Ride Height - Comparing SPF to ERA and CSX

[frankym]

I have found a decent drawing of the ERA with measurements noted from the ERA site


i know the drawing is not to scale and the tire positioning is illustrative. You can see that the drawing shows more clearance between the front and rear. My SPF measure 27 inches from floor to center arch of fender lip on all 4 corners. This group was kind enough to share some measurements and helpful suggestions about corner weighting etc. What i am trying to figure out is what the ERA 427 measurements are (front and rear) ground to center of fender lip. I am running 295/50/15 tires in the rear and want to go from 27 inches to about 25.75 or 26.00. I love the way the ERA sits more squat in the back. I don't know if the body dimensions are different or if the suspension is just positioned lower, but i really want that look. If owners of CSX or ERA 427 bodies could help, i would really appreciate it.

Many thanks!

[jhv48]

Why don't you just adjust your shocks and lower your car to the desired settings? Then you can see if the tires rub anywhere on the body. If not, leave it there.

Just a thought and very easy to do.

[frankym]

jim, my plan is to do exactly that, lift the car from the frame, remove wheels, adjust the compression on the coilovers with an equal number of turns, bolt it back together, drive it, measure it, repeat. But I am trying to figure out how to capture that sexy low down and dirty look of the ERAs and CSXs. Not saying SPFs are not dead sexy, but it is just making her look a little bit nastier.

That said, i'm looking for target measurements to replicate the look of ERA and CSX.

[jhv48]

You don't have to remove the wheels. Just jack up the car and turn the spring perch adjusters the same number of turns counter clockwise. Shoukd only take a few minutes per side.

[Mongoose930]

Please don't take this as gospel but my understanding is that the SPF body mold was splashed from a Contemporary Cobra body. I owned a Contemporary and I can tell you for a fact that the rear wheel well openings are smaller than those of a CSX or ERA. Something to do with tire availability at the time the Contemporary molds were made. I have attached a picture of my old Contemporary which sat pretty squat along with pictures showing the rear fender lip height.

[frankym]

Jim, that's great to know about keeping the wheels on, i am planning to bleed out the brakes, so the wheels are coming off anyways. but I think all the weight off the suspension (wheels off too) will make the caps really easy to turn. to fine tune the height i would plan to keep the wheels on for subsequent adjustments. Mongoose, i too had a contemporary, mine belonged to richard pickles who many of you know. It was a pleasure to own and drive, and it also had that stuffed tire look yours has.

But you gave me the most important state 26 inches does look very badass. I was going to target 25.75, but i think that 1 inch makes a huge difference - hard to believe.

[DanEC]

My ERA sits as follows:

Rear and Front

Gnd to top or wheelwell flare

25-7/8 inch and 26-7/8 inch

Frame to Gnd

5 inch and 5 inch

Tires

255/60-15 and 215/70-15

This is not a real precise way to set things up as different bodies may have had their wheel well worked slightly differently.

Edit - Forgot I lowered the rear suspension for a frame clearance to 5 inches - corrected above.

[frankym]

dan, you rock! thanks for this info, very helpful. If i understand tire measurements your tire height above the rim is 60% of 255mm, or 153mm. My tires are 50% of 295mm or 147mm. So you have a very very squat look, your tire should probably actually be recessed a little into the fender well. I am going to see what i can get away, i may need to go 25.5 measured in the rear. obviously it will be a little trial and error and avoid doing damage from the bell housing getting too low.

[DanEC]

I forgot that I lowered my rear to get to 5 inches of frame clearance - corrected above. ERA actually recommends about 1/2 inch rake towards the front (at the frame). I am planning to raise my rear clearance back to 5-1/4 inch due to some tire contact I get with the front closure in the rear wheel well on a real severe dip. I don't think it will change the stance much overall.

[1985 CCX]

Depends on your ride setting.
The red CCX was about where mine sat.
Look at my gallery.
I too heard the SPF body was a CCX slpash.

That's good.
As long as tire size us right raise it up or drop it. Up to you
CSX 3020 sits higher than CSX 3034.
Same car different setting.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by DanEC

My ERA sits as follows:

Rear and Front

Gnd to top or wheelwell flare

25-7/8 inch and 26-7/8 inch

Frame to Gnd

5 inch and 5 inch

Tires

255/60-15 and 215/70-15

My numbers are just a little different:

Ground to top of wheelwell flare

Rear: 26 - 1/4"
Front: 26 - 1/4"

Frame to ground:
Rear: 5 - 1/2"
Front: 5 - 1/4"

Tires:
Rear: 295/50
Front: 235/60

[Large Arbor]

Mine is 25 and 7/8 from the ground to the center of rear wheel well. I have the tires aired up to 32 psi for storage reasons. 295-50-15s tires on the rear.

Phil

[razerwire]

Interesting subject, also one going on about adjusting the ride height on a SPF car. I will take a good handling car over just pure looks although that is important also. I have drove some scary cobras and it was no fun. Some did funny things braking and some turning, and brake steer is annoying. I'm no suspension expert and I know it. The csx car was set up by NASCAR ex crew chief and its a no surprise ride even with almost 600 hp to the ground. Getting the Bennett car back on road soon and I will make trip to Las Vegas to have Gen 2 Engineering setup suspension. Bennett car has pushrod front and sheet metal 9" ford independent rear with CV joints. It will take some one like them to get the most and safe ride out of car. I suggest getting professional help on setup, you will enjoy the benefits for long time.

[spf645]

Frankym,

Sent you PM, give me a call. Sat, Sun, afternoon

Brett

[vatdevil]

Superformance optimum settings are 27 front and 26.5 rear. I use that as a starting point and verify with frame height. Bodies aren't always identical from side to side. Or, better to measure from fender to bottom lip of rim, which is 22.50 front and rear, assuming 15 inch rims.

[66gtk]

duplicate post

[66gtk]

Originally Posted by vatdevil

Superformance optimum settings are 27 front and 26.5 rear. I use that as a starting point and verify with frame height. Bodies aren't always identical from side to side. Or, better to measure from fender to bottom lip of rim, which is 22.50 front and rear, assuming 15 inch rims.

I'm at 22" at 3 corners and 22.5" at the LR corner when measuring to the bottom lip of the rim. I'm running the stock tires and my floor to lip height is MUCH higher. 27-28" all around.... Looks too jacked up. I have about 32 psi in the tires for winter.

I think I'm going to change to 295/50-15 in the rear and 235/60-15 in the front to get the car a little lower to the ground when I need tires.

[Cobra #3170]

I get it that this post is about esthetics but you guys are scaring me using fender opening heights for ride height checks. You should always do ride height from fixed locations on the frame because that will dictate what your roll center heights, camber, and roll axis are, among other things. If you get the appearance you want with the correct ride height great. If not make sure there isn't a body location problem. Not that it matters but frame rail to ground at front of frame on my CSX = 3.00" Rear rail to ground at center of inboard main link = 3.20"

[66gtk]

Originally Posted by Cobra #3170

I get it that this post is about esthetics but you guys are scaring me using fender opening heights for ride height checks. You should always do ride height from fixed locations on the frame because that will dictate what your roll center heights, camber, and roll axis are, among other things. If you get the appearance you want with the correct ride height great. If not make sure there isn't a body location problem. Not that it matters but frame rail to ground at front of frame on my CSX = 3.00" Rear rail to ground at center of inboard main link = 3.20"

Wouldn't this also be variable depending on aspect ratio/size of your tires?

[Buzz]

The difference in appearance between the SPF and cars like the CSX's, ERA's and Kirkhams is more of a body shape/fitment issue than ride height settings and roll bar heights. Superformance, like many others, based their body on the CCX or Contemporary body in a mistaken subscription to the myth that they are the "most accurate Cobra replicas". The truth is that while the early Contemporary bodies may have indeed been splashed from an original Cobra, they chose to alter the shapes drastically in some odd attempt according to them to better fit the lower profile 50-series tires being used at the time of production.

The result was a higher, chunkier body sitting higher up on the frame, with lowered and reshaped wheel openings more radiused to the shape of the tires. The rear arches and cowl of the CCX shape are much higher over the frame than the original Cobra body, and this contributes to the strange appearance of the roll bar. Its not so much that the roll bar was lowered - the bodywork around the roll bar was raised up around it.

I'm actually a bit adamant about the whole CCX myth because it resulted in those less attractive traits being injected into the replica gene pool when newer manufacturers like FFR, Everett-Morrison and Superformance mistakenly saw the Contemporary shape as the gold standard to replicate. That distinctive high-butt, chunky-side look spread throughout the industry, leaving other brands more accurately based on the original shape looking noticeably lower, leaner, sleeker and meaner.

Superformance recognised this and made some after the fact modifications to their bodies to reverse it, but were only able to go so far with the existing chassis and packaging.

Everyone wondered why FFR never re-engineered their cars as CCX clones after they purchased the molds and tooling, etc when Contemporary folded? Most likely the reason is that they were already based on the CCX shape and using bodies out of the original CCX molds would not have made their cars significantly more accurate in appearance.

Using superficial methods like lowering the ride height and raising the roll bar will make some difference, but you'll end up with a roll bar that towers above the windshield, a ground-scraping oil pan and rubbing tires long before an SPF will ever look like an ERA or Kirkham.

There are others here that know these truths, but dare not commit the heresy of defiling the reputation of the all-holy Contemporary. That is not my intention either - they were well built cars and most are finished to a beautiful level of quality. I just don't like the shape of the body; and the untruth that it is the most accurate replica I like even less. I'm certain Jimmy Price, owner of Hi-Tech regretted not doing a bit more research before buying in to that fairy tale.

This may make some people angry, but it is essentially the truth. The other truth is that it shouldn't really matter to anyone other than those who are a bit obsessed with the shape, look and stance of the original Cobra. SPF owners rightfully love their cars - they are without a doubt one of the best products in the entire replica industry. They are however, differently shaped to the ERA's/CSX's and one can only go so far towards changing that with simple modifications.

There are articles referencing and documenting all of the CCX/SPF shape issues if anyone cares or is curious enough to do a bit of searching.

Once again this is my pet peeve about the body shape perceptions and is in no way intended to be a derogatory commentary about anyone's choice of Cobra replica. They are all distinctive and unique in their own ways and appeal to their owners for many different reasons.