Omega Owners Forum

Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: DaveA on 03 April 2014, 10:20:11

Title: Standard rear ride height
Post by: DaveA on 03 April 2014, 10:20:11
    What is the rear ride height?   Many are talking about it, but try as I may, I cannot find it written down anywhere.   Could somebody point me in the right direction please.   Tha :y nks         
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: RobG on 03 April 2014, 10:26:00
App. 675mm
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: DaveA on 03 April 2014, 10:29:33
   Thanks Rob :y
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: steve6367 on 03 April 2014, 11:30:35
App. 675mm

Where is that measured to Rob?
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: amba on 03 April 2014, 12:12:53
From ground through center of wheel to underside of wheel arch :y
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: steve6367 on 03 April 2014, 19:52:39
Ummm....the new (to me) 2.5 saloon is 720mm passenger side and 730 drivers side.....

Is that bad? Seems way out based on the above.
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: Steve B on 03 April 2014, 19:57:30
Ummm....the new (to me) 2.5 saloon is 720mm passenger side and 730 drivers side.....

Is that bad? Seems way out based on the above.
Just let some air out both drivers side tyres. Sorted  :y
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: Entwood on 03 April 2014, 20:01:05
Ummm....the new (to me) 2.5 saloon is 720mm passenger side and 730 drivers side.....

Is that bad? Seems way out based on the above.

Does it have self leveling suspension ?? if so it "may" be stuck in the raised position ...
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: steve6367 on 03 April 2014, 20:11:41
No it's only a CD spec so just standard setup.

The Estate seems to be 700mm & 710mm...

Steve
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: powerslinky on 03 April 2014, 20:44:22
Ummm....the new (to me) 2.5 saloon is 720mm passenger side and 730 drivers side.....

Is that bad? Seems way out based on the above.

Possibly incorrect springs . .  as said, in above post,  should be circa 675mm    + or  - 5mm  IMO  :-\
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: steve6367 on 03 April 2014, 20:58:56
Same for the Estate or is that supposed to be higher?
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: steve6367 on 03 April 2014, 21:00:17
Ummm....the new (to me) 2.5 saloon is 720mm passenger side and 730 drivers side.....

Is that bad? Seems way out based on the above.

Possibly incorrect springs . .  as said, in above post,  should be circa 675mm    + or  - 5mm  IMO  :-\

Should I be changing them? Will it cause issues?
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: powerslinky on 03 April 2014, 21:14:18
Ummm....the new (to me) 2.5 saloon is 720mm passenger side and 730 drivers side.....

Is that bad? Seems way out based on the above.

Possibly incorrect springs . .  as said, in above post,  should be circa 675mm    + or  - 5mm  IMO  :-\

Should I be changing them? Will it cause issues?

Handling will suffer quite badly I would think :-\

 Have a good look around the springs themselves , there may be a 2 letter code painted on them  ( for example LC  or LA  or similar)

Not sure what the code for std springs is or if std actually have a code .Also what year is the car ?

Mr. Gixer will be along soon , he knows all about this in detail  ;) & will probably advise you on what to change to if needed

But STD ride height should be 675mm
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: steve6367 on 03 April 2014, 21:53:18
It's a 2000 and a quick glance in the dark the springs looks too new to be original I would say, still nice black paint. Although can't see any record of them being changed in the history I have.

Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: powerslinky on 03 April 2014, 22:05:13
Just out of interest . . does the car have a tow bar fitted ?
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: steve6367 on 04 April 2014, 11:04:50
I look forward to Mr Gixer arriving then  :y

No tow bar that I can see now, but not to say its never had one.

Steve
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: chrisgixer on 04 April 2014, 13:44:26
Probably got too long a spring fitted. Mine had LA springs fitted and the ride height was about 1.5 inches higher front and back than any other car at the Oxford meet.

What's the front ride height measure? It should be approximately the same as the rear. If the front is nearer 675 then I'd suggest it has had new (incorrect) rear springs fitted.

If it's the same ride height all round, it might be correct as fitted from the factory and it has rough road/plod or LA springs fitted. (Although LA where not factory got on mine)
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: steve6367 on 04 April 2014, 15:34:39
I will check the front and report back, but even by eye the back is a lot higher than the front.

If I replace the springs is it VX only? Or can you get the correct size elsewhere?

Steve
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: powerslinky on 05 April 2014, 08:39:44
Genuine VX  springs are very expensive  . . over £300 per pair i believe>:( >:(  so KYB are used by some on here .

Don't quote me but I think the KYB  RJ 6226  is the standard spring for the post 1999 ( FL ) 2.5 omega  if a saloon (estates differ) :-\ .

Around the £70/80 per pair  mark I think :-\

Try googling KYB RJ6226   or there was a full list of KYB springs posted on here some time ago (try the search facility)

Chris Gixer is the man to advise you IMO 

Also post up  the measurements of all four corners  out of interest.

As a last point from personal experience VX dealerships  have not  got a clue on which springs to fit to which model  >:( >:(

HTH  :y

Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: chrisgixer on 05 April 2014, 09:49:21
I wouldn't be overly concerned to replace the springs purely on a visual difference in ride height. Main thing is how the car handles. If it behaves, leave it.

Dealer via trade club helps on cost
Kyb are reasonable but tend to rust going by some reports on here. Any factors.
Boge via Allgermanparts (link at top of parts section)

So as Al says really. :y

Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: steve6367 on 15 April 2014, 12:56:24
Genuine VX  springs are very expensive  . . over £300 per pair i believe>:( >:(  so KYB are used by some on here .

Don't quote me but I think the KYB  RJ 6226  is the standard spring for the post 1999 ( FL ) 2.5 omega  if a saloon (estates differ) :-\ .

Around the £70/80 per pair  mark I think :-\

Try googling KYB RJ6226   or there was a full list of KYB springs posted on here some time ago (try the search facility)

Chris Gixer is the man to advise you IMO 

Also post up  the measurements of all four corners  out of interest.

As a last point from personal experience VX dealerships  have not  got a clue on which springs to fit to which model  >:( >:(

HTH  :y

Estate:

675 Passenger Front
685 Driver Front
710 Both sides Rear

Saloon:

670 Both sides Front
725 Passenger Rear
730 Driver Rear

Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: chrisgixer on 15 April 2014, 13:11:08
There 5-10mm tolerance from side to side so looks ok.

Just too high at the rear as said.

Neither are elite so no self levelling to worry about. It's purely spring length at fault.
If you want to sort it out its a case of new rear springs.
Title: Re: Standard rear ride height
Post by: steve6367 on 22 April 2014, 14:15:55
Just for information, this it what the car has fitted so looks GM:

(http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq19/steve6367/Omega/2014-04-09142912_zps29c9def0.jpg) (http://s429.photobucket.com/user/steve6367/media/Omega/2014-04-09142912_zps29c9def0.jpg.html)

(http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq19/steve6367/Omega/2014-04-09142938_zpsf8920afc.jpg) (http://s429.photobucket.com/user/steve6367/media/Omega/2014-04-09142938_zpsf8920afc.jpg.html)