Why Progressive Rate Springs?

Okay, here's a better pic. So Brett, this looks fine to you?

Actually the hight looks good. If you look at the dimension between the tire and the fender it is virchally equal at 9:00, 12:00 and 3:00. This means that the center-line of the axle is centered in the wheel opening. This is a good look!!! I would just get a tire with a slightly taller sidewall.

My personal opinion is that the tires on the car now have two short a sidewall and does no look proportionally correct to the car and the wheel well openings. What I am trying to say is that the car has tires that are to small diameter wise. Changing the ride height will not change the small tire issue. The ride height looks to be spot on for a street car.

The only thing would be to make sue that the tires go up in the fender but from the photos it looks like you ahve room.

In reply to dean1484:

The tires on the car now are actually slightly larger in diameter than the stock tires. No small tires here.

In reply to bravenrace:

1" drop would look fine. Nice car btw. Thought you were a S197 guy.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to dean1484: The tires on the car now are actually slightly larger in diameter than the stock tires. No small tires here.

Not relevant to what I am talking about. It is the tires proportions to the wheel opening that are on the car now that is the issue. All you are saying is that it was even more goofy looking with the stock tires yes? I would put tires on it that have a taller sidewall if it is a street car and not seeing any track time. It would fill the wheel wells more and make it look better

In reply to dean1484:

That would end up being the wrong size tire for the car. Not gonna do that. The size that is on it now is the very common and correct +1 size for the car. It needs lowered 1", that's all.

The car above is actually lowered 1" from stock. That's why it looks better than mine, and why I want to lower mine 1". I've done a lot of research on this, and my problem isn't whether or not to lower it, it's that I want linear rate springs and can only find progressive rate springs. If anyone wants to help me with that problem, I'd really appreciate it.

Check steedas website, i saw linear springs there for the new edge. But i didnt link because i didnt know if yours was new edge or s197. I agree the cars are a bit tall, for my tastes as well. Moms got a 2000 gt convertable and it sits quite tall.

In reply to chiodos:

None of the following show linear rate springs for this car - Steeda, Eibach, Kenny Brown, H+R, American Muscle, Summit Racing. Steeda has pictures that show linear rate springs, but the pictures are not representative of the springs. If you look in the specs, it states that they are progressive rate.

fasted58 wrote: In reply to bravenrace: 1" drop would look fine. Nice car btw. Thought you were a S197 guy.

Never owned one.

chiodos wrote: Check steedas website, i saw linear springs there for the new edge. But i didnt link because i didnt know if yours was new edge or s197. I agree the cars are a bit tall, for my tastes as well. Moms got a 2000 gt convertable and it sits quite tall.

Look under "product benefits" in this link and compare to the picture. You'll see that while the picture shows linear rate springs, they are actually progressive rate.

http://www.steeda.com/ford-racing-front-rear-lowering-spring-kits-79-04-161-m-5300-g/

Thems the ford racing. I saw these that i BELIEVE to be linear. Call them and double check. http://www.steeda.com/1999-2004-mustang-parts/#/product/327

It really doesn't matter. Ford Racing doesn't off springs with both the rate and drop I'm needing.

bravenrace wrote: This isn't the best picture, but if you look at the wheel to fender gap, you can kind of see why I want to lower it a little.

I see nothing wrong with that, at least nothing I would spend money on to change (less than a 1/2" is what I do)

Nice wheels and car combo BTW. That thing is sharp!

Okay, forget the picture of my car. Like I said, it's a bad picture. Here's how a stock Bullitt sits, and mine is stock with the exception of the tires and wheels, which are the same height as the stock setup, but wider, which just makes the situation worse. If you still think it doesn't sit too high, well, I disagree. Again, the original question was about linear versus progressive rate springs. I'd kind of like to get back to that topic if possible.

Im just here to agree that stock sn95 mustangs sit way too high.

In reply to failboat:

Thank you.

There use to be places that would make up springs to order. I wonder if you could do that. If I remember they really were not expensive. I would give Eibach a call and see if whey can do it.