LOWERING" Anyone Notice The Odd Stance On Most Lowered S550's

[Carbon Driven]

Im getting a new set of tires next week or two and getting Toyo T1 Sports which have a better side profile vs these Acceleras and will look a bit bigger for the same size tires

35 fronts and 30 rears. I always try to check the tire specs and see if I can get both exactly the same diameter or circumference. Thinking that on the S550 I may need to step up the rears a bit somehow

 

[rvlyssup]

Our "performance" spring kit will sit kinda similar to the Yellow 15 above.

I hope to have the pre-production test batch in, in about 3 weeks or so.

Not really liking what is out there ATM so looks like I'm going to be waiting & looking forward to your kit.

 

[Drtoronto]

Mines being built so I can wait for the bmr,s as well but like the steeda stance

 

[lsxjunkie]

Reverse rake only looks good on Trophy Trucks and prerunners.

It's almost as if the S550s have a bigger front wheel well. So far only the Eibach cars look right to me.

 

[ALLKHEINZ]

^^^for me a pro kit or sportline kit still sits to low in the back compared to the front....my buddy and i both went sportlines up front and pro kit out back...here is my car on that setup.

 

[Tob]

That picture is just freaking perfect and badass...

I agree. The composition, depth of field, and vignetting are just right.

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

me thinks some people don't realize how large of a difference there is between the measurements of the front and rear wheel gap vs comparing the angle of the rocker panel to the ground. the yellow car above, for example has a pretty damn heavy rake, regardless of what the fender gaps are telling you. i've thrown some lines on the shot to really show how heavy the rake actually is...

...the 2 verticle lines represent the body rake to tire contact patch(or, level ground) separation taken at the very front and very rear edges of the car. now, that image exaggerates how steep the rake is because we're essentially looking down at the rocker panel - a true visualization would be a picture taken level with the center of the rocker panel(if the center of the rocker panel is 3" of the ground, then the camera should be ~3" off the ground, ideally taking into account the radius of the lens). but, this not-100%-accurate pic gets the point across none the less.

 

[choate]

spring rates are generally not far off from one another...and rates change from how short or longer they are to compensate for it...having different rates front to rear is not something that is going to make you lose your life over...people are too paranoid about this...

Bringing this back up since I want to let you all know that I bought a pro kit for my 2012 and hated the fact the rear was still way higher than the front even though it advertised 1" front and 1.5" rear. It did drop it 1" in the front and about exactly 1" in the rear too if that. I finally bought a rear set of BMR rears and Kelly assured me after asking my tire size it would drop it another .5" and sure enough it did. I have been running that ever since and no ill handling or ride affects. Just wanted to throw that out there since I was a little worried too but it's fine. The car sits good to me too. It's just barely lower in the front by maybe 1/4"

 

[ALLKHEINZ]

me thinks some people don't realize how large of a difference there is between the measurements of the front and rear wheel gap vs comparing the angle of the rocker panel to the ground. the yellow car above, for example has a pretty damn heavy rake, regardless of what the fender gaps are telling you. i've thrown some lines on the shot to really show how heavy the rake actually is...

...the 2 verticle lines represent the body rake to tire contact patch(or, level ground) separation taken at the very front and very rear edges of the car. now, that image exaggerates how steep the rake is because we're essentially looking down at the rocker panel - a true visualization would be a picture taken level with the center of the rocker panel(if the center of the rocker panel is 3" of the ground, then the camera should be ~3" off the ground, ideally taking into account the radius of the lens). but, this not-100%-accurate pic gets the point across none the less.

you make a good point but the car wasnt sitting on level ground really in that photo now that i think about it....the rear was sitting up on a patch of solid concrete...hard to perhaps see in the pics but here is a shot of my car now with the same spring setup...

 

[ALLKHEINZ]

his car on flat surface

 

[choate]

The 2016 Cali Special looks like the old rake to me.

 

[99riocobra]

his car on flat surface

Like mentioned earlier, this is a ton of rake. To me looks a little off on a new car like the S550 with nice body lines. Mustangs have have had larger wheel wells in the front for a while (New edge), just have to reference other points to get it right.

 

[airborne0415]

Been looking all over for a discussion about this I thought I was the only one who was thinking this ...lol ..cant wait for a one kit solution to this what seems to be very difficult issue to solve .

 

[Laztug]

Is that a 255/35/20 font?
315/35 rear?


Stance resembles this vette.
maybe just a bad angle? Front tire a little thin? I am sure it looks better in person.

 

[kcsburk]

Quote Originally Posted by ALLKHEINZ View Post
his car on flat surface

Perfection!!!

I love the stance on the yellow car. I have only ever been able to get a good rake by using the Ford K Springs. I have not seen any released by FR yet.

 

[ALLKHEINZ]

This one sits PERFECT....and its mine

 

[ridetech_ryan]

I'm curious who makes coilovers for the 2015's?

Our Coilovers will be ready to ship the beginning of August. If you have any questions about them feel free to let me know. You can pm me or shoot me an email [email protected]