To Quote Robbie some time ago: “Mazda quote ride height measurements as being 356mm - 405mm for the front and 354mm - 403mm for the rear with 16” wheels and 351mm - 400mm for the front and 349mm - 398mm for the rear with 17" wheels. I assume Mazda accept that it can be anywhere within that range so 5mm is actually well within the normal tolerance you would see from car to car and, presumably on the same car…Mine rides at 355 front and rear and is pretty consistent side to side.
I’m having the Eibach 30s a d geometry done at WIM week tomorrow, I don’t want thw standard suspension changed, I’ll let you know how I get on
1 Like
I had the same done a couple of weeks ago.
Enjoy the ride 
How did you get on with the 30mm? Thinking of going the same route.
Probably haven’t settled yet , but looks much better and it’s certainly a tighter drive
Putting on 17s in a couple of days will post new pics then
Looks much better. I don’t suppose you have a before shot to compare with mine, please?
This my ridiculously high.
Just look like 4x4s
I think mine is even taller or maybe just the angle.
Just the angle
Euro regs I think are to blame, pretty much a no-brainer for me to have lowered a d geometry checked
Literally can’t tell which is Mx5 lol
I know spooky isn’t it. Both 2 door. 16 inch wheels. Hmm! Mudflaps!
Notchy gear change and heavy steering you’ve a full set!
How dare you dish my Landy. 
I wonder if 30mm will be enough or go the extra 5mm.
I just asked at Wheels ain Motion and they said their geometry settings and 30mm is the one they recommend
I’m fitting 17s so will fill the arches a little bit more as well
Reason against the 35 or not specified?
Not specified, I just let them do their stuff
If you stick to standard tyres then there will be little or no difference between the 16 and 17 in wheels other than the tyre sidewall will be slightly smaller on the 17. But if the wheels look better…
