Isn't it true that the MM spacers are actually what determine rear ride height? If so, it would be tough to say that it's H&R's design that has the rear sit lower than the fronts. Regardless, it seems to be pretty minimal. I'd be curious to see floor to fender lip measurements of front vs rear AFTER the fronts are given a few months to settle though... Just for curiosity's sake.
The MM spacers determine rear height only in the sense that they keep the rear shocks from auto-leveling and pumping up. The factor which always, and most directly, determines the rear ride height is how tall the springs are when they're compressed by the weight of the car. The job of the MM spacers really is not to make the rear of the car sit lower.. Their job is to keep the rear shocks from auto-leveling, which as a result allows the rear end to sit lower. If you want the rear end to sit any higher then you have to shim the spring itself and make its "installed height" taller.
The large thread I posted a while back about this setup has all sorts of ride height measurements in it. I could go out and take more measurements of my cars fender heights and post them, but I don't have to. The ride height hasn't changed one bit from the last set of numbers I posted in that thread probably 4 months ago at least.
Another thing that people may not be taking into consideration when measuring the difference in the apparent "drop" from front to rear wheels, is that the tops of the rear fender cut-outs may be lower than the tops of the front fender cut-outs, relative to a horizontal design plane of the car body. In other words. The height from ground to frame may be the same from front to back, but the wheel gap in the front is greater than the wheel gap in the back. There are plenty of cars which are designed this way; having shallower fenders in the back than the front. BMW and MB come to mind right away..
