Till,
No, I haven’t measured for narrowest clearance, but can if you’d like. Just tell me where you want me to measure and I’ll do it for ya.
As far as ride quality before and after, it’s a bit hard for me to give a comparison because I have no idea what was in there before. I know it wasn’t stock because the overall ride height wasn’t stock and there were no identifying marks, labels or stamps on the old suspension. But, here’s what I can tell you...
The handling is great! I’ve thrown into turns at speeds I normally wouldn’t do or feel comfortable doing, and it handles it flawlessly. Little to no sway in the body and to quote a line from the movie “Pretty Woman”, it handles like its on rails!
FWIW, I also have subframe connectors bolted on underneath. So, that likely contributes.
The ride quality, as one would expect with a lowered, sport suspension, is stiffer than stock. I’m 59 and pretty banged up body-wise, so it does sometimes bother me, but the driving experience more than makes up for it and once I hoist myself out of a lowered car like this (arthritis aside!), I’m smiling as it’s just what I was looking for!
No squeaks, rubbing or vibration issues and all parts fit perfectly.
I will add that I initially had 275/50x17’s on the rear but have gone to 275/40x17 instead only because I did not like the look of the wider profile tire in the rear, reminiscent of muscle cars of yore. I am now wondering if I should have stayed with the 50’s, which due to the higher profile had a tad better ride quality(and I don’t notice a difference in handling) in the rear than the 40’s and that lightweight rear end on the car. If I stay with the 40’s, I am looking into LRCA (lower rear control arms) with ride height adjustment feature to close the gap between the top of the rear tire and the wheel well. Maximum MotorSports has a nice set.
As for pictures, here’s what I took while the car was up on a lift getting gears in the rear end: