E30 ride height

[Mattzy 0]

Hi lads,

Anyone happen to know the lowest structual part on the E30's off the top of their head?

Pics of ride heights & clearance would be awesome - need to get an idea of how low I can go without upsetting Jhonny law.

Before someone says it - Yes I've searched but all I found was posts with worthless dribble.

Looking to run similar fitment to below:

Edited September 28, 2008 by Mattzy

[SIR E30 68]

Hey Matt. I think its the sump. Is this taken into account when measured at VTNZ or wherever you do cert??

Have a look at the pics of my touring in the showroom, the sump is exactly 100mm off the ground.

[Mattzy 0]

Hey Matt. I think its the sump. Is this taken into account when measured at VTNZ or wherever you do cert??

Have a look at the pics of my touring in the showroom, the sump is exactly 100mm off the ground.

Hey mate cheers for quick the response.

Yeah I definately noticed that the sump does hang quite low on the 30's. Will check out your car.

Thanks!

[ED1RTY 2]

Gas tank on pre-f/l

[Nobimmer 694]

Chris,just quickly...you dont know how low the sump is off the ground do ya? Managed to get the back up to around 110mm or so from taking the seats/tyre etc out. Would LOVE to lower the front another inch if possible .

Mattzy, give me a ring on 0211272738 if ya wanna come grab them spacers sometime today Im home all day.

[bravo 35]

From the LVV manual:

LVV cert is not required if:

• the springs or shock absorbers are direct replacements, and

• replacement springs fi t and maintain contact with un-modifi ed OE seats throughout full

suspension travel, and

• replacement springs are self-retaining in their seats at full extension, without the use of

non-standard devices such as wire-ties, straps, or external spring locators, and

• replacement springs have not been heated or cut, and

• springs and spring seats are not height adjustable (unless OE), and

• replacement shock absorbers fi t un-modifi ed OE mountings, and

• suspension maintains suffi cient travel for safe operation when fully laden, and

• suspension components maintain suffi cient clearance from unmodifi ed bumpstops when

fully laden, and

• a minimum of 100 mm ground clearance exists below any part of the vehicle structure, or any

steering, braking, or suspension component***, and

• the normal relationship between front and rear suspension height is not unduly aff ected.

***-does not include such items as exhaust pipes and exterior body panels that do not contribute to the structural strength of the vehicle

I have never considered the sump and/or fuel tank as either part of the vehicle structure, steering, braking or suspension. I think you could argue this one successfully.

Edited September 29, 2008 by bravo

[Nobimmer 694]

Really? seems like a pretty dangerous thing that could hit the ground on both the sump and fuel tank?

[ED1RTY 2]

Believe me Graham, they are both items that will fail you a WOF, unless certified.

Any major/important part under a car lower than 100mm = fail

These days body kits and the exhaust are the only things able to be below 100mm

Edit: Not to sure Ashkan, but im sure you could go another 10mm

Buy the coilover kit that someone is selling seperate to their racer!

Edited September 29, 2008 by ED1RTY

[Jeddy 0]

When i was at the cert place he told me exhaust, sump, kit etc where all exempt and that it would fail if like the arms or those types of 'structural' bits were under 100mm

[bravo 35]

Chris, you are probably right - the average VTNZ muppet will fail you. However, its not in either the WOF in-service inspection manual or the LVV one AFAIK (I'll stand corrected), so you don't need a cert, and you should be able to argue the point.

Its crazy either way = all of the road safety requirements for structures (lamp-post bases, road signs, roadworks signs, kerbs etc) have a maximum allowable height of 150mm, so even if you comply with the 100mm rule, you could hit any of these things and do serious damage to the vehicle lessening your ability to regain control. The stated reason for the maximum height is to reduce the likelihood of a car damaging steering etc components during the early stages of a crash giving the driver the best chance to attempt to regain control and lessen injuries.

I would have thought they would have tried to align the maximum height for solid sign bases and kerbs with the minimum height for vehicles???

Edited September 29, 2008 by bravo

[Shady 0]

Sorry, bringing back from the dead. Im bored and been looking thru VERY OLD threads haha!

Just my 2Cents. I smashed my sump at a servo on the round things they refill the tanks with (ages ago now - thats what my first thread on here was!). My sump was exactly 105mm as it passed a WOF to get my off a Pinky.

So, that means the servo wasnt breaking any laws? As you say 150mm is maximum height for objects on the road etc? Wasnt on the road but was definitely alot of vehicles that drive over it daily. Just I happened to slam into it square on with my sump - not a nice aftermath. But all good now, no long term damage - just my bank balance!

Edited August 18, 2009 by Shady

[bravo 35]

No the service station wasn't breaking any laws. As you say, it's not a road anyway. They don't have to comply with the NZTA rules for heights. Which is also why the speed humps in some McDonanlds, retirement villages, gas-stations are like small mountains - private property.

Also, low-volume local roads don't have to comply either. We're only talking high-volume roads and/or state highways.