Technical Ride height and leafspring questions

[vitorio]

Hi guys, since i cant find any proper data on google, i figured i'd ask here.

My 500(L if that matters) seems like it is tilted backwards a bit, i cant properly see the horizon from my rear view mirror, and the front just seems to be looking upward a bit. I measured the tire/arch gap to be 7.5cm at the front, but only 3.5 at the back. Could anyone confirm my suspicion that it is probably lowered in the back?

Also, i would probably prefer to correct this by lowering the front a bit as well (rather then restoring the rear to high springs), but i cant figure out what leafspring to get. FDRicambi has 3 lower springs listed as compatible with the 500L, 2 5-leafs and a 6-leaf. None of them show any specs regarding ride height etc... they just have "lowered" in the name. Anyone have any clues on how to select the proper spring?

 

[smart51]

Mine is similar now that I've checked. It doesn't seem to matter.

 

[vitorio]

Mine is similar now that I've checked. It doesn't seem to matter.

Odd, it just looks a bit weird from the front so high up, and not being able to use my rearview easily kind of sucks.

Might look into lowering it nonetheless, its bound to help the cornering a bit.

 

[There all puntos]

Be a lot cheaper if you get rear tyres with larger rolling profile. I e. Go from 60s to 65s . Or from 50s to 55s etc. And very simple to change if you don't like.

 

[the hobbler]

Odd, it just looks a bit weird from the front so high up, and not being able to use my rearview easily kind of sucks.

Might look into lowering it nonetheless, its bound to help the cornering a bit.

The normal spring is a '5-leaf'. If you do get a 'lowered' spring, before you fit it, you MUST chack that the spring is properly centralised---they can be up to 10mm out! I wrote an article for the "Fiat 500 Enthusiasts club" magazine of how to check, and then rectify this problem. If anybody would like a copy of the article (because VERY few 'pattern' springs are in fact central and correct) just contact me direct---- [email protected]

 

[vitorio]

Be a lot cheaper if you get rear tyres with larger rolling profile. I e. Go from 60s to 65s . Or from 50s to 55s etc. And very simple to change if you don't like.

A spring is 100-150 euros, two new tires + getting them swapped will be more expensive, while the spring i can fit myself (although i might need an allignment)

Besides, im all for making the thing a bit lower in favor of handling, im not going full abarth replica, but making the thing going around a corner at some speed is deffinitely on the list.

 

[There all puntos]

First idea, is always the best.

 

[the hobbler]

First idea, is always the best.

When fitting bigger tyres (than specified by the manufacturer) it is always wise to remember that the speedo will not read accurately.By putting bigger tyres on the back, your speedo will read SLOW---i.e. your going faster than the speedo shows.

 

[vitorio]

When fitting bigger tyres (than specified by the manufacturer) it is always wise to remember that the speedo will not read accurately.By putting bigger tyres on the back, your speedo will read SLOW---i.e. your going faster than the speedo shows.

yeah i know, besides, in order to raise the back of the car 4cm (level it out so to speak, the total wheel diameter would need to be 8cm more, and make the arch gap at the top -0.5 cm (without anyone in the car). Now obviously that isnt going to work, and would look wacky like nothing else. (and would require going from a 135/55 to a 135/85 or something). Going with a smaller size-up will obviously only give me a small amount of rake change.

And besides looking weird, screwing with the speedo, it would also ruin acceleration (and possibly give more top speed, assuming i have the power)

So nah, changing tire size to change the rake doesnt make any sense, if this apparently is standard then im not too worried (was expecting to find out the back was lowered), but ill definitely go for a dropped spring in due time.

 

[smart51]

Looking at my car again, there isn't 7 cm at the front and 3.5 at the back, it's more like 6 and 5. There must be something else going on.

 

[vitorio]

Looking at my car again, there isn't 7 cm at the front and 3.5 at the back, it's more like 6 and 5. There must be something else going on.

Thanks, looks like im probably riding on dropped springs in the back, its got a 650cc and a 126 gearbox, but there is no way that is more then a kilo or two of weight difference.

Next time i have it up in the air ill see if the springs look suspicious (wouldnt even be surprised to find chopped springs )

 

[Goldnrust]

Just thinking about other causes, there is a rubber pad that is supposed to be between the top of the spring and the spring cup. If this has disintegrated, or been removed, that might cause the rear of the car to sit 2-3cm low?

 

[fiat500]

I just realised I had a folder of images about this.
I vaguely remember what I did when replacing the spring. It all depended on tightening all of the silentblocs once sufficient weights had been placed in the car to make the ride height between the "U"-clamps and the ground sit at 173mm.
I think I had already loosened and re-tightened the top-arms of the suspension so that they were perfectly horizontal.
The images should have a description attached.

 

[vitorio]

@fiat500 yeah, fdricambi have a document on the install mentioning that one needs to pre-tension the spring before installing, with some special tool

Your method is much more inventive though

 

[the hobbler]

@fiat500 yeah, fdricambi have a document on the install mentioning that one needs to pre-tension the spring before installing, with some special tool

Your method is much more inventive though

Victor---don't forget to let me have your address so that I can send you a copy of my article of how to check that a new spring is correctly 'centralised' [email protected]