wow that is a BEAUTIFUL drop. looks perfectly balanced and not slammed like some of the others. The P3D should've came like this from the factory.
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Eibach Releases Performance Pack Lowering Springs
- Thread starter DB-Cooper
- Start date
MMMGP
Member
So I'm a little confused here. Eibach makes two types of springs for the Dual Motor TM3s. The first is for standard DMs and the other for Performance models.
E10-87-001-02-22 is listed for the standard DM with a drop of 0.9" in the front and 1.0" for the rear.
E10-87-001-03-22 is listed for the Performance with a drop of 1.0" for the front and 1.4" for the rear.
Does anyone know if the springs are interchangeable? If I wanted the Performance springs for a a slightly lower drop would the springs fit?
E10-87-001-02-22 is listed for the standard DM with a drop of 0.9" in the front and 1.0" for the rear.
E10-87-001-03-22 is listed for the Performance with a drop of 1.0" for the front and 1.4" for the rear.
Does anyone know if the springs are interchangeable? If I wanted the Performance springs for a a slightly lower drop would the springs fit?
It’s not really so much based on height, but rather the spring rate of the springs themselves (squat, weight, etc).
“Technically” they could be interchangeable but the ride quality and handling may be compromised due to the instant torque during take-off, stopping, etc. it’s best to install the property designated part number for the model you have
MMMGP
Member
Thanks. I'm not going to be tracking the car and I don't mind the increase in spring rates. I figure a shorter rear spring will be pretty stiff as it's almost half an inch shorter and has to absorb the Performance take-offs. Anyone have both sets of springs and a spring rate tester sitting around?
I still don't understand the logic behind the 0.4" lower difference in the rear vs the front? This will only add to the already annoying 'reverse rake' look.
Really bad shot just after getting them installed. It’s definitely a lot lower than I thought. I had a motorized scooter, springs and a baby seat in the trunk. One off camber driveway I felt the plastic part right in front of the left rear briefly rub the ground. I didn’t see any scratch and that area is a full 1” or so lower than the battery which is more centered. It was able to go into my auto car wash and clear the track system, something my 2016 Cadillac ATSV couldn’t do.
EdisonDrvr
Member
Sorry...but I’m just not feeling that mod. Reverse rake looks awful to me and it would be EXTREMELY annoying to have to be careful going down driveways so that you aren’t dragging trim pieces. It just looks bad to me as well. Your car looks great aside from that...the low rider look with the higher front and squatting rear looks really bad though.
To each their own, if you measure the car, they're at the same height, so not a reverse rake, but if you like raked looks, this mod isn't for you. That said, T-Sportline also lowered the rear more. Personally. I feel the Tesla M3 doesn't really have the styling cues to support a rake. The rear tires/fenders aren't bulged which tends to look good with raked looks. That said, if I were providing feedback to Eibach, I'd probably say a 1.2" rear lowering is better. However, if you look at the before/after measurements shown by another posted earlier in this thread, it actually shows roughly the same lowering front to back.
2-day report:
Height: It's definitely low. Having lowered many cars, I felt a 1" drop with this much fender gap would be pretty modest, but it definitely seems more aggressive than on other cars. Fundamentally, I feel it's not that the Tesla is too high, the designers just botched the body design and created unnecessarily too much fender gap. With such narrow and inset wheels on these, it really makes no sense. Fortunately, despite the now very low car, the very forward front wheel placement and a tapered front bumper angle make for very good clearance on things like speed bumps, driveways, etc. Compared to other sports sedans, there's a very good approach angle on this car (to speak 4x4 terms). Contrarily, my previous car had a huge CF front lip that was way out in front of the front wheels (ATS-V with Carbon Pkg), and at stock height I ran into issues with driveways, car wash rails, etc. I don't have that here.
The lowest part of the Tesla is just in front of the rear wheels. The plastic/side-skirt moves down just before the rear wheel, the only time I heard anything was when that area briefly contacted a driveway angle, but after inspecting, there was no visual scratching, and it is plastic anyways and wouldn't be visual unless you have a major event. Fortunately, this area is considerably lower than the batteries which are much higher and not at risk of damage. In fact, the entire surrounding skirt around the wheel area provides a good safety margins for batteries when it comes to driveways, speedbumps, etc. Here's a picture of the area, but you can see it almost has a tail of black plastic that is notably lower than the rest of the black plastic (and painted side). It's hard to see in the picture, but I basically outlined the shape. This is going to be the area that touches first, which if anything touched, this would be the most favorable spot considering the materials.
You definitely feel closer to the ground, and when parked, it looks like a very low car. It definitely makes it look like a more purpose built sports sedan versus a commuter luxury car. Stance wise, it's Audi A6 to Audi RS6.
Ride: It's definitely stiffer, you do feel more particularly in parking lots. Speed bumps end very solidly. If you push down on the trunk, there's very little play (I didn't test this before the springs). You can definitely feel it being stiffer around parking lots, speed bumps, etc. It's not necessarily worse, it's just personal preference on whether you want that firm pop over speed bumps or a cushier Cadillac like ride. I feel it is more M3/ATS-V now than before, which is fine with me. On the highway/road at speed, it's not noticeable. I've not seen any bouncing or other effects. Finally, I always felt the Model 3 suspension was noisy and a bit clunky. It's too early to tell, but it's definitely not worse with this, perhaps even better, but that's probably placebo, regardless I wish the entire suspension setup of these stock was quieter.
Handling: Side to side body roll might be slightly better, but it more or less feels the same. I feel sway bars are needed to really tighten this up. Turn-in and lean feel more or less the same, marginally better, but it's not night and day like lowering a Honda Civic. That said, the stock performance springs already were pretty stiff. At the limit where the springs' progression can come in, I have no doubt it's better, but for normal or even mildly spirited driving, it more or less feels the same.
As most have already stated, this is mostly an aesthetic mod. I personally felt the P3D with PUP looked hideous with cross-over level fender gap. It drove me nuts. I was always telling my wife the car just looked too average, this coming from cars that have fairly aggressive looks from their counterparts (BMW M3s, Audi RS4, ATS-V with Carbon). This drop definitely resolves that. However, it's definitely lower than I expected, but given the geometry of the car and the particularly forward placed front wheels, it's easy to navigate driveways and speed bumps at the same speeds you did before.
While many comment on the reverse rake, it's definitely not reversed raked, but it certainly doesn't provide that raked look either. Personally, I feel Tesla's clean and flowing body lines and the lack of a wider rear end/fenders don't really suit a rake.
Rake: There's a lot of comments on the rake. Many pictures (mine included above) are taken with springs and other stuff in the back. I also had a forty pound electric scooter and a suitcase in the trunk. The fender height above the wheel measures to more or less the same at 27.25". I also took multiple pictures of measurements at various key points with the floor, as you can see the body parts towards to rear of the car actually are higher. So it's not a reverse rake, but if I were Eibach, I would've probably lowered the car a bit less in the rear, maybe .2" less, however, you'd have more of that ugly fender gap. I'd love to hear their justifications though.
Car:
In front of front wheel (~5.5" where paint ends):
Behind front wheel (~5.75" where the paint ends):
In front of rear wheel (~5.9" where paint ends):
Behind Rear Wheel (~7.5" where the paint ends):
So from the body kit, lowest body parts, it's actually raked, 5.5", 5.75", 6", 7.5")
Here are some lines for reference (not crazy scientific, just approximates. I was limited by the angle due to room in my garage, but the photo was taken level as based on the foundation line on the backwall.
While the fenders are basically level (or even slightly raked), the whole shape of the car has a ton of rake in it, and you can even see that the rear fender appears slightly higher visually. Every line on the car from the window sills, to the door cut, to the body skirts to the door line are very raked up. That said, I'd probably have raised the rear slightly mostly to help with the low clearance piece in front, but as stated, this is not a car that would look well in a rake (like a BMW M3). So while not "raked" from a height standpoint, the body style is raked naturally and technically speaking, the car is somewhat raked based on body kit and even possibly at the fender (but it's more or less even).
I think it's sort of Tesla design language not to have suspension raking, even the P100D with air is more of a flush and streamlined look than a bulldog attack-mode rake:
Height: It's definitely low. Having lowered many cars, I felt a 1" drop with this much fender gap would be pretty modest, but it definitely seems more aggressive than on other cars. Fundamentally, I feel it's not that the Tesla is too high, the designers just botched the body design and created unnecessarily too much fender gap. With such narrow and inset wheels on these, it really makes no sense. Fortunately, despite the now very low car, the very forward front wheel placement and a tapered front bumper angle make for very good clearance on things like speed bumps, driveways, etc. Compared to other sports sedans, there's a very good approach angle on this car (to speak 4x4 terms). Contrarily, my previous car had a huge CF front lip that was way out in front of the front wheels (ATS-V with Carbon Pkg), and at stock height I ran into issues with driveways, car wash rails, etc. I don't have that here.
The lowest part of the Tesla is just in front of the rear wheels. The plastic/side-skirt moves down just before the rear wheel, the only time I heard anything was when that area briefly contacted a driveway angle, but after inspecting, there was no visual scratching, and it is plastic anyways and wouldn't be visual unless you have a major event. Fortunately, this area is considerably lower than the batteries which are much higher and not at risk of damage. In fact, the entire surrounding skirt around the wheel area provides a good safety margins for batteries when it comes to driveways, speedbumps, etc. Here's a picture of the area, but you can see it almost has a tail of black plastic that is notably lower than the rest of the black plastic (and painted side). It's hard to see in the picture, but I basically outlined the shape. This is going to be the area that touches first, which if anything touched, this would be the most favorable spot considering the materials.
You definitely feel closer to the ground, and when parked, it looks like a very low car. It definitely makes it look like a more purpose built sports sedan versus a commuter luxury car. Stance wise, it's Audi A6 to Audi RS6.
Ride: It's definitely stiffer, you do feel more particularly in parking lots. Speed bumps end very solidly. If you push down on the trunk, there's very little play (I didn't test this before the springs). You can definitely feel it being stiffer around parking lots, speed bumps, etc. It's not necessarily worse, it's just personal preference on whether you want that firm pop over speed bumps or a cushier Cadillac like ride. I feel it is more M3/ATS-V now than before, which is fine with me. On the highway/road at speed, it's not noticeable. I've not seen any bouncing or other effects. Finally, I always felt the Model 3 suspension was noisy and a bit clunky. It's too early to tell, but it's definitely not worse with this, perhaps even better, but that's probably placebo, regardless I wish the entire suspension setup of these stock was quieter.
Handling: Side to side body roll might be slightly better, but it more or less feels the same. I feel sway bars are needed to really tighten this up. Turn-in and lean feel more or less the same, marginally better, but it's not night and day like lowering a Honda Civic. That said, the stock performance springs already were pretty stiff. At the limit where the springs' progression can come in, I have no doubt it's better, but for normal or even mildly spirited driving, it more or less feels the same.
As most have already stated, this is mostly an aesthetic mod. I personally felt the P3D with PUP looked hideous with cross-over level fender gap. It drove me nuts. I was always telling my wife the car just looked too average, this coming from cars that have fairly aggressive looks from their counterparts (BMW M3s, Audi RS4, ATS-V with Carbon). This drop definitely resolves that. However, it's definitely lower than I expected, but given the geometry of the car and the particularly forward placed front wheels, it's easy to navigate driveways and speed bumps at the same speeds you did before.
While many comment on the reverse rake, it's definitely not reversed raked, but it certainly doesn't provide that raked look either. Personally, I feel Tesla's clean and flowing body lines and the lack of a wider rear end/fenders don't really suit a rake.
Rake: There's a lot of comments on the rake. Many pictures (mine included above) are taken with springs and other stuff in the back. I also had a forty pound electric scooter and a suitcase in the trunk. The fender height above the wheel measures to more or less the same at 27.25". I also took multiple pictures of measurements at various key points with the floor, as you can see the body parts towards to rear of the car actually are higher. So it's not a reverse rake, but if I were Eibach, I would've probably lowered the car a bit less in the rear, maybe .2" less, however, you'd have more of that ugly fender gap. I'd love to hear their justifications though.
Car:
In front of front wheel (~5.5" where paint ends):
Behind front wheel (~5.75" where the paint ends):
In front of rear wheel (~5.9" where paint ends):
Behind Rear Wheel (~7.5" where the paint ends):
So from the body kit, lowest body parts, it's actually raked, 5.5", 5.75", 6", 7.5")
Here are some lines for reference (not crazy scientific, just approximates. I was limited by the angle due to room in my garage, but the photo was taken level as based on the foundation line on the backwall.
While the fenders are basically level (or even slightly raked), the whole shape of the car has a ton of rake in it, and you can even see that the rear fender appears slightly higher visually. Every line on the car from the window sills, to the door cut, to the body skirts to the door line are very raked up. That said, I'd probably have raised the rear slightly mostly to help with the low clearance piece in front, but as stated, this is not a car that would look well in a rake (like a BMW M3). So while not "raked" from a height standpoint, the body style is raked naturally and technically speaking, the car is somewhat raked based on body kit and even possibly at the fender (but it's more or less even).
I think it's sort of Tesla design language not to have suspension raking, even the P100D with air is more of a flush and streamlined look than a bulldog attack-mode rake:
Last edited:
your reverse rake isn't even that noticeable. and you also mentioned you had a bunch of stuff in the back. How about another pic with an empty trunk? Car's lookin good and complete.
edit- and you have!
Last edited:
Just posted some, check one post above. That's an empty trunk. I do have the Mobile charger, a 50' extension cord and a tire inflater, but that's all 10-15 pounds. A Diono Radian RXT (which is heavy) car seat is in the rear seat behind the driver as well.
Thank you very much for the extremely detailed post! Especially the ground clearance measurements. Good stuff! 5.5” clearance in front seems adequate but I’m kinda concern when you say it may be too low now. Perhaps it was more than a 1” drop? Not sure if you took measurements prior to the springs being installed. I’m getting coilover and a front lip installed soon and I’m worried it’s gonna be too low.
The ‘reverse rake look’ isn’t bad at all on your car considering the 1.4” drop in back. I do understand it’s more of an optical illusion cause by the design of the car but I appreciate how you took actual measurements to prove it. Still though, I wish Tesla would have just made the front and rear fenders leveled. I don’t need it raked, just even.
Car looks great BTW.
The drop is accurately around 1", a bit more in the rear but I'm not measuring a full 1.4" based on pre/post images posted by another member on Page 2. If you haven't seen those, I'd go to Page 2 and see those actual before/after. Ultimately, I think it's just the design of the car that proves challenging here. I've lowered a lot of cars, typically a 1" drop isn't very much. What I think is the case is the Tesla is actually already quite low, it just doesn't appear low because it's got a ridiculous and poorly designed 5-finger fender gap. Typically cars that are sporty are aesthetically designed to look low. So the case here is that to close the fender gap, the car must be very low. Additionally, there is this black trim on the side of the car below the painted area. It's not obviously visible to the naked eye unless you're looking for it. These black pieces, particularly in front of the rear wheels are actually quite large and go quite low, like multiple inches. You can see below some really good shots, the black trim is less than 4" off the ground. That's VERY low, the good news is, it's an unusually large piece of plastic and it's not painted so it'll fare well with damage. For reference, a Corvette Z06 has 5.6" of ground clearance in the front nose and 4.75" under the car behind the front wheel. Given how close this piece is to the wheel, it's not as big of a deal however, and the battery packs and floor board are notably higher. In stock form, this piece is still VERY low, provably less than 5", you'd never guess looking at the car, but there is this randomly unnecessary black trim piece that unnecessarily lowers the lowest point of the car. I believe this will be the piece that you'll notice rubbing particularly on off camber driveway.
As stated, it's just an unusual design with these skirts, but they serve as a good reminder and precaution to floor damage. Even without lowering, these pieces are quite low, but the proximity to the axle really helps. In reality, Tesla should have just made lower fenders, they missed a major performance aesthetic in their design.
Pics again, you can see how low this black piece is compared to where the red paint is.
Here again you can see how aggressive of a tail this has. This entire piece is a good 1", maybe more lower than anywhere else on the car.
Just an interesting design concept altogether.
Last edited:
espec
Member
Did anybody get an alignment done after installing these springs?
I like to know how much negative camber the car has now with these lowering springs.
I like to know how much negative camber the car has now with these lowering springs.
Thanks for the pics. I see exactly what you're talking about now. I didn't think those black trim pieces were that thick. I just hope they hold up well in the long term since I anticipate a lot of scraping. I'm seriously reconsidering the carbon fiber front lip now. It's supposedly only 0.5" lower than the factory front but on top of the 1" drop I'm planning to do with the coilovers, it might be a bad idea. I've had lowered cars in the past and it's always a hassle with slopes or having to go slowly over speed bumps in shopping plazas or parking structures when there's a bunch of cars behind you. I didn't mind it so much when I was younger but now I don't know...
I agree about the ridiculously large fender gaps of the car. Not sure what they were thinking to be honest. Also, for some strange reason your car looks lower compared to others with the same drop. Might just be the angle of the pics though. Have you tested it on any steep driveways?
Similar threads
