Can I lower the front of my Mondial?

I'd leave it alone. You have an adjustable suspension and the car sits low enough and handles well.

 

I put 360 wheels and 348 adjustable shocks on mine. The frame is 5 inches off so I have to lift up to put the blocks on the pads when putting it on the lift. I could go lower but only if I drove exclusively on the Bonneville salt flats. Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Do you have your spare inside the car ?Normaly with the spare the car sits lower...
Guido

 

Mine sat high like that in the front, hated how it looked. I didn't have adjustable OEM shock bodies so I put together my own set of coilovers and lowered the front. The fender gap is even all around now and looks fantastic!

 

What brand/make of coils/shocks did you use up front? I'm looking to do the same thing. The car looks like a Jeep with that spacey gap around the front wheel! LOL

 

What brand/make of coils/shocks did you use up front? I'm looking to do the same thing. The car looks like a Jeep with that spacey gap around the front wheel! LOL

 

That ridiculous....its just the spare that will take the shock...with the spare in place the car will be lower in front.
Guido

 

Not for the suspension itself, but for its geometry. It will lower the static roll centre and result in an increased front roll moment.

Since the body and chassis with the suspension attachments are a unit, yes. That's why the correct ground clearances are given in the workshop manual. They assure the intended suspension geometry.

 

And since the ground clearance in the front is reduced, the available bump travel is reduced by the same amount.
To stop the car from hitting the bump stops earlier you would have to increase the spring rate to compensate.
You want to end up in the bump stops at the same vertical load as previously.

 

AKA leave it alone

 

.... I would... Of course you can always find another compromise which may suit you better personally, but I suspect it's pretty hard to improve on the original overall compromise without getting into some serious re-engineering and using newer tech.
I don't think that is the point of owning a classic car. But to each his own. It's only a car But since Jerry asked... I thought I share my ideas.
By the way, the t's adjustable dampers are grand!

 

348?

 

348 wheels are 17"

front rim 7.5Jx17 ET=49.00
rear rim 9Jx17 ET=68.05

 

So do I

 

afterburner,
but also the center of gravity is lowered at the front of the car, vertically following the static roll center as well. So how much impact would a 1.5" lowering of the front springs/shock system affect the roll stability? I would bet not too much. I would believe it would help the car handle better being a little lower to the ground with a lower CG. I'm not an automotive engineer, but I beg a more detailed explanation of how this affects the handling of the car?
Vince

 

I was just thinking of other possibilities to lower the front of the car ...

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Hi Vince

To answer that question we need to know the Mondial's CG height. I have the other relevant data.
Does anyone know?
Or, would anyone with axle scales or access to a vehicle scale be willing to provide front wheel weights with the car level, then jack the car up in the back 200mm at the rear wheel centres and provide another set of front wheel weights? And provide the corresponding total weight of the vehicle. Not the paper data, actual measurements.

 

Hi Vince

Here is what happens when you drop the front 1.5". I drew the geometry and put the findings into my Exel to get some data. Not much changes:
Basic assumption is a CG height of 475mm and gross weight of the Euro QV:

1) with an identical lower wishbone, you loose 9mm of track
2) to keep identical camber, you need to lengthen the upper A-arm by 1/2"
3) same re the track rod, plus accentuated bump steer as a result of heavily inclined rods
4) the roll centre drops from 59mm down to 13mm (I haven't looked at the roll centre movements of either case)
5) the overall CG height is reduced by 17mm
6) at 0.81g lat acceleration (R&T skidpad result), the resulting roll angle remains at 4.3°
7) the sprung weight roll arm increases by 1mm, the front one is reduced by 1mm and rear one increases by 4mm (the mass centroid axis changes)
8) as a result, the total roll stiffness decreases by 1%, - 1% in the front and in the rear it stays identical (lower CG plays here)
9) the decreased front roll stiffness will shift the cars balance from where it is now toward less understeer - not by a significant margin though

Basically the benefits of the lower CG are negated by the longer roll arms and narrower track.
Remains the missing ground clearance issue and bump steer that you might start to feel as you are essentially driving your car with the wheels permanently in a bump position.