Nice car. The stock horsepower rating was more like 230, as I recall. With a compression ratio of close to 9.2 to 1 (or close to it). Whereas the '85 318s had lower compression. Otherwise probably pretty similar in other specs. When did the roller cam 318s start to happen?
As to lowering the car . . . it might look neat, BUT . . . with that long rear section, it can "drag the exhaust pipe or rear bumper" even with stock ride height and some people in the back seat. The lowered ride height can also make the rocker panel area vulnerable when going over humps in the approach apron just driving into driveways and businesses if you just drive across them normally. End result, such lowness can be more hassle than it's worth just to look cooler. AND, the suspension will be that much closer to bottoming out on normal bumps, which is not good either. These would be things which might not be considered until it's too late, by observation. Not to mention driving across railroad tracks!
You might perceive the roads you travel are pretty smooth and level, but they can be pretty far from it (when the body starts to drag over the humps and dips). But this is a variable thing. To me, the cars were designed to have suspension travel in BOTH directions (with basic ride height being about in the middle of the travel). With a good set of HD shocks (at least back then), it always made me feel good when I didn't have to really slow down for curves and dips (as Fords and Chevies had to, due to their softer suspensions) and could enjoy the benefits of the torsion bar/leaf spring suspension. The difference between "profiling" (and having to drive slower) than having respectable enjoyment in "driving".
Take care,
CBODY67
. Your correct, just my opinion. There are a lot of purest here. Beautiful car. Show us more.....
