Ride Height - Comparing SPF to ERA and CSX

[patrickt]

Dang, Buzz. Not only was that post exceptionally well-written, it was authoritative to boot! Two small issues that tend to irritate me are the pedals that come down from the cowl, instead of up from the floor, and wipers that park to the wrong side. Straight up and down radiators have already been posted. Those, I think, could be fixed, if you were really determined. The shape problems probably can't.

[Cobra #3170]

Originally Posted by 66gtk

Wouldn't this also be variable depending on aspect ratio/size of your tires?

Yes, but I am assuming that the person doing the measuring knows what he or she wants in terms of control arm angles with a given tire diameter. The ride height would be a result with those angles. A smaller diameter tire would lower the ride height and a larger tire would obviously raise it. Using the frame reference points will eliminate the body openings as another variable.
The concern is that if the car is set up to look "good" in terms of tire to wheel opening you could end up with a potentially dangerous geometry condition.
These cars are spooky enough when they are set up correctly, they can become un-driveable with the front or rear roll center way out of specification.
I am probably prejudiced by the fact that original cars were different at every corner in terms of tire to body because the bodies were so far off. The frame and suspension points were very good and symmetrical however, so that is what we use. Manufactures are generally pretty careful about the pick up points so they are not nearly as variable as a body opening because that would not be treated with the same care and repeatability.

[rgnbull1227]

Here are a few pics of SPF-2271. Rear Fender well is 25.5" high.


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj4Ua4h3MMY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj4Ua4h3MMY[/ame]

[fordracing65]

As low as you can go, it just look cooler...