How high does your Z sit with various suspension combos

[Arne]

Carl, some clarification please on your figures for stock height of a 240Z.

Earlier in this thread, you state:

If you measure from the bottom of the rocker-panel, where the half circle is cut out to indicate the front jacking point - you should have 8.5 inches. At the back of the rocker-panel, measured where the dog-leg meets the rocker - you should have 8.5 inches.

However, in the old thread Tokico HP - Z is 2 inches taller you state:

BTW - measured from the garage floor - to the bottom of the rocker panel, at the front and rear jacking points - a stock 240-Z sits about 7 3/4 to 8 inches high (the 73's actually sit a bit higher than the earlier cars do to the headlight height standards and bumper height standards for that year). Bottom of the rocker panel - means just that - NOT to the pinch weld that sticks down farther...

My personal experience with my low-miles red '71 supported the second number. With factory stock springs and non-gas shocks, it sat right at 7 7/8" to 8" at the jack points. Now I see this 8 1/2" number and I wonder where that came from, or why the change?

[beandip]

I just returned from buying a new set of tires and now my measurements , which have changed from before , are now 26''at the front fender lip to ground and 25 3/4'' at the rear. So these new Toyo 205/70 14s raised the car 1/2 '' . from the 195s . the rear came up 3/4'' because the old tires were worn down to the wear indicators . The car seems to be quieter , I haven't had a chance to drive it much as yet. Gary:rambo:

[240ZX]

On my 1970, with 1 1/2" sectioned struts, coilovers, 200 lbs. springs front with 1" sway bar, 275 lbs. rear springs with no sway bar, 215-40 x 17 (f), 235-40 x 17 ®, I have, from the ground up to the edge of the wheel opening......front 23 9/16" and the rear is 23 13/16" . So as you can imagine, I have to pay very close attention to stuff in the roadway as well as going up driveways (front spoiler). I have just under 4" of clearance at the front frame rails. Is this low enough for everyone??? Do I like the ride???? Absolutely, I didn't build the Z to be a freeway cruiser but, to have a bunch of fun on the twisty back roads around SoCal.

Tom

[jmortensen]

Absolutely, I didn't build the Z to be a freeway cruiser but, to have a bunch of fun on the twisty back roads around SoCal.

Hwy 23 all the way to the beach!!! Then again, I always used to get stuck behind a big arse truck going up Grimes Canyon. That and the margin for error on the latter half of 23 is pretty much nil... it can be a tough climb out from the bottom of some of those canyons when you make a mistake.

[bpilati]

Just for the record, yalls Z's are screwed up and mine is perfect.

[240ZX]

Hwy 23 all the way to the beach!!! Then again, I always used to get stuck behind a big arse truck going up Grimes Canyon. That and the margin for error on the latter half of 23 is pretty much nil... it can be a tough climb out from the bottom of some of those canyons when you make a mistake.

Jon, The being stuck behind a big arse truck, or any vehicle for that matter, seems to always be the case.....hmmmmmmm, wonder why that happens so often??? Regarding the margin for error on these back roads, it's usually always nil....this is what keeps me from taking any unnecessary risks. I've thought about trying a little autoX but, I fear I will love it......and that's just what I need, another expensive habit to supportROFL!!!

Tom

[fixitman]

I am restoring an early '74 260Z with Stage 1 European springs, part nos. 54010-N3500 & 55020-N3501, and Bilstein shocks purchased in the early 80's. As you can see in the attached photo, the ride height is rather high. Granted, the bumpers, exhaust, interior and spare tire still need to be installed but the ride height still seems excessive. Will the ride height decrease with more weight and use?

Thanks,

FixItMan

[fixitman]

HI Steve (everyone)

As per the earlier discussions on this subject - it would appear that the most common high pressure gas shocks - will in effect raise the rid height of a 240-Z between 1/2 to 3/4 inches.

We had both the OEM US Spec. Springs and the Euro Spec. Stage I springs reproduced this past year, with the help of Courtesy Nissan.

When people started reporting that their 240-Z's were sitting noticeably higher after installing the springs with new shocks... I had both the reproduction OEM U.S. Spec. and Euro Spec. springs measured for spring rate and free length by a professional racing shop (because they had the proper equipment to do it).... they were exactly the same as the NOS Nissan Springs used as the models.

That same shop reported that when they measured the gas pressure shocks - they found that the shocks off loaded "about " 100 lbs from the springs. (I'd have to go back and look up the exact amounts). Just how long the newer gas pressure shocks will hold that rate, once they are in use is still to be determined.

A couple of the people that have installed the Euro Spec Springs, simply cut a coil and half off them prior to installation - and they report that that the ride height of their Z's came out close to stock. The ride and handling were much improved. (of course you'd expect that with new springs and shocks compared to 30+ year old units).

The set up's on my cars - are all older design spec.'s - and no longer available today. I have Bilstein Gas Shocks on my Blue 72 - I installed them around 1975 and they are still the best shocks I've ever had on 240-Z, that was used for both street and track.

On the White 72 that I use mostly for longer road trips (GT use) - I have stock springs and the older gas pressure KYB's from about three years ago. They provide a nice "stock" feel. This car only has about 73K miles on it now - rides/drives like a new 240-Z. The older KYB's didn't see to have the "lift effect" that the newer one's do.

Of course the BRE Baja Z had the Nissan Competition adjustable coil-overs, with gas pressure shocks. It sits about 2 1/2 inches higher than stock, and can be lowered to about 1/2 lower than stock.

I think that today - if I were looking for a performance oriented setup for use both on the street and track.... I'd go with adjustable coil-overs. They offer the advantages of having many different spring rates available, adjustable ride height and more clearance for wider wheels/tires. The disadvantage is of course cost and the amount of work required.

It would seem that our selection of more or less "stock" shock replacements is very limited at this point. But the Euro Spec. Springs do offer a bit firmer ride/handling, without being "bone jarring" - if that's what you want. Cutting a coil and half off their free length prior to installation with the newer higher gas pressure shocks is reported to be a pretty good compromise all things considered.

FWIW,

Carl B.

Carl Beck

Clearwater, FL USA

http://ZHome.com

Which springs do you have on the Blue '72? And did you have to cut down the springs?

Thanks,

FixItMan

[Carl Beck]

Stock Spring on the Blue 72. Larger front anti-sway bar, plus added the rear anti-sway bar (BRE). The car is very neutral and corners pretty flat... overall very nice for a street car that was used a few weekends for track events and auto-X's..

I sure wish Bilstein still produced the same shocks... they were expensive at the time, but well worth the 3x to 4x price over their competition.

FWIW,

Carl B.

[bpilati]

So how does the car sit, Carl? Is the height correct?

[Carl Beck]

With 70 series tires the Blue Z sits about 3/8" lower than the OEM spec.'s would indicate -

26" at the front wheel arch - and 25 1/4" at the rear wheel arch.

FWIW,

Carl B.

[fixitman]

With 70 series tires the Blue Z sits about 3/8" lower than the OEM spec.'s would indicate -

26" at the front wheel arch - and 25 1/4" at the rear wheel arch.

FWIW,

Carl B.

Can I conclude that Bilsteins do not cause an increase in ride height but European springs do?

Thanks,

Fixitman