Hey guys, I have a 2017 GT350, all stock suspension. The rear sits at 28 5/8" from ground to fender and the front sits at 28" from ground to fender.

Everywhere that I have seen people post stock ride height it is always pretty much even. Mine is 5/8 inches off. I want to install Eibach springs but I'm concerned that the height difference will remain, and actually be worse since the drop on the springs is .7" rear and .9" front.

Can anyone confirm their front and rear height for me? I also double checked to be sure that the shipping blocks have been removed.

Thanks!

Check it with a full tank vs empty; that may be the difference.

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I was going to give that a go and see what the difference is.

Youloze said:

Hey guys, I have a 2017 GT350, all stock suspension. The rear sits at 28 5/8" from ground to fender and the front sits at 28" from ground to fender.

Everywhere that I have seen people post stock ride height it is always pretty much even. Mine is 5/8 inches off. I want to install Eibach springs but I'm concerned that the height difference will remain, and actually be worse since the drop on the springs is .7" rear and .9" front.

Click to expand...

Do you really think you're going to notice another 0.2" of body rake spread out over almost nine feet of wheelbase (it'd be about a tenth of a degree)? FWIW, you'd probably be getting a tiny improvement in aerodynamics - nose down slightly does tend to reduce both aerodynamic lift and drag.

Differences in the tire to fender gaps can vary more than 0.2" if the rear tires are worn away at a much faster (or slower) rate than the front tires.

Try to look at more than just the numbers as numbers here. What do they actually mean in "human terms"?


Norm

Norm Peterson said:

Do you really think you're going to notice another 0.2" of body rake spread out over almost nine feet of wheelbase (it'd be about a tenth of a degree)? FWIW, you'd probably be getting a tiny improvement in aerodynamics - nose down slightly does tend to reduce both aerodynamic lift and drag.

Differences in the tire to fender gaps can vary more than 0.2" if the rear tires are worn away at a much faster (or slower) rate than the front tires.

Try to look at more than just the numbers as numbers here. What do they actually mean in "human terms"?


Norm

Click to expand...

Yes I do actually notice the difference because its a 5/8 difference in gap between the fender and tire. That is very noticeble visually especially the more the car is lowered.

I get what you are saying about the little bit of added down force with the higher rear but I don' track the car *gasp* so that isn' of as much concern to me.

It'd still be a little more 'planted' or 'stuck down' out on the highway . . .

I guess I just don't get this desire to avoid having a little nose-down rake. Done without regard for beltlines and body bottom lines you can end up with something that looks more like a reverse-raked taildragging cruise car from the 1950's (which looked wrong even then).

There's probably an easy enough way (or two) to shim the front end back up by 3/16", maybe 1/4".

Norm

I just like a more even look than the rake, although I don't mind a little rake. But 5/8" is a bit much for my tastes.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to see if my car is an anomaly or if the extra gap in the rear is normal, that's all.

My thoughts, FWIT is that your GT350 is normal & the OEM rake is a normal thing.

It also helps the car plant on WOT conditions with weight transfer.

Using only the tire gaps at the tops of the tires to the sheetmetal to establish what "looks good" amounts to taking the word of only one of the blind men in the parable of the blind men and the elephant as being the ultimate truth.


Norm

302 Hi Pro said:

My thoughts, FWIT is that your GT350 is normal & the OEM rake is a normal thing.

It also helps the car plant on WOT conditions with weight transfer.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems like it may be normal. That's all I was looking for.

Norm Peterson said:

Using only the tire gaps at the tops of the tires to the sheetmetal to establish what "looks good" amounts to taking the word of only one of the blind men in the parable of the blind men and the elephant as being the ultimate truth.


Norm

Click to expand...

Stay with me Norm. I'l try to go slow for you. Everyone has their own opinion as to what looks good and what they prefer in their car. Just because you have a firm opinion as to what the car should be and look like doesnt t mean all others have to follow suit. All I was looking for is evidence of the rear being higher than the front from other owners. It seems I have what I needed. Move along.

Mine sat slightly higher in the back with the stock springs but not by that much. No more than 1/4" and was probably more like 1/8". They sit almost identical with the lowering springs on my car.

Youloze said:

Stay with me Norm. I'l try to go slow for you. Everyone has their own opinion as to what looks good and what they prefer in their car.

Click to expand...

All I'm asking is for people to look at more than just a single relatively minor detail here.


Norm

VoodooBoss said:

Mine sat slightly higher in the back with the stock springs but not by that much. No more than 1/4" and was probably more like 1/8". They sit almost identical with the lowering springs on my car.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Hmm, see this is more in line with what I've seen other people report in my searches. I wonder what the difference is that accounts for such a broad range of gap.

Did you install the Ford Performance springs? Any pics that you want to share by chance?

Norm Peterson said:

All I'm asking is for people to look at more than just a single relatively minor detail here.


Norm

Click to expand...

I understand, but you hit the nail on the head with *relative*. Details like this are all relative and subjective to different people's opinions. What is minor to you could be a big deal for someone else. Does that make it insignificant in a broad scope just because its no big deal to you? That is a very narrow way of thinking. Anyway, I'm sure we can agree to disagree on this one.

BTW, just noticed your screen name, love it haha. Cheers is one of my favorite series' of all time. +1 to you for that

I had my dealer install the springs so no photos. The fronts are easy but the rears looked like more than I wanted to mess with.

VoodooBoss said:

I had my dealer install the springs so no photos. The fronts are easy but the rears looked like more than I wanted to mess with.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant pics of the car after the install. Just interested in seeing how it looks.

The photo in my signature is after the install. Here's another. Both of those are with the shorter R spec SC2 tires.

VoodooBoss said:

The photo in my signature is after the install. Here's another. Both of those are with the shorter R spec SC2 tires.

View attachment 3033

Click to expand...

Hmm, looks like your signature pic is broken, at least for me. Thanks for the other pic, the car looks great!

The new mustangs are starting to grow on me, I didn't like them at first with that "catfish" grill opening, but once lowered they start to look pretty good.