• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Suspension Stock ride height

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rdub6
  • Start date Start date Apr 3, 2019

Rdub6

So while I wait to figure out my rear end issues
5 Year Member
Dec 29, 2017
3,953
2,932
153
Long Island, NY
Apr 3, 2019
#1
  • Apr 3, 2019
  • #1
From floor to top of fender, what is stock ride height spec? I’m at 28” in the front and 27” in rear right now, and I’ve got to get rid of the sag. As far as I know, the car has stock, original springs.
 

fun331

5 Year Member
Jul 14, 2018
101
43
38
East Coast of Canada
Apr 4, 2019
#2
  • Apr 4, 2019
  • #2
Sorry I don't know the stock ride height. I do know it's too tall. It's that way so you can put chains on your tires and drive to Alaska. Who runs tire chains anymore, but that's supposed to be the reason they're so high. I used Mac progressive rate springs about 15 years ago and they're still in there. Had to put in new isolators last summer as she got droopy on the driver's side. There is a notch in the bottom spring perch that takes the end of the spring but they don't have to go in it as far as I can tell. That lets me rotate my rear spring, which moves that last lower link, which gives me a little adjustability in my rear suspension height. You're supposed to get into front end geometry problems like bump-steer if you drop the car too much, especially in the front. I always read that 1.5 inches was max for a street car and that's what I used. If you don't want to spend the money on new springs and you have the time and inclination I'd get a set of poly isolators and put them in. It really brought my car up in the back. If that's not enough you'll see that by rotating the spring you should be able to get a bit more height out of them. Careful though. Factory springs are longer than aftermarket and can kill you or other people if you pry them out. My Macs are short enough not to need a compressor
 

Rdub6

So while I wait to figure out my rear end issues
5 Year Member
Dec 29, 2017
3,953
2,932
153
Long Island, NY
Apr 4, 2019
#3
  • Apr 4, 2019
  • #3
I guess I did say “get rid of the sag” but I really want the front to come down. The 27” looks about right for stock. The 28” looks too high, which is why I’m wondering if there was a Ford spec for this measurement.
 

STEVE PATTON

I smell a conspiracy
Jan 6, 2019
201
89
53
ohio
Apr 4, 2019
#4
  • Apr 4, 2019
  • #4
according to CHEK-CHART alignment specs 7-5/8 " from frame rail to floor just behind front wheel.And 6-11/16" rail to floor just in front of rear wheel
 

Rdub6

So while I wait to figure out my rear end issues
5 Year Member
Dec 29, 2017
3,953
2,932
153
Long Island, NY
Apr 4, 2019
#5
  • Apr 4, 2019
  • #5
STEVE PATTON said:
according to CHEK-CHART alignment specs 7-5/8 " from frame rail to floor just behind front wheel.And 6-11/16" rail to floor just in front of rear wheel
Click to expand...

Thanks Steve. I’m going to check those measurements and see what I come up with. I found this on American Muscle also, but these numbers are lower than what I would’ve expected for stock.
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,217
17,900
224
Massachusetts
Apr 4, 2019
#6
  • Apr 4, 2019
  • #6
I have a ford engineering spec sheet on my Work laptop. If I can remember tomorrow I'll take a peek.

A couple of years ago a member here posted them up
 
Reactions: Rdub6

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,217
17,900
224
Massachusetts
Apr 5, 2019
#7
  • Apr 5, 2019
  • #7
Its for an '89, but should carry over for most models in the 87-93 range
 

Attachments

  • 1989_-_FORD_-_Mustang_-_LX_-_GT.pdf
    1989_-_FORD_-_Mustang_-_LX_-_GT.pdf
    1,022 KB · Views: 877

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,217
17,900
224
Massachusetts
Apr 5, 2019
#8
  • Apr 5, 2019
  • #8
Page 32



 
D

DSB88GT

Active Member
Nov 6, 2016
175
37
38
Apr 5, 2019
#9
  • Apr 5, 2019
  • #9
If I'm reading these numbers correctly, the car is going to have a natural downward slope from the front to the rear??
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,217
17,900
224
Massachusetts
Apr 5, 2019
#10
  • Apr 5, 2019
  • #10
I read the same thing. Rear rocker is 1" closer to the ground than the front
 

Rdub6

So while I wait to figure out my rear end issues
5 Year Member
Dec 29, 2017
3,953
2,932
153
Long Island, NY
Apr 5, 2019
#11
  • Apr 5, 2019
  • #11
Hard to believe the “sag” was as designed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Suspension Harsh Ride
  • PonyGTrider
  • Mar 20, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Apr 11, 2026
Noobz347
Tightening upper control arm bushings at ride height dilemma… need some help
  • AnthonyA1234
  • Dec 27, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Feb 27, 2025
General karthief
R
Front suspension upgrade going on one of our 64/5-68 Mustangs
  • Restomotive
  • Apr 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
114
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Apr 24, 2026
Restomotive
R
O
Good all around perfornace-ish tires?
  • optionizerSS
  • Jan 25, 2026
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
291
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk- Jun 15, 2026
TPony
B
Front control arms
  • Bronco Bart
  • Dec 28, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
16
Views
693
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 22, 2025
limp
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?