Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner
  • NOTICE - Before adding photos to posts on Planet-9, please review: Posting Photos on Planet-9

Front end higher than rear after H&R spring install 987.1 Cayman S

4K views 17 replies 8 participants last post by  prihtvi 
#1 ·
After installing a set of H&R sport springs (54020) on my 2008 CS, the front end is sitting about 1/4" higher than the rear. From center of wheel to top of wheel arch, the rear is at 14" and front 14.25". Consistent on both sides.

Has anyone dealt with this issue before?

Thanks!

271844
271845
 
See less See more
2
#5 ·
It took at least two weeks for mine to settle but I don't drive it much.

Let it sit..... rather, drive it and keep an eye on it.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Thanks guys!

It's been about 4 months including a track day...thinking it probably won't settle any more than it is now. I'll try compressing them with the jack method though and see if that helps.
 
#10 · (Edited)
I've had this same issue on a previous 987 before and even my current 981 appears to sit lower in the back rather than the front with H&R, however both cars were/are perfectly level and the exact same height front to back when measuring the jackpoint areas on the frame from the ground. I would think its the cars chassis that matters, not the visual distance to the fender edge since the geometry on the body parts are not identical front to back and there is the weight of the engine back there? Its possible the visual bias was already there when stock but you just dont notice it due to the tires being farther away from the fender edge. 1/4" is a very small difference but maybe someone can confirm on a stock setup.
 
#11 · (Edited)
The bottom of my fender arch to the ground are both about 21.25” I do have the 18x8/10 BBS’s on with 235/275’s but the overall circumference is like .4 vs 19’s... but you get the just... I’ve measured my 19’s and it was the same unless you get micro

also, the taller the wheel, for some reason always gives an appearance of more wheel wheel gap...imo
 
#13 · (Edited)
Yes, my 981 with the sport springs measures exactly 4 inches from the frame to the floor right at the front and rear jack points, so the car is dead level. It seems to be a visual trick of the back being lower due to differences in symmetry of the wheels and other parts of the car, but the car is properly level. Both front and back wheel arches to middle of center cap are the same at 13.5 inches

There is a factory wheel/tire diameter bias on the 981 making the rears about 1 inch larger diameter than the fronts that seems to add to this appearance, I seem to recall my 987 had this same taller rear tire setup.

Of course this wouldn't affect the actual measurements of the center of the wheel to arch as the OP states and would be only a visual illusion from the taller rear tire
 
#14 ·
Manueverworkes,
Went through this with too for my 2006 S w/pasm. There are different thickness rubber spacers for both front and rear that sit on the top of the spring. Ideally the front should be 1/2 to 3/4 " lower than back as measured at the inner control arm bolts. Pelican carries the spacers.

Below from: Strut/spring spacer? - Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums

"Originally Posted by qikqbn View Post
These are spring spacer part numbers for Caymans... I actually had to use these with my Caymans Eibach Pro kit. Pro-kit calls for use of 3mm spacer with Cayman, but I did not want it slammed so much so I am using the 6mm versions. Some guys even used a 3mm + 6mm stacked together to give a 20mm drop versus 30mm the kit gives.

FRONT 3 mm = 996 343 511 00
FRONT 6.5 mm = 996 343 511 01
REAR 3 mm = 986 333 504 02
REAR 6 mm = 986 333 504 03

One other thing to consider is a worn out top strut mounts. The rubber bushing in the strut mount gets tired and stretches... Kind of like worn out motor mounts sag down, but in reverse for the strut mounts. The bushing can soften causing the front bushing to sag upwards and results in dropping the front lower than the rear."

Keep in mind there is a leverage/amplification effect because the strut are acting at a point on the lower control arm towards the centerline of the car.

Unfortunately you will have to go through the entire install procedure again and we both know the rear is a pain in the rear to do.

An alternative is to engineer spacer between strut tricks bolt plate and body for the rear so the strut does not have to be removed.

Hope this helps.
 
#16 ·
Manueverworkes,
Went through this with too for my 2006 S w/pasm. There are different thickness rubber spacers for both front and rear that sit on the top of the spring. Ideally the front should be 1/2 to 3/4 " lower than back as measured at the inner control arm bolts. Pelican carries the spacers.

Below from: Strut/spring spacer? - Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums

"Originally Posted by qikqbn View Post
These are spring spacer part numbers for Caymans... I actually had to use these with my Caymans Eibach Pro kit. Pro-kit calls for use of 3mm spacer with Cayman, but I did not want it slammed so much so I am using the 6mm versions. Some guys even used a 3mm + 6mm stacked together to give a 20mm drop versus 30mm the kit gives.

FRONT 3 mm = 996 343 511 00
FRONT 6.5 mm = 996 343 511 01
REAR 3 mm = 986 333 504 02
REAR 6 mm = 986 333 504 03

One other thing to consider is a worn out top strut mounts. The rubber bushing in the strut mount gets tired and stretches... Kind of like worn out motor mounts sag down, but in reverse for the strut mounts. The bushing can soften causing the front bushing to sag upwards and results in dropping the front lower than the rear."

Keep in mind there is a leverage/amplification effect because the strut are acting at a point on the lower control arm towards the centerline of the car.

Unfortunately you will have to go through the entire install procedure again and we both know the rear is a pain in the rear to do.

An alternative is to engineer spacer between strut tricks bolt plate and body for the rear so the strut does not have to be removed.

Hope this helps.
Much appreciated - great insight! At least I know there is a part to bump the back up to level out if I can't stand it anymore.
 
This post has been deleted
#17 · (Edited)
I've had this equivalent issue on a past 987 preceding and even my present 981 seems to sit lower in the back as opposed to the front with H&R, anyway the two vehicles were/are completely level and precisely the same tallness front to back when estimating the jackpoint territories on the casing from the beginning. I would think its the vehicles frame that is important, not the visual separation to the bumper edge since the calculation on the body parts are not indistinguishable front to back and there is the heaviness of the motor back there? Its conceivable the visual inclination was at that point there when stock however you just dont notice it because of the tires being farther away from the bumper edge.
Keep an eye on this "new member" as it/he seems to just be a bot or someone that is randomly copying word for word other users post within the thread with minimal changes in order to look like a legitimate poster. Both of the post that have been made since just joining less than an hour ago are just copies of others words within the same discussion
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top