Alex, As you may know I have been dealing with and studying this issue on multiple Daytonas in past 10-15 years already and have personally become convinced that their originally designed/engineered, i.e. intended (front) “ride height” specs vs. what the cars actually ended up with are quite different. As to how and why, I have my own theories, but since I wasn't there ... Due to these differences and my interest (obsession ?) to see these cars can be corrected to match originally designed/engineered/intended "ride height" without having to resort to aftermarket coil-overs, etc, I ended up developing/engineering a "cure" which allows retaining all the original suspension components (shocks, springs, etc). While my research and studies of this is inconclusive and still ongoing, I've successfully managed to “cure” several Daytonas and recently an 330 GTC, although latter ended up (by owners choice) with less than factory intended “ride height”. And prior to implementation of the “cure”, all but the 330, received a full suspension system rebuild or replacement of everything, including all bushings, joints, shocks AND new springs, only to find out that while it provided improvements, it still wasn't anywhere near enough to bring (front) "ride height" to factory specs. P.S. If you look at (& choose to believe ?) factory “ride height” specs, the inner bolts (i.e. a-arm pivot points), both in front and rear, should be higher than outer ones, when the car is "fully loaded", which IMO should make the (fully loaded) car appear almost perfectly horizontal, especially with correct wheels and tires. I think I've previously posted reference pic(s) of the result of "correctly"(?) set (fully loaded) car. P.P.S. @of2worlds If a Daytona suspension is set-up anywhere near what factory intended or implied in their engineering drawings, it inevitably gives an appearance of "off-roading", especially when comparing to countless cars or their photos with what I personally believe to be incorrect (too low) settings.