Lower back end?

[loudandproud205]

I've been posting a while on here, and it seem's every thread about lowering a car people are being to lower the rear more than the front!

Now am I utterly retarded and been doing it wrong 15 year's?

In all my year's I've always found that the rear lower than the front makes it handle shit.

Now clearly the yoof have figured out with all there experience the rear is meant to sit lower.

Plus negative rake is gay

So why is there so many done and why are people saying 60 front 80 rear?

[Prickle]

http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr88/6nWill/mccoy2.jpg

:D

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs40/f/2009/027/1/7/Mercedes_w114_by_Yzn90.jpg

:cool:

http://p1.bikepics.com/pics/2010%5C06%5C25%5Cbikepics-2005923-800.jpg

http://www.supermotors.org/getfile/210181/fullsize/1.JPG

:homme:

[blackeyedgirl]

I thought you guys liked your gals' with a nice perky bum, not sagging...
oh, were you talking about lowering?

[loudandproud205]

I thought you guys liked your gals' with a nice perky bum, not sagging...
oh, were you talking about lowering?
In both terms I'd think that sitting level would have the best results?:geek:

[scotthep]

The back end is higher as standard so needs lowering more to sit level ?

[Mochachino]

Because they think it looks good. It looks shit and isnt good for handling.

chavtastic!

should see mine at though, its off the road, coilovers are all setup on the front but the rear needs highering.

[loudandproud205]

I don't know how negative rake can possibly look good?

When I got my Saxo it was a victim to this crime, and it understeered like a dog

[Jay_]

mine is a touch lower at back than the front, but think it sits pretty nicely. but neg rake is uber gay :homme:


http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad350/jay-young1991/Saxo%20progress/saxo1.jpg

EDIT - VERY old pic. looks better than this now :y: and not the best pic i know...

[LSOfreak]

http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr88/6nWill/mccoy2.jpg

:homme:

that looks broken. The thing with all dubs etc. is that they slam the front straight to the ground, but theres always so much ground clearance on the back by the rear wheel and it just looks weird - like that ^

On saxos, For looks i like it lowww. They look hideous at standard height imo. Fair enough on a track car theres a purpose for not being so low but i just think it looks gash when its not lower than 40mm.
As there a little higher on the rear as standard, it suits the flare of the sideskirt when the rear is a tiny bit lower. Your probably right that it does no favours for handling but if you dont race it and its purely for looks then why not?

[titchster]

Front lower than rear ftw. Arches sitting level makes the rear look lower than the rear, which doesn't look good IMO. The arches need to be kept on a slant towards the front of the car.

[CHIP]

Ideally, yes. Front lower than back (that's how i've set the Clio up).

The Saxo was a little more awkward, but with the set-up i had it was a very fun and capable car but it wasn't that much lower on the back.

This said, the spring's were 60mm. But when i lowered the rear, the measurement's i took were that i was lowering it 90mm. It certainly didn't look 30mm lower than the front.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/5193574462_93490baa34_z.jpg

[Ryan]

because it looks better down maccy Ds car park.

[saxo-parts]

saves on battling with torsion bars, just stick a fat lass in the boot.

[Mieran]

Reverse rake is GAY!

French car owners do it because they have torsion bars on the back and feel the need to set it to its lowest height