View Single Post
Old 10-15-2017, 04:37 PM   #5 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
I'll try... I found out how what appears to be a nice level spot on a concrete slab isn't. By that I mean you can't do before/after lowering measurements from, say, the bumper to the slab and get a decently accurate value; those slabs are wavy. You have to measure from, say, the top of the tire to the fenderwell or some such.

IIRC I lowered it 2" so basically 2 x (tire width in inches x 2) /144 = Af reduction in sq. ft. There may be some additional reduction via the better tucked-in lower control arms too but I haven't looked at that recently.

Incidentally I lowered the car about 14 years ago and kept it that way. It got all new struts at the same time as the cut springs. I did experiment with different front roll bar strengths/thicknesses (I have three of the common ones) and decided to stay with the stock one as I couldn't discern any cornering improvement with the strongest bar but it did induce more ride chop. I installed the softest bar in a 4-door a/t Tempo and 14" wheels (softer bar than stock and larger tires than stock) and that one rides like a Cadillac.

P.S. The new struts were stock-type replacements. They've held up and work just fine.
__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 10-17-2017 at 10:35 AM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
aerohead (10-21-2017)