That said, did you make SURE that you torqued the bushings WITH the weight of the car on the suspension? If not, that's very critical here and it'll result in suspension bind (which can make things "ride high").
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AutocroSSer: BTW, what size are the tires on the SS, and what size on the 9C1?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
SS has 275/40/17's, 9C1 has 285/35/18's.
SS has Eibachs, 9C1 has STs.
The overall tire size on the 18s is about 3/4" taller than the 17's. The distance between the ground and wheel well is 3/4" lower on the Imp then the 9C1. That means that the springs are the same height correct?
So the next step is to check and make sure the springs are indexed correctly and wait for the springs to settle right?
Nope. Remember, that 3/4" tire difference is divided by two for the spindle height (and thus, the fender height).
With completely identical springs, you'd expect the 9C1 to be about 3/8" higher (due to the tires).
Sounds like your SS has one of the lower sets of Eibachs. Maybe you could trade with Gary Rundle here in ROD, as HIS Eibachs basically are stock SS height! But now we're getting into that "why I don't like Eibachs" thread again
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Navy Lifer:
Ron, if the front height isn't what you had before or what you expected, you may not have the springs properly indexed in the lower control arm pockets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Finally got my 9C1 running again after 5 months of being down. Today I pulled apart the front end and correctly indexed the front springs. MAN! what a difference! The car actually has a rake to it (opposed to the revearse rake it had). I've VERY happy with how it sits now!