Ride height with QA-1's
Thread Starter
Burning Brakes
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta Ga
Ride height with QA-1's
I added QA-1's to my '89 coupe for autox. They held quite a bit I run them at 10/6 f/r for event and back everything off for the street. The one thing I notice is that the overall ride height seem to be higher than before??? Ican't give any specific data as I didn't measure before and after but I would guess it changed by maybe 1/4" or better.
This may not sound like much but in trying to compete in SCCA AS class I need to keep every advantage I can. I already can't lower the car by the normal mean and don't want the car going in the other direction.
Anyone else using the QA-1's notice this? Any thoughts on the ride height that wouldn't push me out of SCCA A-Stock
This may not sound like much but in trying to compete in SCCA AS class I need to keep every advantage I can. I already can't lower the car by the normal mean and don't want the car going in the other direction.
Anyone else using the QA-1's notice this? Any thoughts on the ride height that wouldn't push me out of SCCA A-Stock
Melting Slicks
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,238
Likes: 4
From: Milan
Please read all this thread..
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...6&page=1&pp=20
Hope this helps
-Beppe-
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...6&page=1&pp=20
Hope this helps
-Beppe-
Thread Starter
Burning Brakes
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta Ga
Conv90, the coil overs look great but I can't go to that setup or I'm out of SCCA A-Stock and into a Street Mod class.
I'm just looking at what can be done with what I have to maybe reduce the height a fraction, I'd take anything even 1/16th. Lowering my CG can only help my cornering capabilitites.
I'm just looking at what can be done with what I have to maybe reduce the height a fraction, I'd take anything even 1/16th. Lowering my CG can only help my cornering capabilitites.
Race Director
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 13,348
Likes: 233
From: SCMR Rat Pack'r Charter Member..Great Bend KS
Originally Posted by Dolfan
I didn't measure before and after but I would guess it changed by maybe 1/4" or better.
That said, just changing damping settings should not change ride height.
Take some accurate measurements, change the settings, drive the car, then take another set of measurements. I'm betting you have nothing to worry about.
BTW, the link to the other thread didn't shed any light on this particular question.
Larry
code5coupe
Thread Starter
Burning Brakes
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta Ga
Rocco16 I agree it's tought to guage a small change but several people who know my car have commented that it was a bit high before but now looks higher since the shock change. I wish I have measured before the shock change.
My car also does not have the RPO for Z51 which those spring rate might affet this, but don't have it according to RPO.
My car also does not have the RPO for Z51 which those spring rate might affet this, but don't have it according to RPO.
Drifting
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 4
From: Frostburg MD
I think my '89 with base springs and QA1 shocks sits high too, but it has always done that, even before I put the shocks on. It measures about 6 1/2" under the frame jacking points front and rear. Keep us posted if you find a legal way to lower the front of these cars.
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 10,864
Likes: 196
From: Southern CA
The only legal way I've heard of for scca as is to replace the pads in the front with some really beat down squished down old pads from a 200000 mile Vette. You "might" get 1/8 inch. Doubt it'll be worth it.
No legal way to change the rear. The FSM specifies the placement of the shims etc.
I have qa1's and measured a very slight lowering over the high pressue gas charged Bilsteins. Maybe 1/8 or 1/16 lower, almost impossible to be sure.
As you know, the qa1's are NOT high pressure charged, they are twin tube design (with a gas bag I think?)
I'm very happy with the f&r adjustability of the qa's as I drive to/from the events.
No legal way to change the rear. The FSM specifies the placement of the shims etc.
I have qa1's and measured a very slight lowering over the high pressue gas charged Bilsteins. Maybe 1/8 or 1/16 lower, almost impossible to be sure.
As you know, the qa1's are NOT high pressure charged, they are twin tube design (with a gas bag I think?)
I'm very happy with the f&r adjustability of the qa's as I drive to/from the events.
Thread Starter
Burning Brakes
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta Ga
Froggy, I wonder if it is the difference in spring rates on our cars. As I remember 89-90 had very agressive, stiff springs. I think Chevy reduced the spring rates as they continued the C4 so maybe that is more the reason for the height. Like I said we thought the height was a bit high before putting the shocks on.
Looks like I won't be able to do anything here. Just looking for whatever edge I can get.
Looks like I won't be able to do anything here. Just looking for whatever edge I can get.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 10,864
Likes: 196
From: Southern CA
Originally Posted by Dolfan
Froggy, I wonder if it is the difference in spring rates on our cars. As I remember 89-90 had very agressive, stiff springs. I think Chevy reduced the spring rates as they continued the C4 so maybe that is more the reason for the height. Like I said we thought the height was a bit high before putting the shocks on.
Looks like I won't be able to do anything here. Just looking for whatever edge I can get.
Looks like I won't be able to do anything here. Just looking for whatever edge I can get.
Yes the spring rates in general were softened every newer year, I'm not sure that translates directly into ride height differences, could be, I'm not a suspension pro.
My front is generally considered pretty low (stock) but rear is high as I had to replace the rear spring due to delamination. I'd like to get my rear down 1/2 to 3/4 inch also, but those darn rules
I did go down in aspect ration on tires f & r (allowed) so my "gap" from tire to fender looks a little bigger, but I think I got a little lower that way.
