Ride height just doesnt look right...
 

Hi
I have had all sorts of headaches with getting the alignment / ride height right.

It is a 68 (with a 3.2). It has now been set up per the little spec book but it just doesn't look right. What do you all think?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1322024636.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1322024651.jpg

Thanks

Rolls

I dont know enough to say if that is "off" or not but it wouldnt surprise me if thats how they were shipped in 68.

Well that could be OEM spec height but, even still, I'd say it could use a little dump to balance her out.

Hey Jim

I had the tyres just under the guards which looked great but was a pain to drive + it dialed in too much camber. Problem is with the rear when he pegs it back one notch its then to low....

Costs $500 per adjustment so keen to get it right once and for all.

Question
 

It started life as a 912? And a some point (you) someone dropped a 3.2 into the shell, first I would take it to a good (race) shop and have the car corner balanced and camber check against the added rear weight. It looks like the shop set the torsion bars to handle the increase weight of the motor. How does it handle in a corner and under hard braking. Do you have any tire wear issue's.
Art

Art - bang on. Just finished the 3.2 instal / resto. Had the camber checked - Its correct. I have put turbo rear torsions to handle the rear weight.

Handles like garbage. Can't comment on tyre wear as its only been completed.

Not really a lot of experts in this part of the world - this is my third go at it and im rapidly approaching $1500 thus far and still feel like I m going around in circles.
Do I just adjust until it 'looks right' or is there a specific measurement?
Thanks for responding.

It appears that you have it set up for off road adventures. I love the 3.2 in a "stock: looking 68....great sleeper, but i'd take it to a very good shop to get it set up for handling...........this may divert you from the seemingly stock suspension bits...but then with a 3.2 ....you are already headed down that path.

regards,al

PS: nice looking 68

Okay, Let's do some math, What is the measurements from ground thru center of the wheel to fender lip?

I am not familiar with a circa 68 but is the rear adjustment only at the Torsion bar or do you also have adjustable camber plates for height adjustments?

Please post your measurements, for us state side guys in inches please :D

Jim

Looks pretty much like my 1968 911T German import on the way from the Houston port to Los Angeles in 1971:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1322038224.jpg

Measurements
 

Okay thanks
From fender to ground through hub center is
Front:660mm (25.98inches)
Rear:685mm (26.96inches)
Ground to middle of rear torsion is 320mm

Does anyone know the correct euro height?

Maybe this will help " its a caculator for spring height ,

500.00 a pop for adjustments " and now going
Into the holidays. Ugghhhh. I feel for yu.

Don't stress you"ll get it


911 Spring Plate Angle Calculator

The rear tire looks to small. Is it a 165? Is it the same size as the front?

You could get some nice QuickChange spring plates for the price of one "adjustment".

ELEPHANT RACING QuickChange Spring Plate for Porsche 911/930

Hi there,

IN GENERAL, ground-to-fender lip numbers for an early car such as your '68 would be 25 inches for the front and 24.5 inches for the rear. That sets up the intended forward rake we all know and love as the car is just sitting empty and is, for all intents and purposes, "stock". It also creates the gaps between the tire tops and the fender lips that look correct, but "correct" is quite subjective. Tire size factors into all of this from a looks perspective, so it would be nice to know what size you are using...

Since you installed Turbo (26mm?) rear torsion bars, you can NOT use the '68 tech spec book numbers and expect the desired results. Use those numbers and you will end up high in the rear every time (as you have already found out).

The information in the spec books is presented in such a way that it negates the influence of tire size on the setup. If you think about it, it does make sense to do it that way from a suspension geometry point of view... the stock suspension is designed to work within a certain range of motion regardless of tire size. The way it is presented in the spec books also can be difficult to measure accurately, so that is why many will reference fender lip heights just for ease and a sanity check.

My advice would be to use the angle calculator noted above (assume 60/40, although you are probably a little more tail heavy than that) with a weight in the 2300-2400 lbs range (if you don't have a more accurate weight measurement yet) and try again with what it tells you. I am guessing you did not install adjustable spring plates in the rear? Unfortunately, they would have paid for themselves by now as they certainly help in getting it set correctly the first time in terms of overall ride height. They also are very nice to have for dialing in a good corner balance.

Hope that helps,

Ride height........
 

I have my SC set at 25.5" front and 25" rear. At that height I can run 205x55-16s front tires (7x16 Fuchs) and 245x45-16 rear tires (8x16 Fuchs) without and rubbing issues. Makes the car look slightly raked towards the front. Speaking of the front suspension, you can lower or raise the front via an adjusting screw on the lower arm. Jack up the front of the car to take pressure off the screw and turn with an 8mm (I think) wrench. Hope this helps.

Being the European i am i would lower the car as much as possible

Please stop doing this to me...! Every time I click on a link to ER I end up buying something!:D

lower it to what you think looks/drives good.... it takes time to set these up, once you are happy get an alignment/balanced.

68 and earlier spring blades are different from 69 and later. 68 is last of short wheelbase. spring blades are 1 inch shorter than 69 or later.

Try posting this on the Australian site I am sure you will get someone who can help you out locally.
Regards,
Richard.