Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Front\s+rides\s+too\s+low\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Front\s+rides\s+too\s+low\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Front rides too low (score: 1): Author: "John Middlesworth" <top_down@worldnet.att.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:24:54 -0500; Since I'm new to the list I apologize if this counts as a FAQ. I restored my '72 MGB about four years ago. I replaced only the rear springs at that time and since then it has sat noticably lower in f; /html/mgs/2001-01/msg01044.html (8,026 bytes)
2. Re: Front rides too low (score: 1): Author: "Ptegler" <ptegler@gouldfo.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:26:31 -0500; What is the ride height up front? rear? (measured from the center line of the axle to the bottom edge of the side chrome molding.) pre 72 should be roughly 13.5" post 72 should be abound 1-2" higher.; /html/mgs/2001-01/msg01046.html (8,638 bytes)
3. Re: Front rides too low (score: 1): Author: "Lawrie Alexander" <Lawrie@britcars.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:16:37 -0800; You ask a useful question but I am wondering about the data you quote in your note. Why do you say the '72 and later ride height was 1" to 2" higher? Didn't the change in ride height occur when the; /html/mgs/2001-01/msg01049.html (9,746 bytes)
4. Re: Front rides too low (score: 1): Author: "Ptegler" <ptegler@gouldfo.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:42:25 -0500; sorry for the kind of 'broad spectrum' statement. the post 72 has various listings for different springs. Yes the biggest difference was between the CB RB models. I've found listings for 9.1, 9.32, 9; /html/mgs/2001-01/msg01050.html (11,783 bytes)
5. Re: Front rides too low (score: 1): Author: <paul.hunt1@virgin.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:43:27 -0000; Paul Tegler asks a pertinent question of John (altering the rear ride-height can affect the front, so we could do with befores and afters) and Lawrie of Paul. There was a change in spring height in N; /html/mgs/2001-01/msg01051.html (11,074 bytes)
6. Re: Front rides too low (score: 1): Author: "Dave Wood" <dwood143@home.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:52:47 -0800; I have to concur with Paul. I bought my 72B in January 1972 and sometime later in the year received a recall notice. When I asked about the notice, BMC was going to raise the car 1/4 inch to meet min; /html/mgs/2001-01/msg01055.html (7,592 bytes)
7. Re: Front rides too low (score: 1): Author: "Peter C." <nosimport@mailbag.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:14:41 -0600; -- Dave, with all due respect, since shocks do not support the car, or support any weight, I think the apparent change in ride height is deceptive. Now, maybe if once you jack up the car to top up th; /html/mgs/2001-01/msg01058.html (7,873 bytes)
8. Re: Front rides too low (score: 1): Author: Bob Shaw <shaws@mlcltd.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:52:54 -0600; Moss generally has a good reputation. I have used their springs to good effect. Could it be that the difference is the rear end now sits higher, so the front looks as if it is sitting lower? -- Bob S; /html/mgs/2001-01/msg01073.html (8,638 bytes)
9. RE: Front rides too low (score: 1): Author: "Larry Hoy" <larryhoy@prodigy.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:22:41 -0700; rear springs at that time John, don't you mean it sits higher in the back? It probably only *appears* to sit lower in the front. Putting rear springs on the car is going to have minimal effect on th; /html/mgs/2001-01/msg01078.html (9,449 bytes)
10. RE: Front rides too low (score: 1): Author: "Dodd, Kelvin" <doddk@mossmotors.com>; Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:16:49 -0800; OOps, clarification time. The spring information was compiled for my personal use, and was not supplied by Moss Motors. Any inaccuracies reflect on my own inability to use a tape measure. Remember,; /html/mgs/2001-01/msg01110.html (7,937 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]