the rear, i love the rake look, i thought it looks tough as nails for a newer model car

[Sorted]

90/10 Front, 50/50 Rear, ready to race well thats in my Charger

In My Fairmont (lower springs in the rear)
Super Lows Front & Ultra Lows Rear - Sits balanced



The cars that you usually see dumped in the *** are Holdens :

[Dezza]

Here's mine. Lows all round. See what I mean the back sits slightly lower than the front


Ignore the black front bumper and dodgy side moulds. They will be painted soon.

[nb_351]

that comoodore needs another inch in the rear, but as it is it sits even over the arches, which looks alright... butit needs lowering slightly more...

[Allen]

I was aiming for the parallel with the ground look, but the rear end was a few millimeters lower than the rear when first done, but the front has settled and is starting to match the rear.

Thr front has come down even more since this photo was taken last week.



I like the zero rake, and positive rake looks... the negative rakes should be left for Galaxies and Thunderbirds of the 60's

[89 S-PACK]

this is mine.... 1\2 tank of petrol and a the lpg tank was empty. it sits lower again when the lpg tank is full.

btw the pic is old.

the front has dropped slightly since i took that photo

[RockyF75]

Originally Posted by EAadam

Pics please.

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by RockyF75

This is typical of the XE/XF models.

[noosacuda]

The US musclecars (Camaro's, Mustangs,Trans-Ams etc)were factory set slightly lower at the rear to induce under-steer.But it does look poxy on late model cars. So a bit higher at the rear or level looks the best to me.
A friend of mine got booked and defected in the '80's for his EJ Holden being too high at the rear-the cop walked up and leaned on it without bending down! air shockies and extended spring shakles will do that!

[MITCHAY]

Level is the best IMO. Also don't think much of cars with chopped springs either. Looks stupid and is dangerous :

My mate across the road found out the hard way why it is not such a good idea :

[XHUTE6]

MITCHAY, you told us that story about your mate hey? Gemini with a car load of mates off the side of a hill? was that you?

I saw a VR/VS Stato in Adelaide CBD about a year ago and it was basically as extreme as that fairlane on the last page. it looked a bit higher than standard on the front and looked like it was riding on the bumper stops in the rear. Stockies on the rear as well..
Looked ridiculous. He was doing the Hindley st Cruise on a saturday night.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by XHUTE6

MITCHAY, you told us that story about your mate hey? Gemini with a car load of mates off the side of a hill? was that you?

No that wasn't me. My mate damaged the oil sump. Result was a blown engine.

[ea_monty]

mine sits slighty lower in the front.

[ea_monty]

but my 1976 gemini sits slitly lower in the rear (i know its not a ford)

[sly_ba]

For me it has to be level or slightly lower in the rear. The tyre should sit just on top or just inside the gaurd

[blueoval]

there is usually some etiquette amongst most car fanatics that say:

Old skool cars sit pretty dumped in the rear and higher at the front. To have that 'pro street' look, but ONLY if you have the cheese cutters up front and huge 10" wide rims in the rear. Its a tuff look, and seems to turn heads for the right reasons.

Later model cars 'usually' have large diam rims and generally sit low all round for that 'pimp my ride' look. They also seem to turn heads for the right reasons.

To me, both are acceptable in the right style mentioned above, but dont look right swapped. i.e. late model BA with 15" convo pros and only dumped in the rear or old skool cars with 20" chrome 'sick bro' rims.

If ya gonna swap the styles, I beleive you will find, that old skool cars will get away with it in the looks department over owners with later model vehicles who think 'pro street' is ok for any car. Again, to me, It just doesnt look right Im afraid. Sure go ahead and do it if thats what you want to do, but expect confused looks as people scratch their head in amazement as to why you would do that. Its your car in the end, you have to live with it.


This is JUST MY OPINION.

*runs away to put flame suit on* :

[mntxr]

i agree it need to sit level i have people say my car looks lower in the back but thats ony because my front gards are rolled up but i am all for siting level

[Mechan1k]

Normally ... my front is lower than the rear (stiffer springs and shock in the rear of the ute) ... but when loaded up .... it's the complete opposite.

[[Tonko]]

Originally Posted by XHUTE6

MITCHAY, you told us that story about your mate hey? Gemini with a car load of mates off the side of a hill? was that you?

Speaking of Gemmi's and springs....
Mate of mine had one, he pulled out the springs and drove around for ages, We even went to melbourne in it, lol.
Plus, we lost 1 bumpstop on the way... What a kidney bashing fest that was!

[normxb]

Being an Old Phart and a Country driver , I prefer to keep a car "Standard Height and Level", But with Sturdy Shocks (Gas) , Sway Bars and 225 tyres .

Reason is the roads , if I was still in the city , I wouldn't mind dropping it a little . If you're following a "Lowered car" at night the Undulating roads can be very Critical and Unsafe" . Amazing the shower of sparks that come out of the back of a lowered car , hit a dip a bit hard and you could end up in a paddock .

After a hot summer , the centre of the lane can be quite a bit higher than the wheel tracks because of the weight of the trucks on the hot tar . Not the truckies fault , just the roads haven't been built Sturdy enough . The cost of building "Secondary Roads" solid enough would be astronomical .

My old Racer has a clearance of 25-30mm between the exhausts and the ground , but it's "Horses for Courses" .

Don't know about you , but I prefer driving "on the Black Stuff ".

Norm

[normxb]

Originally Posted by RockyF75

I've had 3 XF Wagons at different times and they've all been level or slightly lower at the front , 2nd one had a "tow pack" but i guess they were built like that to take heavier loads .

[xbgs351]

When lowering a car it should sit at an angle that works best, not what looks best to the owner, but drives like an old truck. What works best depends on what the tyre sizes are, how much suspension movement there is, how much rake is needed, the intended use of the car, how many passengers you carry, how much load you carry, how much you tow etc etc.

[Windza]

When lowering a car it should sit at an angle that works best, not what looks best to the owner, but drives like an old truck. What works best depends on what the tyre sizes are, how much suspension movement there is, how much rake is needed, the intended use of the car, how many passengers you carry, how much load you carry, how much you tow etc etc.

That's the whole point of this thread - what reason is there to have a car lower in the rear. You say "not what looks best to the owner" and thats the only factor I could think of to have "backward" angle!

[4Vman]

The "nose up" or "GT stance" of the early GT's is to some degree a bit of an illusion, if you look at an XA or XB side on for example the top of the rear wheel arch sits lower on the car compared to the front which gives the illusion of being lower at the rear due to tyre to arch gap. If you measured the sill to ground clearance it would be close to even.
If you lower the car to get an even guard to tyre clearance front to rear the car will actually be lower at the front respective to the floor pan.
I think you find this applies to all X series Falcons..

[Windza]

4Vman - I wondered about that earlier when the whole "GT stance" thing was being discussed as I have numerous pictures of GT's (XY, XW, XB) and I wouldn't have thought they were really lower in the rear (aside from those done deliberately). It's also pry stems from a lot of those older cars being used fairly well and having "sagged" in the rear end from original that has led to this perception... ?

[Poetic Justice]

It's personal preference.

I also posed the question why dumb blondee's and closet fags have to wear bright clothing out on the street but it's because they want to and it's because that is what they think looks good.