This thread came out of a discussion between @Lee and myself last night.
My 2.2 Sport has shorter springs than a standard non-///M Z3. When we put these next to a set of Z3M springs we can see that the M springs are shorter and slightly thinner than the sport ones.
My questions is based around the idea of fitting the shorter Z3M front springs in place of my Sport springs, in the thought that it would lower the front ride height of Rosie. Can anyone think why fitting M springs to a standard shock absorber would be a good or bad idea? The shocks I have are slightly shorter so would cope with shorter springs.
I know when the general question of whether Z3M suspension fits a non-///M is usually answered with a solid NO. Would this be down to a difference in shock absorber?
We know already that Z3M rear springs are ok on a non-///M as Lee fitted them to his Dads 2.8 and it brought the ride height on the back down nicely.
Am I barking up the wrong tree, or does this seem a possibility for lowering my Z3.
My 2.2 Sport has shorter springs than a standard non-///M Z3. When we put these next to a set of Z3M springs we can see that the M springs are shorter and slightly thinner than the sport ones.
My questions is based around the idea of fitting the shorter Z3M front springs in place of my Sport springs, in the thought that it would lower the front ride height of Rosie. Can anyone think why fitting M springs to a standard shock absorber would be a good or bad idea? The shocks I have are slightly shorter so would cope with shorter springs.
I know when the general question of whether Z3M suspension fits a non-///M is usually answered with a solid NO. Would this be down to a difference in shock absorber?
We know already that Z3M rear springs are ok on a non-///M as Lee fitted them to his Dads 2.8 and it brought the ride height on the back down nicely.
Am I barking up the wrong tree, or does this seem a possibility for lowering my Z3.