ideal ride height for best handling? is lower always better?

Yes and no. If you are so low that it keeps your suspension from fully articulating [working] then yes, you can be too low. However, keep in mind that a lower car has a lower center of gravity and that's the advantage that lowering gives you.

There's a whole lot more to this. I just wanted to get the ball rolling.

too much to factor in...I drove lowered cars for 8 years..too low is bad for daily drivin. I prefer to keep my 95 stock height..even though when I see a lowered sn95 im like thats nice..but then I remember how I used to be scared of potholes,speed bumps and dragging my exhaust on previous cars.

So here what Id factor in. If you drive on really rough roads..or hwy ways where a lot of semi trucks sit in traffic. Then stock hegiht is good...as long as your not a super agressive driver.

Going so low you hit bump stops and have your tires rubbing is bad and dangerous...lowering cost money to do it right.

If you're talking about true racing on a racetrack, where there are no pot holes or curbs to drive up on, then the lower the better as long as the car isn't bottoming out when it hits bumps. The lowest you can make the center of gravity then the better cornering characteristics you'll have. The only side effect is that the lower the car gets, the less travel the suspension can have which will eventually result in a very stiff suspension which will make the tires lose grip faster, but that can be overcome with race tires to a certain point. On the street you don't have the same grip even if you run the best street tires, and you're going to need more suspension travel to compensate for the ever changing grip levels you find in the real world.

Some situations like drag racing and offroading require a more soft suspension to allow for extreme changes in suspension travel...which is why most cars that are set up for road racing don't hook very well at the drag strip, because the car isn't allowed to transfer weight to the back tires as much and they lose grip quicker. It boils down to the surface you'll be driving on and how much grip you can have. In a perfect world on the absolute smoothest race track where there are no bumps or sudden changes in surface level, then a very stiff and very low suspension with extremely grippy tires is the best combination....such as F1 or even professional gocart racing where there is little to no suspension travel at all.

So...to sum that up, on a car that gets driven on the street you have to compromise and allow the suspension more travel than you would need for strictly road racing, which is a compromise directly to cornering ability since your center of gravity will be higher. Things like tire to fender clearance don't matter on a race only car because 1) you'll just roll the hell out of the fenders if you have to, and 2) there isn't enough suspension travel to worry about it because the terrain doesn't require it, and as such the suspension can be made stiffer and lower.

Lower does not always mean better.

Setting it up the right way is better.

in the strictest sense of the phrase "best handling", i deally youd have your center of gravity in the same plane as your 4 contact pastches. This would leave you no body roll whatsoever (because the CG has no lever arm about the contact patches, meaning it cannot cause a moment). I suppose it could be argued that you should have the CG lower than the plane of the contact patches, so that the car leans in instead of out, but thats also never going to happen

In the real world, its the same as everyone above has said. If you dd the thing, leave it stock or near stock. if not, go as low as youre comfortable with

Also note that there is an extreme difference between "best ride quality" and "best handling".

A lower car also has better aero dynamic because less air is getting under the car, thereby allowing less lift and requiring less down force to stay on the road at higher speeds.

BlooDReigN said:

A lower car also has better aero dynamic because less air is getting under the car, thereby allowing less lift and requiring less down force to stay on the road at higher speeds.

Click to expand...

There's a fine line there....a car that's too low will get more downforce and downforce creates drag and drag slows you down or at least prevents you from reaching maximum top speed. A car that's aerodynamic, like say any Ferrari, will actually have a faster top speed if it's raised up off the ground to allow air to go under it. Lift is going to hurt traction and too much will create the same drag as downforce...only in the opposite direction. A car that's at just the right height to slice through the air and find that balance between downforce and lift will get the fastest top speed, but at the sacrifice of traction at higher speeds. So, you might be able to go 200mph but don't expect to be able to turn.

jmd2914 said:

so as far as fox bodies go, if ride quality isnt a concern, you want to be as low as possible to allow full articuation of the suspension?

Click to expand...

Well, no. The lower you get, the LESS travel your suspension is physically capable of having, because the tires just hit the wheel wells. To prevent that you need stiff springs and shocks, which in most cases means you're gonna hurt ride quality (the soft cushy ride). On a street car you can go so low that it takes away so much suspension travel that it will hurt traction on uneven surfaces because the suspension is too stiff to allow it to move with the curves of the road. A racecar can be 2 inches off the pavement because the surface is perfect. A car that that drives on the street has to find a balance to where it's as low as you can get it without having to stiffen up the suspension to the point of bottoming out. Also without race tires a stiff suspension is going to show less traction. A good example of this is a Drift car, which has a very stiff suspension so that it has little to no body roll and the tires can break loose easy.


Another thing to think about as far as building a car that can handle, is that the lower you go the less room you have for tires. You might get away with slamming a car down, but if you can't fit tires in the wells then you're not accomplishing anything. I have a friend who auto crosses a Merkur, and he's actually RAISED his car quite a bit from the stock ride height, because he runs 275/17 slicks front and back. It has to sit higher for tire clearance. To compensate, he has a super stiff suspension, but having race tires keeps him from breaking loose from being so stiff. He does suffer from a high center of gravity though....sometimes you're going to have to compromise somewhere. His car is ridiculous on the track though which just goes to show that while a low COG is important, it's not everything.


I guess if i had to sum up all this ranting, i'd say No, lower is not always better...BUT lower than stock is absolutely better than staying stock. How much depends on all that other crap.