Skip to main content

Pretty much got my Speedster on the road now and just love the ride and the wind in my face.

Next project would be to lower it a bit as it sits way higher than most I have seen (photos under Heirloom). Front does not seem too bad but looks high due to the 50 series tires. The back, although mean looking is too high for my tastes. It is on a 1969 pan and I am not that familair with these things to even know what suspension I have now .

Any suggestions for lowering the car.....drop spindles, adjusters, etc....?

Thanks,
Tony
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Pretty much got my Speedster on the road now and just love the ride and the wind in my face.

Next project would be to lower it a bit as it sits way higher than most I have seen (photos under Heirloom). Front does not seem too bad but looks high due to the 50 series tires. The back, although mean looking is too high for my tastes. It is on a 1969 pan and I am not that familair with these things to even know what suspension I have now .

Any suggestions for lowering the car.....drop spindles, adjusters, etc....?

Thanks,
Tony
Lower it some, but remember, the rear is where the motor is. I've got a pair of flareds, and picked them both back up because I kept banging the 1.5 qt sumps. Look at the Cal-Look cars. Notice how they are all a little taller in the rear? There's a reason, function over form.
Don't confuse ground clearance (the chassis) with how low the body sits on the chassis (how the wheels/tires sit in the wheel wells). Chassis clearance can be altered up or down. How the body sits on the frame is fixed (at least by my measure of money, time and ability). Tube frame chassis will be different than pan based chassis. I'm guessing this is a holdover from years ago when tires were skinnier and taller and the "stance" was different. Personally, I love to "channel" my body down another inch or two over my pan chassis. Realistically, it ain't likely to happen.
Post Content
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×