When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Looking at photos and vids of the F-Type, it has just too much road clearance and sits too high. Can the ride height be adjusted with any of the wiz-bang technology, or do we have to resort to old school spring swapping? If the latter, has anyone found a properly tuned spring set to lower the car 1-2"?
Ground clearance of the V6 convertible at the lowest point is about 4.75", which is about the same as the C7. R-Coupe does appear to be a little higher. If you're going to use your car as a mostly daily-driver in this area, I wouldn't do it. I have to be careful at OEM height and have already scuffed the lower splitter. It was designed to be flexible because minor impacts were anticipated at that height.
If you want to lower it, you have to do it with springs. There is a thread (several pages back) featuring lowering springs specifically manufactured for the F-Type. They lower the car about .8 inches. Anything more than an 1" would be radical.
BTW, in your OP, that's a picture of a base car on 18" Vela wheels, which don't fill the wheel wells as nicely as the 19" and 20" sizes.
I seem to scrape the lower splitter a lot, so no lowering. But I do like the look of added spacers, will fill the wheel well better and not an unreasonably priced add on.
I rub the air dam on my 1" lowered MINI quite frequently. I just replace it every 4-5 years when it becomes visibly worn down. I might be convinced not to lower the car if the lower splitter on the F-Type has a substantial price tag. The F-Type just looks longer and sleeker when lowered. Probably helps handling a bit too.
I honestly cannot imagine lowering the car as I occassionally scrape the lower bumper/splitter going out of my driveway even when I try to exit at an angle. It is slightly downhill but never an issue in previous cars.
I honestly cannot imagine lowering the car as I occassionally scrape the lower bumper/splitter going out of my driveway even when I try to exit at an angle. It is slightly downhill but never an issue in previous cars.
Over the past 45 years, I've lowered all my cars. Handling at the limits can be significantly improved. Lowering a 3600 pound car just 1 inch reduces the roll torque by 270 ft-lb in a .9g turn. Rubbing plastic dams, spoilers and splitters doesn't bother me since they are easy and inexpensive to replace.
BTW, in your OP, that's a picture of a base car on 18" Vela wheels, which don't fill the wheel wells as nicely as the 19" and 20" sizes.
Of course (& I'm sure you're well aware), while the 19" & 20" *wheels* are larger, the overall diameter of the wheel & tire combos are essentially the same for all size wheels (the 20" are overall 0.3" larger than the stock 18", the 19" is +/- 2mm the same as the 18").
Of course (& I'm sure you're well aware), while the 19" & 20" *wheels* are larger, the overall diameter of the wheel & tire combos are essentially the same for all size wheels (the 20" are overall 0.3" larger than the stock 18", the 19" is +/- 2mm the same as the 18").
I don't think those numbers are entirely accurate. My car came with 18" Velas with Conti's, and I purchased a set of 20" Gyrodynes off an R-Coupe with P-Zeros. I swapped them myself, and I measured both sets of front and back tires off the car side-by-side. It's more like an inch difference between the 18" and 20" wheel/tire combos.
I'd seen those numbers before and expected them to be nearly the same, but they clearly are not.
I don't think those numbers are entirely accurate. My car came with 18" Velas with Conti's, and I purchased a set of 20" Gyrodynes off an R-Coupe with P-Zeros. I swapped them myself, and I measured both sets of front and back tires off the car side-by-side. It's more like an inch difference between the 18" and 20" wheel/tire combos.
I'd seen those numbers before and expected them to be nearly the same, but they clearly are not.
Pretty sure I got them from a Jag source (brochure or something). Odd, an inch difference in diameter is a difference of ~4% of the circumference, which would throw the speedo off correspondingly unless compensated for.
Pretty sure I got them from a Jag source (brochure or something). Odd, an inch difference in diameter is a difference of ~4% of the circumference, which would throw the speedo off correspondingly unless compensated for.
Yes, that's where I seem to recall seeing them. I don't doubt that's what they published, but sometimes those specs aren't entirely accurate.
As I said, I was surprised when I actually measured both sets of mounted wheels/tires in my own garage side-by-side. I did that because the 20s were visibly taller when I had them standing beside the respective front and back 18s.
I was also concerned about the speedo being off, but it doesn't seem to be and corresponds to my GPS-measured speed. I wonder if the speedo is also getting it's input off the GPS system in the car.
I'd seen those numbers before and expected them to be nearly the same, but they clearly are not.
Based on the calculations, mshedden is absolutely correct. However, in the real world it only works if you are comparing different wheel/tire combos using the same tire model. Different tire models/manufactures will vary as a result of the molds used (like womens' dress sizes). A 3-5% variation would be expected and speedometers are generally not that accurate anyway. Here we are comparing a Conti to a Pirelli, so mystery solved.
I have the opposite concern---I think the ground clearance is too low!
I have not purchased yet, but I worry about scraping every time I go pretty much anywhere. Also, there are speed bumps in the neighborhood. I think the Mercedes SL has air shocks to raise it for rough roads. This may be a deal killer for me. Hate that because it is such a wonderful car otherwise.
I have the opposite concern---I think the ground clearance is too low!
I have not purchased yet, but I worry about scraping every time I go pretty much anywhere. Also, there are speed bumps in the neighborhood. I think the Mercedes SL has air shocks to raise it for rough roads. This may be a deal killer for me. Hate that because it is such a wonderful car otherwise.
I haven't had ANY issues with speedbump or inclines. I have a 350Z with Eibach springs that resulted in about a .75 inch drop. The Z scrapes the bottom plastic undercarriage cover on quite a few of the speed bumps where I live, but the Jag doesn't even touch them. If I were to hit a soda can sideways with the Z, I might scrape it. I've already went over a roadkill raccoon which I could not avoid in the Jag and although I was cringing and waiting for the thump... It never touched the coon.
The Rwd has 5.625" clearance. I have read the AWD has even more. Speed bumps, crappy Baltimore city bus rutted intersection have yet to cause any contact with the bottom of my V6S. Might not work for driveways requiring technical climbing gear, but sufficient clearance to cause me to seriously ponder dropping it by 1.2 inches. I won't even mind if the front lower lip rubs. It's cheap and easy to replace. It offers an additional 1+ inch of protection.
I have the opposite concern---I think the ground clearance is too low!
I have not purchased yet, but I worry about scraping every time I go pretty much anywhere. Also, there are speed bumps in the neighborhood. I think the Mercedes SL has air shocks to raise it for rough roads. This may be a deal killer for me. Hate that because it is such a wonderful car otherwise.
The main issue is with the nose of the car. There is a lot of distance between the clearance of the front scoop to the front wheels. Why this is a problem is that it means the the nose of the car can scrape easily before the front wheels are able to grab an incline (i.e. curbs, steep parking garage inclines, heaven forbid the car gets loaded onto a trailer, etc).
For the most part, the stock F-Type is not that low. It's mainly the nose distance which is the cause for scraping concerns.
Ride Height
