S1 ground clearance

[My S1]

Just to rehash an old topic; ground clearance.  The Shop Manual says simply 6-1/2" implying that the ride height is the same front and rear.  I recall reading somewhere on this forum that the preference is for a 1/2" taller height in the rear.  Using stock coil overs and spring rates, what is the best ride height for everyday use?

[BDA]

Since I’ve been burned before when I had assumed that S1s and S2s were more similar to TCs so I looked it up in the S1/2 workshop manual (http://lotus-europa.com/manuals/index.htm) and it calls out the same ground clearance as the TCs (6” measured at the bottom of the closing plate). Interestingly, it says the elsewhere in the Technical Specifications that the ground clearance is 6 1/2” (design). I find that curious and confusing.

There is no ground clearance call out for the rear so if your rear suspension is not adjustable, having the correct camber is the primary concern. Richard Winter at Lotus Engineering (Banks Service Station) told me (I have a TCS) that the rear ride height should be 1/2” higher than the front. I might assume that the same advice would apply to S1s and S2s as long as your rear camber is still correct.

If you’re still using stock shocks (are they still available?), you don’t have any choice since they aren’t adjustable. In any case, I doubt you’ll be able to tell the difference between a 1/2” change in ride height.

[Bryan Boyle]

Since I’ve been burned before when I had assumed that S1s and S2s were more similar to TCs so I looked it up in the S1/2 workshop manual (http://lotus-europa.com/manuals/index.htm) and it calls out the same ground clearance as the TCs (6” measured at the bottom of the closing plate). Interestingly, it says the elsewhere in the Technical Specifications that the ground clearance is 6 1/2” (design). I find that curious and confusing.

There is no ground clearance call out for the rear so if your rear suspension is not adjustable, having the correct camber is the primary concern. Richard Winter at Lotus Engineering (Banks Service Station) told me (I have a TCS) that the rear ride height should be 1/2” higher than the front. I might assume that the same advice would apply to S1s and S2s as long as your rear camber is still correct.

If you’re still using stock shocks (are they still available?), you don’t have any choice since they aren’t adjustable. In any case, I doubt you’ll be able to tell the difference between a 1/2” change in ride height.

One is laden to set the suspension, the other is the design height.  When I set the suspension torques, I usually load up the passenger compartment with 175 lbs of weight (that's 4 40lb bags of mulch and my medium sized portable toolbox...lol) on the seat, and go from there.  The measurement is to the center of the front closing plate where it meets the cross member.  Of course, the condition and rate of the springs, stiffness (if adjustable) of the shocks (I run fully soft based on the bombed-out roads in MA to reduce teeth chatter) and condition of the bushings.  Stock, brandy new stuff?  6.5 unladen, shoot for 6 laden to torque.

That's my understanding and how I've done it.  At this point, I'd be happy with a level car and getting rid of the boat nose stance.  That will have to wait till next week when I pull the front apart to freshen it up and put in the spax shockers, lowered springs, overhaul the trunnions, new brake disks, greenstuff pads, and maybe swap out the original brake hoses with the new ones that have been sitting on my bench since last year....

[jbcollier]

S1s don't have a closing plate.  This diagram gives dimensions you can use as a rough guideline:

[My S1]

Brian,  you hit the nail on the head with the "boat nose" stance comment.  The stylists and sculptors strove for the nose in the air look which was still fashionable in the late sixties.  It was considered to be aggressive which was exactly the same emotional attitude that latter designers sought to achieve with the "nose grinding the pavement" look which has been with us since the eighties.  I would like to have a visually level stance when unladen so I might need to have the RR 3/4" higher than the FR.  I'll start with 6" at front and go up from there in the rear.

Thank you for the diagram John.

[BDA]

First, I'd advise you to become familiar with the Europa Central Documentation page (http://lotus-europa.com/manuals/). All the workshop manuals and parts manuals are there in searchable form. Also, there is a lot of information submitted by other owners about mods as well as stock issues and helpful hints. Another site, unfortunately only some of it is linked from that page has a lot of good information too (http://www.syer.net/latest.htm). There is a lot on those two sites and deserve enough time to become familiar with them.

Second, I believe the "boat nose" aspect came later, at least after the S1. I had always thought it came in with the TC but I could be wrong. The reason I say that is that the diagram that JB posted shows the front bumper height to be about 16" which is the same as on lowered TCs (I have measurements from EuropaTCs and mine). My understanding was that the reason for raising the front of the car was to meet headlight height regulations in the US. I think that there were changes to the S2 body to accommodate some of that too at some point.

I think your plan for setting the ride height is good. Bryan's method is really the way it should be done but the factory didn't originally allow any adjustments and the front spring/shock assy. was the same on both sides of all Europas so there was no accommodation for driver weight (even though I believe it is mentioned in the procedure for doing an alignment). Of course now that we can adjust ride height, it makes sense to be as precise as we want.

[My S1]

Yes indeed it was all about the headlight height.  The front suspension of the S1A was jacked up almost an inch to achieve the US HDLP regulations.  With the S2 the HDLPs and buckets were actually raised to the legal height and the front fenders were re-sculpted with greater height and crown.  The inward PV swale of the S1 rocker also contributes to the roaring runabout nose look.

Like the frog eye turn indicators it is a matter of taste but I much prefer the lower "flat top" fenders of the S1.  The way that the rocker flows into the belly pan is so much more (in my opinion, forgive me please) sensual that the rocker flange of the later cars.

[SwiftDB4]

I'm not sure S1A Europas had raised suspension. My S1B # 460571 did not. I've owned the car almost since new and it still had the original non adjustable springs and shocks. I believe the raised front was initiated on type 65 Federal S2 Europas. Also I believe the Federal headlight law went into effect 1/1/69.

[My S1]

This is exactly what I love so much about the Europa, especially the early made cars.  The production numbers were so low that each one was a bit different and the folk lore surrounding them is muddled.  Another explanation for the somewhat haphazard way that they were slapped together must be that Mr. Chapman was focused so intently on the race effort and let the boys do as they must to sell cars to raise funds for the important part of the company-racing.

In Chris Harvey's book "The Elite, Elan, Europa" he talks about jacking up the suspension.  A couple of paragraphs later he talks about the Insurance companies complaints about the imbedded chassis but that is highly disputed as well.

[Bryan Boyle]

***DELETIA***


I think your plan for setting the ride height is good. Bryan's method is really the way it should be done but the factory didn't originally allow any adjustments and the front spring/shock assy. was the same on both sides of all Europas so there was no accommodation for driver weight (even though I believe it is mentioned in the procedure for doing an alignment). Of course now that we can adjust ride height, it makes sense to be as precise as we want.

FWIW, I got that information about setting the height from Mike Pomfret (those who've been in the marque for a while will know who he is..) at the factory back when I was redoing 444R (I save EVERYTING, including the Christmas cards he sent me religiously once a year...!!!) since, to me, the manual wasn't as clear as I thought it should be.  Served me well through 3 restos so far...figure with 3291R, it will give me the results I'm looking for..and really the only change I'm making is the spax/shortened springs.

[jbcollier]

The S1s weren't raised.  The S2s, yes, depending on market and using various methods.  The wildest of which was inverting the front a-arms.

The insurance companies were right to complain about chassis changes in an S1.  It's a LOT of work!!

[My S1]

John,  this was one of the many Europas that I considered buying (and did bid on-Ebay) over the years.  460502.  Sure looks jacked up to me.  It would be interesting to know from the new owner if the lower arms are flopped.

In regards to the center console decals,  I just approved a sample so they will be printing next week.  It is exactly the same material (more or less) as the Kangol seat belt decals.

[BDA]

That's NOTHING compared to a TCS!

[jbcollier]

Period photos are what you need to go by.  Who knows the history of any car after 50+ years.  On this one I couldn't get past the white wall tires.