stance question 94 vs 96

[Clemens]

I finally refreshened the frontend of my 96R with new parts and had my indie put the used strut and spring assembly out of the 96 R onto my 94 T5M. Along with that I had them put in the old Nivomats out of my R into the T5M.

Now, much to my surprise, the 94 sits almost 3/4 inch higher in the front than the R did with the same parts, and this causes a weird tugboat stance I can't stand. And I even measured after driving for a few hundred meters to give the Nivomats time to level properly.

Was there a change in the strut mount height for 95 or 96?

I really don't get it. Is there an easy way to shim the rear nivomats so that at least the rear is a tad higher than now? I hate to have that slightly saggy rearend.

Also, the frontend feels not nearly as firm as it did in the R, but this comes down to the stabilizer bar, I guess.

Any ideas or solutions?

[scot850]

Not that I am aware of but there were some changes from 94 to 95 years in terms of the lower control arms going from aluminum with replaceable ball-joints to the one piece solid steel items.

What springs are you using and shocks?

Was the 94 always a Nivomat rear suspension?

Over the years I have heard of the Bilstein issues of them changing the position of the spring seats causing cars to sit high at the front. But other than that I can only think of springs and wear/spring rate that would affect your car.

Neil.

[Clemens]

The 94 and 96 were both Nivomat equipped fromnday 1.
The 96 had the lowered R szspension front and rear. I purcheased everything OE for the 96 recently. The parts I took out of the 96 went into the 94. One would think this should result in the same stance as before on the R. But no...

I get that the rear Nicomats could cause trouble, but why is the front higher on the 94 with the exact same strut assembly that was removed from the 96. Even the control arms were switched to 95 up style a while ago.

I will try to get the rear up a bit by putting in the non lowered rear springs into the 94 rather than the lowered ones that are in there right now.

Does anyone know if I can remove the rear springs without unbolting the lower shock bolts?

[scot850]

Can't think of any reason if you swapped over everything including the springs.


Are the 'R' Nivomats the same length as the T5? Maybe they are shorter to work with the lowered suspension?

Neil.

[Clemens]

The R Nivomats are shorter, as are the R Nivo springs (or at least they have a different spring rate).
But the 94T now is a 94 with a complete 96R suspension front and rear (except for the swaybars, which should only be noticeable when in motion, not static)...

[scot850]

Are the end links the same or the overall 'depth' of the end link and profile of the swaybars on both cars the same? Easily checked by disconnecting the swaybar to see if it has any affect?

From there there can only be a long time spent measuring the various suspension parts and mounting points to see if they are the same.

Neil.

[Clemens]

I'll have a look at the swaybars. Thanks, Neil!

Another thing that came to my mind:
The 94 is manual and has no AC. So this should save some weight up front, thereby the same springs would push the nose a tad further up. But 15+ mm is nit likely, the weight difference should be 50 kg a the most.

[scot850]

I guess is the problem the front or the rear?

Neil.

[Clemens]

the problem is the front being higher than it should be and the rear being a bit lower than it should be

[scot850]

I'm not sure the auto trans and A/C will make as much as 50kg of a difference, but if you load the front of the car with that weight, what happens?

Neil.