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.
just wondering i am getting ready to have my 99 coupe lowered at the chevy dealer buy a corvette tech and he says i should not go lower than a half in or i will start to run into some issues,i just bought a kit from a forum member and tuesday i am going to have this done but just want to be safe about it i am thinking at least a inch but a half inch would you be able to tell,maybe i am wrong a inch maybe to much any and all info would be great thank you!!JOHN
Mine is lowered 1.75" all the way around and the only problem I have is speed bumps and I have to go in driveways or just about any entrance at an angle.
Do you have F45? If you do, the suspension will see that the car is riding lower than normal and stiffen up the shocks.
Even if you do, I think the biggest concern would be ground clearance. Do you go over any speedbumps? Do you go up steep drives?
You may find yourself bottoming out.
I would think you would also run the risk of tires rubbing. There is probably a bump stop but I have watched my rear tires in the mirror (while being a passenger) and they travel a lot more than you think. If you go too low you may find yourself "hitting bottom".
I know some people like to lower the rear to make it more level. I have read many articles where some rake (front lower than the rear) increases stability at high speed. I am of the opinion that some very knowledgeable people designed the Corvette the way they did for a reason. I know some of it they had emissions and capability to operate in various climates in mind. I think things like rake are there for a reason.
Just my opinion.
For what it is worth, I like cars with the tires a little higher in the wheelwell. But in real world situations, I can stand my Vette to ride a little higher and not drag bodywork.
Just my opinion.
But in real world situations, I can stand my Vette to ride a little higher and not drag bodywork.
It's low enough already...I would drive it the way GM designed it without messing with the suspension geometry and worrying about dragging on everything taller than a beer can laying down.
Depends on the condition of the roads in your area. Stock ride height seems almost to low around here. I have to angle the car into lots of businesses and scrape in driveways. I'm still planning on lowering mine about an inch and a half in the back and an inch in the front because I like the lowered look and I'm stewped.
Wow, I'm surprised to see so many that are content with the stock height. GM didn't design the cars to sit as high as they do. If that were so, they would have lowered the fender openings so that they're closer to the tires, which would have given a true sports car look, as opposed to the 4x4 look that stock height is. Stock Vettes ride high to comply with gov regs and GM supplied us adjusting bolts, so that the purchaser can go ahead and put the car at the height that it was designed for. Of course, that may mean you'll need new shocks and have to be super careful on irregular roads and driveways, but having the look that GM intended (a true "sporty" look) is worth the price of admission.
It's low enough already...I would drive it the way GM designed it without messing with the suspension geometry and worrying about dragging on everything taller than a beer can laying down.
Mines at stock height and I have problems with driveways, speed bumps or sometimes a decent dip in the road will make it scrape bottom. I don't know how you guys get away with lowering the car by much.
It's low enough already...I would drive it the way GM designed it without messing with the suspension geometry and worrying about dragging on everything taller than a beer can laying down.
to all of you guys that took the time to respond to my question thanks alot!one more question?do you think by lowering my car an inch i would have any trouble with my tires rubbing?thanks again!! JOHN...