Lowering the Box...

[Brucelee]

The car is designed to have negative camber in the back. Elaborate on what you have in mind regarding this camber kit you mentioned.

I am interested where you are going with this?

BTW-if all you want do is to make an appearance statement, why not wheels and tires vs. lowering.

Why look like every other honda out there?

[Morelli]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

The car is designed to have negative camber in the back. Elaborate on what you have in mind regarding this camber kit you mentioned.

I am interested where you are going with this?

BTW-if all you want do is to make an appearance statement, why not wheels and tires vs. lowering.

Why look like every other honda out there?

A camber kit to correct some of the camber. I don't know why the car would be designed to have negative camber in the ass end. Granted, I'm no suspension genius and if Porsche engineers designed it that way...obviously they're the authority...but I just don't understand it. In every other car I have had, camber is the devil. Less contact patch = less grip...at least that is how I understand it. I'd rather have the entire tire on the ground...???

[FUHRIUS]

1 inch via techart springs (I believe they're made by h&R).
I bought the car this way. I like the look and I believe it could only improve, not hurt, the handling. And I have no problems with it being too low to drive as my daily driver here in norther california. the set up is comparable to a factory-offered (r030?) suspension package, so I don't understand why some people here think it's tweaking the car so much.
My car does go through rear tires fast though...the car has gotten 9-10k miles per set on michelin pilot sports.

[Lux]

Negative camber is your friend for cornering. You get maximum contact patch in corners. But if you do a lot of straight line driving, then obviously you're gonna pay the price with the inside tires wearing more rapidly. This isn't entirely due to the negative camber though. The Boxster has a bit of weight over the rear tires and this will also affect tire wear. Go see how fast a 911 burns thru tires!

I believe there are camber kits out there. Usually it's to get more camber so I don't know if they allow a lowered car to get less. Keep in mind that the camber change is a trait of the Macpherson design.

Like I mentioned in another thread, I wasted my rear tires at 10K miles and I'm on stock height. What I should have done was rotate the tires at 5K to get more mileage. I will definitely be doing this from now on...but 15K miles on performance tires is about normal for me.

BTW, keep in mind that the Euro version of our cars (along with BMW's, etc). are all lower than the US counterpart. This is because of bumper height requirements. So lowering it 1" is more akin to the original design...in a sense.


-

[FUHRIUS]

Lux - agreed on the 'rest of world' spec being about an inch lower than stock US setup (that's what I was referring to with the R030 option).
I'm going to try rotating my rears next time too...but I've just sort of got used to the idea that tires are expendable, and having them go in 10-12k miles vs. 15k miles is just not a big deal in the long term scheme of things. Mind you, my front pilot sports have the same 10k miles on them and they look like they'll go another 10k.
and besides, nothing looks meaner from the rear than fat tires tucked barely inside the rear wheel wells with a bunch of negative camber...I ust love looking at the ass of my boxster.