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.
I agree with Alexjag. Our cars do ride floaty compared to other sport / cruiser cars. M3, M5’s and most amg’s have a smaller wheel gap and handle daily commutes just fine.
I’ll report back my honest opinion once I lower mine this week. I don’t put many miles on a year (5kish), but I’m hoping I find the sweet spot with ride and looks.
I watched a slightly lowered newer 5.0 Mustang the other mornings commute and it did not look better in motion lowered. In fact it looked spine rattling stiff. It seems wheel well gap is the most common complaint why folks want their cars lowered. Taller profile tires fill the gaps and also allow it to ride better. Mine already has a lower roof line than pretty much any other car in the parking lot so... Just not seeing the point beyond a photo shoot. I care far more about the view and experience from behind the wheel than it posing as a trophy. Still get cars slowing next to me to see more even with clear coat peeling off.
Lowering a car with different rate springs is not a good thing to do unless you also match the shocks to the new spring rate. Mismatched springs and dampers are not fun and will make your car slower and less controllable. Still, it might look a little better while it is being pulled from a ditch.
Sounds like my car is a death trap! There is no problem lowering a road car with just springs, dampers work well with a lowering of 20-25mm!
Sounds like my car is a death trap! There is no problem lowering a road car with just springs, dampers work well with a lowering of 20-25mm!
Manufacturers spend million of dollars every year on chassis development. You added $200 springs that are stiffer to an already under damped car and you cant see how it can be worse than it was?. Yes, you lowered the center of gravity a bit so on perfectly smooth roads it might feel better but it will be slower and more dangerous in real world conditions. To make matters worse, you actually paid someone money to do it for you. Good move.
Manufacturers spend million of dollars every year on chassis development. You added $200 springs that are stiffer to an already under damped car and you cant see how it can be worse than it was?. Yes, you lowered the center of gravity a bit so on perfectly smooth roads it might feel better but it will be slower and more dangerous in real world conditions. To make matters worse, you actually paid someone money to do it for you. Good move.
I'll take my chances the car stays on the road, I will slow down as a precaution! :-D
Actually, my springs were more expensive. :-)
Surprised you don't have a comment on my spacers? :-)
I watched a slightly lowered newer 5.0 Mustang the other mornings commute and it did not look better in motion lowered. In fact it looked spine rattling stiff.
The worst is when you see lowered car bounce couple times after going over a mild speed bump. Then you just know they f-ed it up and it isn't just unpleasant, it is also likely handles like ****.
Hot Rod Garage did a great episode on shocks, sway, and spring stiffness where they drove on a race track with different settings. If you didn't believe before, you could clearly see in back-to-back montages how making it too stiff made the car slower around the track in addition to bone-jarring ride. Unless you think you have too much lean or noticed car lifting a rear wheel when cornering, there is no performance gain from lowering. So it is all posing.
I've lowered a couple of cars and the Jag was one of the easiest. Don't buy cheap spring compressors as the springs are hard to compress and
you don't want it to snap!:-)
Lowering a car 10mm is meaningless, you won't even notice it! 20-25mm is perfect for our cars!:-)
This is mine with 20-25mm drop!
Peter which spring compressors did you use can you send me a where to buy.
Putting the shorter spring wasn't bad try putting the standard fronts back in not fun!!
It depends on how you drive and where you live. From what I can see of Peter's set up mine on my Dynamic R is much lower, especially at the front splitter.
Where I live there aren't really any speed-bumps and curbs aren't high, however just back from visiting my Mum in London and on her mile long road their are 17 speed-bumps (both plastic and tarmac). Last night visited friends a 7 mile drive away and had circa 26 to contend with!
Coming back I stopped to fuel up and behind me heard an almighty bang, A 2018 Skoda Octavia VRS (which is not a particularly low car) had hit a particularly high speed bump and it had ripped his splitter off and his bumper looked like it was about to fall off
For me it's a little about the look and more for performance in handling , because honestly our cars handle like a Lincoln , all flaoty and not very stable at high speeds. I love how soft it is though over bumps , but when car is pushed would preffer a more sporty and confident feel of the car
We do not have the same car then. I suggest looking at the shock controllers and I think if you unhook the electrical connection they go into "firm" mode. The shocks control the ride, sway bars control lean during steering inputs and the springs just hold the car up. My car is rock solid at speed. 90 mph is its cruise speed. My average over the past 6000 miles is 48 mph so we spend a lot of time at speed. Honestly I bought my '05 Lincoln LS because it handled so well. It has the same suspension as the XK with the exception that the rear tie bars have a big rubber bushing in the middle so the rear wheels have some passive steering. You could feel it on interstate on ramps where once the G built up the car would start cornering easier (and better). It was a neat effect that I'd love to do to the XK but I assume there's a good reason Jag didn't execute it.
Originally Posted by S-Typer
I agree with Alexjag. Our cars do ride floaty compared to other sport / cruiser cars. M3, M5’s and most amg’s have a smaller wheel gap and handle daily commutes just fine.
I’ll report back my honest opinion once I lower mine this week. I don’t put many miles on a year (5kish), but I’m hoping I find the sweet spot with ride and looks.
Joe
Mine handles at least as well as the Euro's or at they just won't push harder. I watch how they bounce through the construction zones and mine is tighter, less sway and bounce. So far it's been impossible to get one to open up and run hard, AMG's included. They usually sit in the middle lane like good little Germans and keep out of the way. Or I'll go around them...
Originally Posted by peterv8
Now you sound really old! :-D
Not really, just experienced both sides of the lowering coin. I'll be 47 in a couple weeks, spent 100k miles in a lowered Fox mustang thinking it handled well, then bought the LS and realised how poorly the Fox actually handled.
Originally Posted by SinF
The worst is when you see lowered car bounce couple times after going over a mild speed bump. Then you just know they f-ed it up and it isn't just unpleasant, it is also likely handles like ****.
Hot Rod Garage did a great episode on shocks, sway, and spring stiffness where they drove on a race track with different settings. If you didn't believe before, you could clearly see in back-to-back montages how making it too stiff made the car slower around the track in addition to bone-jarring ride. Unless you think you have too much lean or noticed car lifting a rear wheel when cornering, there is no performance gain from lowering. So it is all posing.
Yep, I remember when the '93 Mustang Cobra came out and the big write ups in the mags about how it was actually sprung softer versus the 5.0 GT's so the tires would conform to the road surface and maintain grip where the GT was more likely to break a tire loose. The was the "Aha" moment. Of course I still oversprung mine with a set of "B" springs which were loads lighter than the "C" springs but still rode poorly, especially with the KYB shocks that were the rage back then. When I built dads coupe we ignored the shock change and it was a much nicer car to drive with the "B"s that were on it. The Motortrend videos about the XKRS-GT were enlightening too because they talk about how well the car conforms to the road. I used the same logic when I built my Sportster to handle versus look like a lowered carnival freak. Soft spring rates, adjustable valving and enough ride height that the fork angles worked.
Last time I did strut springs I just took the assemblies to a shop and used there compressor. It was a wall mounted hydraulic affair that worked very well.
Last time I did strut springs I just took the assemblies to a shop and used there compressor. It was a wall mounted hydraulic affair that worked very well.
Same here as my buddy has one of the snap on wall mount units. Simple to use and safe.
We do not have the same car then. I suggest looking at the shock controllers and I think if you unhook the electrical connection they go into "firm" mode. The shocks control the ride, sway bars control lean during steering inputs and the springs just hold the car up. My car is rock solid at speed. 90 mph is its cruise speed. My average over the past 6000 miles is 48 mph so we spend a lot of time at speed. Honestly I bought my '05 Lincoln LS because it handled so well. It has the same suspension as the XK with the exception that the rear tie bars have a big rubber bushing in the middle so the rear wheels have some passive steering. You could feel it on interstate on ramps where once the G built up the car would start cornering easier (and better). It was a neat effect that I'd love to do to the XK but I assume there's a good reason Jag didn't execute it.
Mine handles at least as well as the Euro's or at they just won't push harder. I watch how they bounce through the construction zones and mine is tighter, less sway and bounce. So far it's been impossible to get one to open up and run hard, AMG's included. They usually sit in the middle lane like good little Germans and keep out of the way. Or I'll go around them...
Not really, just experienced both sides of the lowering coin. I'll be 47 in a couple weeks, spent 100k miles in a lowered Fox mustang thinking it handled well, then bought the LS and realised how poorly the Fox actually handled.
Yep, I remember when the '93 Mustang Cobra came out and the big write ups in the mags about how it was actually sprung softer versus the 5.0 GT's so the tires would conform to the road surface and maintain grip where the GT was more likely to break a tire loose. The was the "Aha" moment. Of course I still oversprung mine with a set of "B" springs which were loads lighter than the "C" springs but still rode poorly, especially with the KYB shocks that were the rage back then. When I built dads coupe we ignored the shock change and it was a much nicer car to drive with the "B"s that were on it. The Motortrend videos about the XKRS-GT were enlightening too because they talk about how well the car conforms to the road. I used the same logic when I built my Sportster to handle versus look like a lowered carnival freak. Soft spring rates, adjustable valving and enough ride height that the fork angles worked.
I’d knew someone would say that their car doesnt have the floating problem. (something should be wrong with mine because it’s a “floaty car”).
I guess my 2012 XKR with 29k miles on it (with new shocks) is defective? I’m on race compound Dunlop’s..305’s in the back.
I don’t think the Jaguars handle as well as the BMW or AMG cars. Just my experience.
I’m not trying to be combative..
I don’t think Jaguar intended them to handle as well as the Germans.
Lowering 25mm isn’t going to ruin the suspension geometry.
The LS had great suspension with a perfect 50/50 weight distribution. It was also 3,650lbs.
The XK is not that car.
10-26-2018, 12:00 PM
