-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Share this page
Brosky
Great Pumpkin
Offline
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]The handling is a bit funny but I figure its because the CoG is now lower at the rear. Might have to lower the front springs a bit to get it all level again.[/QUOTE]
Well, it appears that would be the most logical solution if you plan to keep up the reliability that you've worked so hard for.
Well, it appears that would be the most logical solution if you plan to keep up the reliability that you've worked so hard for.
19_again
Jedi Warrior
Offline
well if you do a lateral expansion on the CoG ( of course using a 1.076 ratio) you'll find that my axle entension of 3.76 inches is perfectly logical. Now be careful, as the closer to the equator you are the higher the tangential co-locator. In P.R. it's probably closer to 3.87, but you already knew that.
