The rear of my 1987 360 GLE saloon seems rather high. It may in part be due to axle bending, and resetting the springs by loosening the bolts may alleviate it, but I intend to straighten the axle somehow.

Anyway when everything is as it left the factory I want a stock GLT look, and according to the brochure pictures, GLTs were lower in hatch at least. I like the well filled wheel arch look, but it should not over lap at the top (ie lower than the tyres), and the wheel should be in the centre of the curves radius visually.

I measured up on the level floor of the garage and got the following (floor to wheel arch)

Rear left: 63.5cm (2 deg toe in)
Rear right: 62.5cm
Front right: 61.5cm
Front Left: 61.5cm

What do others get, particularly GLTs?

GLTs were down 1inch all round as standard, over normal 360 ride hight.
But I cant provide accurate measurements atm.
i can measure my GLE in the morning and subtract an inch?

i DO know that GLT height looks VERY good.

Thanks, I thought so, so I need GLT rear springs then. Somewhere along the way I seem to have forgotten this. Maybe Mchudds breaker has them.

No need to do calcs, its also a 2 pronged study, will be interesting to see what others are getting as measurements related to axle bending. Some photos of lowered cars and measurements would also be nice.

You are best measuring from te wheel centre rather than from floor to arch as wheel/tyre size will alter the measurement.

see this thread for front heights

http://www.volvo300mania.com/forum-uk/v ... ide+height

GLT's are still too high, I reckon 1" lower than a stock GLT will be a good height, and not 'too' slammed for an OEMish look

Here's a screenshot from the "technical specifications" green book:



Cheers

Tom

Ah thanks for the link Dia, seems you've already had a discussion, maybe the threads should be merged. I've gone off the search since '360 Turbo' gives 'too many results to show'.

Interesting that the 87 GLT came up as 37cm front (not 32-33cm or so as predicted), I also had an 87/88 GLT saloon which didn't seem lower than my GLE, although it was a bit of a bodge with 340 struts, 340 exhaust, larger tyres (but I did fix all that). My 84 GLT 3dr hatch was lower. Has something happened over the years or models?...ah see Tom posted just before me while I'm writing this..GLTs should be lower but doesn't say what year this covers to. Pity GLTs are not stiffer.

Anyway here's my measurements to wheel centre (which is harder, since you have to guess the centre), but I agree its better to remove the tyre+pressure variable.

Measuring straight from outer arch corner to wheel centre:
RL: 357mm (also a bit hard on mine since the outer skin is missing)
RR: 351mm
FL: 354mm
FR: 354mm

Take off 5mm for actual vertical height.

I've also measured to very outer corner (not the bottom of the top which is about 4mm down), this is the visible arch (at least in my dark garage). I also measured to the top and bottom of the centre wheel plug and then averaged (this made 1cm difference the case of the fronts from my previous estimate). Measuring straight from wheel to arch is not the ride height, doing the maths, it makes about 5mm difference (less than figure I have measured above).

I also have Monroe Gas shocks which are pressurised and hence will probably lift up the standard GLE a little. Hard to say but I'd guess it adds about 10-20kg.f upwards (from memory) per shock, it may make 2-4mm difference, not much odds visually.

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion that original ride height is 40cm front (assume non-GLT or all later ones if they have standardised). My 86 brochure only show 54.8" roof height and I am getting over 56" with a slightly droppy bit of flooring chip board across the roof, so its more than that. Maybe I'll try an older brochure, or maybe its with a full tank. God knows what the roof tolerance with tyres etc would be, but I'm thinking 1 or 2" is a bit much for build variations.