-
Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.
If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.
Enjoy.
Race Car Lowered
- Thread starter atallamcs
- Start date
RootesRacer
Donation Time
Thats about how mine looks with lowered springs.
The front always seems to look higher compared to the rear.
The front always seems to look higher compared to the rear.
I'm anxious to get my Sebring project on her feet. We have yet to install the factory competition kit which features lowered front and rear suspension setups. I want to see if I can beat 23"! 
sunbeam74
Silver Level Sponsor
Bill,
The 23" is a nice height. It looks really good.
I think the Sports Car Forum Alpine is 23.5 (front is slightly higher) and the Visalia Dodge boys is 24" with the front slightly higher. The Dunlop R5 Vintage tires are around 23.75" in Diameter so they fill the wells even with the additional height. (Sadley only a 5" wide contact patch but that is what the club was insisting upon at the time 5.50x13)
(Your 205's, are they about 22.5" diameter?)
Steve
The 23" is a nice height. It looks really good.
I think the Sports Car Forum Alpine is 23.5 (front is slightly higher) and the Visalia Dodge boys is 24" with the front slightly higher. The Dunlop R5 Vintage tires are around 23.75" in Diameter so they fill the wells even with the additional height. (Sadley only a 5" wide contact patch but that is what the club was insisting upon at the time 5.50x13)
(Your 205's, are they about 22.5" diameter?)
Steve
SIVAllan
Gold Level Sponsor
I'm anxious to get my Sebring project on her feet. We have yet to install the factory competition kit which features lowered front and rear suspension setups. I want to see if I can beat 23"!
Curious just how one goes about lowering the suspension to achieve a target height.
Some Alpine and Tiger leaves are lower than others for example, ditto for coil springs.
But to set an Alpine at a specific height, that's very interesting.
lowered
You can lower the front with shorter coil springs, in the rear you can reverse roll the eyes on the main leaf or change the forward pick up point.
The V8 car we built has a 22 1/2" front to fender lip ride height with a 205/50X 15" tire while the rear has a 23" to fender lip ride height this with a 225/50X15" tire the result is a 1/2" chassis rake! however we do have coil overs all around.
Joel
You can lower the front with shorter coil springs, in the rear you can reverse roll the eyes on the main leaf or change the forward pick up point.
The V8 car we built has a 22 1/2" front to fender lip ride height with a 205/50X 15" tire while the rear has a 23" to fender lip ride height this with a 225/50X15" tire the result is a 1/2" chassis rake! however we do have coil overs all around.
Joel
lowering
I would like to continue this thread to find out how far the front suspension can be lowered. I have a Series III front suspension and my front springs (around 460 lbs) have a free length of 8.5 inches. With my set of 14 inch panasports 205/60D-14 Hoosiers I'm sitting 25-26 inches at the front with 23 at the back.
Sources have indicated that going to less than 8 inches may get into unknown territory - altering the geometry, but I still am looking for more improvement. I can go back to 13 inch wheels and skip the insulators (?) ... but I'm starting to look at moving the hard stops on the subframes.
Anyone have ideas here?
I would like to continue this thread to find out how far the front suspension can be lowered. I have a Series III front suspension and my front springs (around 460 lbs) have a free length of 8.5 inches. With my set of 14 inch panasports 205/60D-14 Hoosiers I'm sitting 25-26 inches at the front with 23 at the back.
Sources have indicated that going to less than 8 inches may get into unknown territory - altering the geometry, but I still am looking for more improvement. I can go back to 13 inch wheels and skip the insulators (?) ... but I'm starting to look at moving the hard stops on the subframes.
Anyone have ideas here?
atallamcs
Donation Time
lowering the car
It is really not too difficult. On my series IV Alpine I used professionally cut down/flattened and heat treated tiger springs. The tires are 205x60x13 and the ride height is 23 inches--from floor to wheel lip. Not going to get much lower than that--and you must ask, why would you want to if you are not on the track? The rear uses some lowering blocks and came in at 23" as well.
Bill
It is really not too difficult. On my series IV Alpine I used professionally cut down/flattened and heat treated tiger springs. The tires are 205x60x13 and the ride height is 23 inches--from floor to wheel lip. Not going to get much lower than that--and you must ask, why would you want to if you are not on the track? The rear uses some lowering blocks and came in at 23" as well.
Bill
Bill,
Where I am going with this is I'd like to go say down to 22 inches at the front. I used to race MG's in SCCA back in the 70's and I needed a skid plate to keep my headers from flattening out. Nowadays they have headers that exit through the center tunnel or the rocker. But I've seen some of the older pictures of Alpines that had the exhaust go out the side or in the rocker. I'm assuming this was done to get the car as low as possible.
The other issue is the spring length to achieve this reduction. A 10 inch Tiger spring at 450 lbs is going to be stronger at a 7 inch length or whatever is needed to get it that low. I am not engineer but then the question of bump stops and correct geometry may be so off, it makes the lowered handling worse overall. It would take some experimenting with spring sets to get it right.
I am going to take a fresh look at this, I'm willing to take my 8.5" springs down to 8.0", I assume the top rubber insulator go out completely.
I've found an interesting website that I have not seen mentioned before:
http://www.smithees-racetech.com.au/historic/sunbeam.html
Would be great to know more on Alpine details.
Dave
Where I am going with this is I'd like to go say down to 22 inches at the front. I used to race MG's in SCCA back in the 70's and I needed a skid plate to keep my headers from flattening out. Nowadays they have headers that exit through the center tunnel or the rocker. But I've seen some of the older pictures of Alpines that had the exhaust go out the side or in the rocker. I'm assuming this was done to get the car as low as possible.
The other issue is the spring length to achieve this reduction. A 10 inch Tiger spring at 450 lbs is going to be stronger at a 7 inch length or whatever is needed to get it that low. I am not engineer but then the question of bump stops and correct geometry may be so off, it makes the lowered handling worse overall. It would take some experimenting with spring sets to get it right.
I am going to take a fresh look at this, I'm willing to take my 8.5" springs down to 8.0", I assume the top rubber insulator go out completely.
I've found an interesting website that I have not seen mentioned before:
http://www.smithees-racetech.com.au/historic/sunbeam.html
Would be great to know more on Alpine details.
Dave
sunbeam74
Silver Level Sponsor
Dave,
I don't think the side exit exhaust were to get the car as low as possible.
If you notice in the old period photos the cars really weren't that low. Typically on the period race cars I have found, 1959-1968, they all sat in the 23"-24" range.
The Rootes competition front springs were about 8.5" free height (I think... I need to look up my notes). More importantly, the SCCA was pretty specific that only two Rootes spring PNs were approved. (Stock and the Competition springs offered)
Not to say people didn't push the rules but this would explain why most of the 1960's cars were higher than one might expect for a car modified for SCCA racing in the 70's.
Keep in mind the SCCA was very constraining up until about 1968. Prior to 1968 production cars really were production cars for the most part. Go back further to pre-64 and precious little could be done. For example... had to run stock rims... couldn't bore out to .040 over... no sheetmetal mods...etc.
Basically every mechanical piece had to be Rootes with the exception of tires, shocks, plugs.
I am sure it took a good bit of finessing of existing parts to get a fast reliable car back then.
Steve
I don't think the side exit exhaust were to get the car as low as possible.
If you notice in the old period photos the cars really weren't that low. Typically on the period race cars I have found, 1959-1968, they all sat in the 23"-24" range.
The Rootes competition front springs were about 8.5" free height (I think... I need to look up my notes). More importantly, the SCCA was pretty specific that only two Rootes spring PNs were approved. (Stock and the Competition springs offered)
Not to say people didn't push the rules but this would explain why most of the 1960's cars were higher than one might expect for a car modified for SCCA racing in the 70's.
Keep in mind the SCCA was very constraining up until about 1968. Prior to 1968 production cars really were production cars for the most part. Go back further to pre-64 and precious little could be done. For example... had to run stock rims... couldn't bore out to .040 over... no sheetmetal mods...etc.
Basically every mechanical piece had to be Rootes with the exception of tires, shocks, plugs.
I am sure it took a good bit of finessing of existing parts to get a fast reliable car back then.
Steve