It all gets down really to one's personal likes and dislikes. Being an ol design engineer myself, I believe we have to look at the original intent of the Mustang's ride height, by the designers and the engineers at FoMoCo! Just my lame 2-cents on this old question. Ready!

First. Stock height is always a big trade off of the looks (design) against the function (engineering). Stylists and designers size the shape the whole package. Then engineers work that shape into function by the current established norms. As in the the vehicle suspension's total travel limits, wheel/tires sizes and the ground clearance issues of the roads, curbs, driveway angles etc. are all included in this. Yawn!

Design wise, believe the stock height has been placed to show a circle arc in the fender lips, in parallel to the circle curvature at the edge of the tires. If you strike an arc from the center point of the wheel cap and run it around the top of the tire's edge, Then do the same with the fender lips, you will find that they run pretty much parallel. I know. Boring!!

Engineering wise, believe those elements just discussed, were then brought together with the required wheel travel and clearances, to give stock ride heights that you now see on the car. With a little bit of retro lift there in the back. To kick up the Mustang's shorter rear deck area. Anyone asleep yet?

When you lower a vehicle, this can change the suspension's geometry, requring different travel rates of the springs i.e. a much tighter and more solid thumpy ride over the road's defects. Everything is a big trade off on this.

Lastly. Might think one would want to consider the bigger tire/wheel combo, to tighten up the air gap between the tires edges and the fender lips. But there is no free lunch on this plan. As you will have to live with the very increased weight added to the platform and added cost too. But the good news is, you have left the suspension geometry untampered. Which has been designed and researched by some professional folks, a lot smarter that any of us here! Okay you can torch me now! This is just my humble understanding and beliefs on what we now have in the current model.

 

Though I agree with you on most points, the rear wheel doesn't form a concentric arc with the curvature of the rear wheel. I would also like to see the rocker panel parallel to the ground. This is my only sore point with the looks and since this is a pan hard rod centered rear suspension just lowering the rear is not a cheap option. Other than that I like the ride height but I also like my 4x4s lifted.

When the SN95s first came out I went to my local dealer for a better look as this was the first Mustang style since 1967 that I liked. I found it extremely difficult entering and egressing. Too many years doing track and field, football, and way too many PRTs and PFTs in the Corps put their toll on my knees. With a larger door and a different ride height I didn't have the same problem with the S197 so I got one.

My vote is on the stock height as seen below.

BB
Semper FI

 

I feel that the car looks good at the stock ride height, but when lowered around 1" - 1.5" all around, it's perfect.

 

+1, I have the CDC aggressive chin and really couldn't afford to "drop it", but I wanted it to handle better and a moderate drop (Steeda Comp. Springs) was about perfect for both perf. and aesthetics. Went down 3/4" in front and about 1" in rear. Looks almost stock, but as stated before the front clip makes it look lower as well.

 

It's all on what you want for your car....

I had planned on loweing my car until I saw it with the new tires/wheels. The stock ride height just looked right with the tires/rims. I like the retro-muscle car stance. I won't be lowering the car because I think it will take away from the overall look.

 

Pony Ride, what are the specs on your tires and rims?

 

18" deep dish black bullits from Discount Tires, BFG KDW's 255/45/18's all around.

 

The back end being higher only works for me if the wheel/tire is also larger otherwise all you have is a huge gap between tire and wheel well

I prefer the car leveled out, not necesarily lowered but to accomplish that I think I need to lower only the rear 1.0-1.5 inches. I wouldn't even mind the rear slightly lower than the front, every pic of 67-68 Shelby's show the front higher than the rear and they look like they are moving even when standing still!

 

Stock height looks like a truck.
Lowered makes the car look longer and lower, and much, much better IMHO.

 

That's my problem with them as well. I got a 1.5" drop and love it. With the 28.8" 555r's on the back it gives it a badass looking rake too.

 

ride height is fine for me

 

I have a CS and the front end is already 1.5 lower to the ground then the GT because of the front fascia. I didn't want to lower it, but I hated the the raked up look in the back. I went with a leveling kit that lowered the back end of the car 1.1", now the back sits .25" lower then the front and it looks perfect.

Terry

 

Yep, prefer the stock height with bigger meats!!

 

Back in the day, as a teenager in SoCal in the late 60's early 70s, it was all about the "rake," so I guess I'm just a product of my environment in liking the stock ride height of this car. I know my 68 Roadrunner looked pretty good with its ***-end a little higher than the front. Of course, the Plymouth was intended to do one thing well--go fast in a straight line. With this car, one can lower it for looks, but one can also lower it to improve its performance on a race track (or even on some nice backroads), and I think that both are more than good reasons for altering the suspension.

Indeed, I must admit that after giving a thumbs up for stock, that I also have given some thought to a set of H & R sports springs and Koni adjustables!

 

Shaun's ride looks great after he lowered it. It's not like it's at "low rider" height. Performance is another reason to change the suspension. I can tell you from experience...Shaun's car can out corner and out handle mine. My car still has it's original suspension, and with my current power train...it dosen't hook or handle worth a D@mn. I have to leave the line at idle or all I do is smoke the tires. I can pull 12.80's in the 1/4 mile right now. I think I'm a "new suspension" away from hitting the low 12's. I think these cars look better with the @ss end a little lower...and handle much better as well.

 

Its a toss up.I loved the stock suspension for the ride.Very smooth and handles OK but when lowered the ride gets firm and the lateral roll out goes away.I love the mountain twisties so lowering was a no-brainer.

 

I like the stock height. I have gone back and forth about lowering my car though. I like the look, but I don't want to drop a shi!t ton of money into messing with the suspension. I wouldn't want to do anything too low anyway for two reasons 1. I'd like to get a CDC chin spoiler possibly, and 2. the roads near me suck.

Can someone please post an example/link of a "leveling kit" like the one Water_Junky mentioned?

Thanks.

 

+1 thats what so many don't seem to understand is how the handling inproves with the modified suspension....

I've experimented with three different ride heights and dampers and I know many like the level look, the rake exists for a reason Thats why Saleen, Steeda, Roush and even the Ford racing handling package no matter the drop hight keep some degree of rake. I have the CDC chin spoiler and with the 1'' drop from the Saleen springs have only buffed the bottom of it a couple times, and then only on the most extreme angled grades of incline...

 

I think a small drop works wonders on these cars (1" to 1.5") I'm not too fond of the S197 when it's really slammed though.

Beyond a certain point it doesn't look right (whereas the previous SN95 and New Edge 'stangs can practically have their floorboards on the ground and still look good)

 

stock height looks dorky to me,especially w/ stock rims and tires JMO