A client wanted to improve the stance of his MG ZS EV. The overly generous tyre to wheel arch gaps of his ‘Mark 1’ version was not to his liking. So, on went a set of our lowering springs (made to our requirements for us by Eibach) and monotube dampers (ditto, by Bilstein). A drop in height of 25mm makes an obvious difference in stance, whilst the carefully selected spring rates reduce roll and understeer. The damping keeps everything under control and rids the car of the motion sickness-inducing pitch. Result. By the way, we now offer a fitting service, should you fancy an upgrade in 2025.
But sometimes, more is better. Our client wanted a further stance improvement. Thankfully, MG had already launched a larger tyre profile on the ‘Mark 2’ version of the ZS EV. We had some discussion. Would the larger tyre fit, without clearance issues? Well, yes, given that the hardware and travels were unchanged. But what about the lowering springs? Again, no problem. The lowering springs only change the start position within the existing wheel envelope. The suspension travel is offset (circa 25mm less bump travel, with correspondingly greater rebound), but the actual end points are the same as the original car. So, on went an easy win, especially as the original tyres were approaching replacement time.
Another ZS has had a tyre change recently. Our new (to us) ZS180 arrived on rather posh 18” wheels. Sensibly (for clearances), the previous owner had chosen a 215/35 18 tyre size (close to the original 17” size, but smaller on overall diameter to avoid fouls). Whilst looking great, the wet grip was marginal (a fault of the tyre make, not size) and sharp-edged road inputs were a ride challenge and didn’t bode well for sidewall longevity. For winter months, I am definitely a winter tyre convert, but particularly good experience of the Michelin Cross Climate (all season) tyre on our Rover 75 got me thinking. Wouldn’t it make sense to fit a set of these tyres in the 215/40 size? Greater sidewall height, better winter safety and even tighter wheel arch gaps. Great. But do they fit?
I had the pleasure of driving a ZS180 in New Zealand earlier this year, on road and track. Fitted with oversized tyres (215/45 R17), I had worried about tyre fouls. Not a peep. Zelda also looked great, hence the picture introducing my last blog (https://www.vehiclehandlingsolutions.com/standards-are-fixed-until-they-need-to-be-compromised/ ). A review of key dimensions showed that the proposed 18” tyre was only circa 5mm bigger here and there, so worth a punt. So, on they went. And the fouls began. Not a peep? No, more of a roar and that was just pulling of the ramp. Oops. Out with the Tippex to mark up the likely areas of contact, then a brief drive to identify the offenders. As expected, it was the wheel arch liner in the areas which surround the fixings. Tin snips, plus a few holes drilled to avoid crack propagation and we were off for a proper drive. This time, not a peep.
But what about the extremes of suspension travel. At MG Rover, our development cars would often be driven when fully loaded (passengers and luggage) to confirm all manner of things, including handling and stability. I just wanted to avoid tyre-peep embarrassment when taking mother-in-law out for her shopping. At VHS HQ, we have a stock of sandbags that we use to weigh cars down when measuring bump steer. They quickly became rear seat passengers. But what about the boot load? Thankfully, our new stock of MGTF VHS Bilstein dampers had arrived. So future customers can enjoy their improved TF suspension, safe in the knowledge that they also work well as boot load ballast for ZS180 tyre clearance testing. Not a peep from Zena, and great stability. Sometimes, more can be better.
Best wishes and safe driving in 2025.