XK8 / XKR ( X100 ) 1996 - 2006

xkr suspension modification

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 11:04 AM
  #1  
dr_jekyll's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 50
Likes: 3
From: cardiff
Default xkr suspension modification

hi all ,

im thinking of lower the rear of my 2002 xkr a little by fitting shorter springs while i have the rear axle out as im changing my diff.

the car is fitted with the active damping system an im wondering if lowing it will have any advers effects because of this. all help apricated. thanks
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 11:14 AM
  #2  
Paul Pavlik's Avatar
Veteran Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 434
From: Milwaukee, WI
Default

Originally Posted by dr_jekyll
hi all ,

im thinking of lower the rear of my 2002 xkr a little by fitting shorter springs while i have the rear axle out as im changing my diff.

the car is fitted with the active damping system an im wondering if lowing it will have any advers effects because of this. all help apricated. thanks
The CATS System does not affect the Ride Height with Standard or Lowering Springs.

I Installed Mina Lowering Springs in my car with excellent results:

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...omplete-54377/
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 11:21 AM
  #3  
dr_jekyll's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 50
Likes: 3
From: cardiff
Default

thats exactly what im going for. thanks mate
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 01:06 PM
  #4  
GGG's Avatar
GGG
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 120,439
Likes: 17,001
From: Durham, UK
Default

Originally Posted by Paul Pavlik
The CATS System does not affect the Ride Height with Standard or Lowering Springs.

I Installed Mina Lowering Springs in my car with excellent results:

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...omplete-54377/
Paul,

Before I go any further - no criticism implied here, just seeking information on something I don't understand.

The ride height of the XK8 is already low:

1. why would you want to lower it?
2. rear only or both front and rear?
3. excellent results - what's the improvement?

I'm assuming 'Lowering Springs' reduce the ground clearance which may not be the case.

Graham
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 02:52 PM
  #5  
Paul Pavlik's Avatar
Veteran Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 434
From: Milwaukee, WI
Default

Originally Posted by GGG
Paul,

Before I go any further - no criticism implied here, just seeking information on something I don't understand.

The ride height of the XK8 is already low:

1. why would you want to lower it?
2. rear only or both front and rear?
3. excellent results - what's the improvement?

I'm assuming 'Lowering Springs' reduce the ground clearance which may not be the case.

Graham
1. Actually the Ride Height (at least of US Cars) is NOT Low, as seen in the "Before" pic of my car.

2. Rear only. The Front (at least in my car) was Fine with the Standard Springs.

3. Improvement: The Appearance!!

The Ground Clearance is reduced only slightly.

Of course, it now uses more gas since it's not going "Down Hill" all the time.
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 04:50 PM
  #6  
XKRacer's Avatar
Veteran Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,255
Likes: 584
From: UK
Default

Originally Posted by GGG
The ride height of the XK8 is already low:
If you are saying this because your XK already seems low then I would think it has already been lowered or you have a problem with your suspension, the XK always looks like it is up on stilts
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 05:49 PM
  #7  
GGG's Avatar
GGG
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 120,439
Likes: 17,001
From: Durham, UK
Default

Originally Posted by Paul Pavlik
1. Actually the Ride Height (at least of US Cars) is NOT Low, as seen in the "Before" pic of my car.

2. Rear only. The Front (at least in my car) was Fine with the Standard Springs.

3. Improvement: The Appearance!!

The Ground Clearance is reduced only slightly.

Of course, it now uses more gas since it's not going "Down Hill" all the time.
Paul,

Now I get it. The tyre radius outer edge has an even and smaller gap to the wheelarch. The whole car sits more level on the ground instead of appearing to be up at the back.

Had my 2001 XK8 for five years and never noticed that

Thanks,
Graham
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 05:52 PM
  #8  
GGG's Avatar
GGG
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 120,439
Likes: 17,001
From: Durham, UK
Default

Originally Posted by XKRacer
If you are saying this because your XK already seems low then I would think it has already been lowered or you have a problem with your suspension, the XK always looks like it is up on stilts
No - I'm saying it because I hadn't noticed!

Graham
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 06:14 PM
  #9  
Skid Mark's Avatar
Veteran Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 29
From: Mid Atlantis
Default

One unexpected benefit I enjoyed after lowering just the rear was that the front seemed to rise just a touch (at least to the eye), so that it looked balanced with the rear in a way that I didn't expect. Before it had always looked scrunched down a bit, maybe the new upper shock mounts contributed as well, but it seemed to happen after the new springs were installed. Better weight distribution?
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 06:37 PM
  #10  
GGG's Avatar
GGG
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 120,439
Likes: 17,001
From: Durham, UK
Default

Originally Posted by Skid Mark
One unexpected benefit I enjoyed after lowering just the rear was that the front seemed to rise just a touch (at least to the eye), so that it looked balanced with the rear in a way that I didn't expect. Before it had always looked scrunched down a bit, maybe the new upper shock mounts contributed as well, but it seemed to happen after the new springs were installed. Better weight distribution?
More like weight loss - you've just cut two great big holes in the bonnet

I'll try to redeem myself from my dreadful ignorance on the benefits of Lowering Springs.

If you jack the rear of the car up, the front undertray gets a lot closer to the ground so if you lower the rear, the front is going to rise.

I'm fascinated with comparing the 'before' and 'after' photos of Paul's car and it definitely looks to be slightly higher at the front in the 'after' photo.

Graham
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 07:31 PM
  #11  
Skid Mark's Avatar
Veteran Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 29
From: Mid Atlantis
Default

That 'splains it then!
 
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 07:40 PM
  #12  
Paul Pavlik's Avatar
Veteran Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 434
From: Milwaukee, WI
Default

Originally Posted by GGG
I'm fascinated with comparing the 'before' and 'after' photos of Paul's car and it definitely looks to be slightly higher at the front in the 'after' photo.

Graham
It's actually not higher at the Front.

The Clearance between the Tire and the Wheel Arch IS greater at the Front.

However, the Front Tires have a slightly smaller diameter than the Rears. (245/45 Front vs 255/45 Rear)

The Rear Wheel Arch is actually 1/4" Higher off the Ground than the Front Arch.
 

Last edited by Paul Pavlik; Jan 29, 2012 at 09:16 AM. Reason: corrected tire sizes!
Reply
Old Jan 28, 2012 | 08:09 PM
  #13  
dr_jekyll's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 50
Likes: 3
From: cardiff
Default

the front is fine for my im running the detriots on 255/35/20s so the arch gap at the fron is minimal but the rear looks very jacked up on stock springs and makes the massive wheel look a bit lost in the arch so it could do with dropping 30mm
 
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
scooternva
XJ XJ6 / XJ8 / XJR ( X350 & X358 )
29
Mar 25, 2025 12:45 PM
GordoCatCar
XK8 / XKR ( X100 )
4
Jan 2, 2017 01:10 PM
JagBrian
F-Type ( X152 )
8
Sep 21, 2015 07:17 PM
Guy-Pierre Boucher
XJ XJ6 / XJ8 / XJR ( X350 & X358 )
7
Sep 16, 2015 05:55 PM
obwoodie
New Member Area - Intro a MUST
8
Sep 3, 2015 07:45 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 AM.