Front Camber

[uberschnell]

Originally Posted by syenisch

Pretty sure lowering the car increases camber, although the drop with PS is pretty slight and wouldn't induce much negative camber. Maybe that's what you mean?

With PS, pulled pins, M3 Bits, and Dinan Plates, I am at -2.3* I believe.

235's fit comfortable with only the mild PS drop btw.

Common misconception. McPherson Struts do not provide camber gain. This is why camber plates are so important on our cars, especially for anyone wanting to upgrade their front sway bar.

http://ateupwithmotor.com/technology...t-history.html

[bogart]

Lowering the car only provides camber gain in the rear with the multi link.

[syenisch]

Originally Posted by bogart

Lowering the car only provides camber gain in the rear with the multi link.

Yea that must be what mixed me up. I stand corrected... Thanks for clearing it up for me and others!

[1speedbike]

I had about -1* with just the pins pulled on stock parts except coilovers. Now I have a tiny bit under -2* (like -1.8/1.9*) with control arms, pins pulled, and coilovers.

[Bdh821]

I have -2.1* with Dinan plates, coilovers, M3 control arms and obviously the pin delete

[Gnip Gnop]

Wow a lot of people have done this. I'm going to remove the pin when I install h&r springs. I don't think I will rub..but that extra camber will be helpful

[Nugget]

Very useful thread, thanks for all the info guys.
Thinking of getting rid of the pins, installing the front control arm kit and maybe Dinan camber plates.
Anyone know where is the best place to buy the plates?

[syenisch]

Originally Posted by Nugget

Very useful thread, thanks for all the info guys.
Thinking of getting rid of the pins, installing the front control arm kit and maybe Dinan camber plates.
Anyone know where is the best place to buy the plates?

I just bought them straight from Dinan.

[Mark16q]

Stock sport suspension, and had alignment a couple of weeks ago. With pins, was about -.4 and after he punched them out, did get -1. Tire wear on shoulders is pretty bad and will probably get the m3 arms as a short term remedy.

[cpt97m3]

Originally Posted by MteK

Your suspension would have no bearing on camber.

Lowering the car will increase the negative camber some.

[int2str]

Originally Posted by cpt97m3

Lowering the car will increase the negative camber some.

I like the part where you only read part of the thread but decided to reply anyway

[uberschnell]

Originally Posted by cpt97m3

Lowering the car will increase the negative camber some.

Not on macpherson struts, it will on the back wheels.

[cpt97m3]

Originally Posted by MteK

Not on macpherson struts, it will on the back wheels.

It will on the macpherson struts also, just not as much. The lower arms are angled down, and the bottom will move out as the suspension compresses which will increase the negative camber.

[uberschnell]

Originally Posted by cpt97m3

It will on the macpherson struts also, just not as much. The lower arms are angled down, and the bottom will move out as the suspension compresses which will increase the negative camber.

http://ateupwithmotor.com/technology...t-history.html

"No camber gain: Because the top of the vertical strut is mounted rigidly to the body structure, MacPherson struts do not provide camber gain -- the wheels lose camber as the body leans. You can compensate to some degree by designing the suspension with a few degrees of static negative camber (that is, aligning the wheels so that the upper halves are tilted slightly inward when the car is level), but too much negative camber causes uneven tire wear. The only way to prevent camber loss is to use stiffer springs and/or anti-roll bars to reduce body lean, which results in a stiffer ride. It's possible to make a MacPherson strut car handle very well, as Porsche, Volkswagen, and BMW have repeatedly demonstrated, but it compromises ride quality more than would be the case with a double-wishbone suspension."

[Nugget]

Just had a look and my pins are already knocked out. Interesting.

[cpt97m3]

Originally Posted by MteK

http://ateupwithmotor.com/technology...t-history.html

"No camber gain: Because the top of the vertical strut is mounted rigidly to the body structure, MacPherson struts do not provide camber gain -- the wheels lose camber as the body leans. You can compensate to some degree by designing the suspension with a few degrees of static negative camber (that is, aligning the wheels so that the upper halves are tilted slightly inward when the car is level), but too much negative camber causes uneven tire wear. The only way to prevent camber loss is to use stiffer springs and/or anti-roll bars to reduce body lean, which results in a stiffer ride. It's possible to make a MacPherson strut car handle very well, as Porsche, Volkswagen, and BMW have repeatedly demonstrated, but it compromises ride quality more than would be the case with a double-wishbone suspension."

Well that's basically wrong. They are ignoring the fact that the lower mount has angled arms on the BMW that moves the bottom out as the car is lowered. That will certainly give you more negative camber as the car is lowered. On the E36/46 cars, some vendors even sell roll center correcting lower arms to keep that effect on heavily lowered cars. I'm run those on an E36 M3 used for AutoX. Now on a car with soft springs and bars, the extra negative may not be enough to compensate for the car leaning, since when the car leans, the upper mount point moves also, but it certainly does give you extra static negative camber as you lower the car from stock, up to a point. Once the arms and the strut hit 90 degrees, there is no more negative camber gain.

[uberschnell]

The Front wheel rides up and down on the dampener. The lower part of the dampener is locked into the the knuckle and top slides a 2" shaft into the mounting plate which is bolted to the top of the wheel well. How can there be any camber change if there is no lateral movement in the dampener? The dampener itself would have to flex, not going to happen.

Also, per my alignments specs I have not seen any measurable change in camber between fender opening flush with wheel and 1" over the wheel. Not like you would on a wishbone set up.

Anyone changing their front suspension should not plan on any camber gains simply from dropping.

On our cars camber will only be changed by:
-removing alignment pins and sliding the mounting plate in as much as possible - minor
- M3 bits - better
- Camber plates - best

[cpt97m3]

Originally Posted by MteK

The Front wheel rides up and down on the dampener. The lower part of the dampener is locked into the the knuckle and top slides a 2" shaft into the mounting plate which is bolted to the top of the wheel well. How can there be any camber change if there is no lateral movement in the dampener? The dampener itself would have to flex, not going to happen.

There cannot be any camber change if the damper does not move laterally, but it will, and not because of flex. Take a look at the lower arms. The have to move in an arc. As the move, they will move the whole knuckle assembly in or out depending on the starting point. It's easy to see if you jack up the car, and then move one side up. You can even watch the camber change as the wheel droops.

There is no question the double a-arm suspension is better, and there are lots of limitations in the strut design.

[uberschnell]

Originally Posted by cpt97m3

There cannot be any camber change if the damper does not move laterally, but it will, and not because of flex. Take a look at the lower arms. The have to move in an arc. As the move, they will move the whole knuckle assembly in or out depending on the starting point. It's easy to see if you jack up the car, and then move one side up. You can even watch the camber change as the wheel droops.

There is no question the double a-arm suspension is better, and there are lots of limitations in the strut design.

OK, I'm willing to compromise, but I don't think any change would be significant enough to help fit better tires or improve handling.

[uberschnell]

So, we know Neg camber is good. I'd like to hear good camber/toe recommendations.

[cpt97m3]

Originally Posted by MteK

OK, I'm willing to compromise, but I don't think any change would be significant enough to help fit better tires or improve handling.

I agree with that. To fit bigger tires, you really need to move the top in with camber plates, or the pin adjustment.

[Mandinca]

Originally Posted by cpt97m3

I agree with that. To fit bigger tires, you really need to move the top in with camber plates, or the pin adjustment.

Sorry to pull an old thread but I have a question.

I just put BMW PS on my E88 and added style 264 18" rims with 235/40/18 tires. The camber pins are knocked out and after the tires were mounted I got an alignment - the spec sheet says the fronts are currently -1.1 camber.
OK, all good over bumps in a straight line but if I turn left, even a medium turn at low speeds, as soon as I hit bumps the tire hits the fender....definitely the fender, I used tape to show me.

Question, do I have two options ?

1) Either add negative camber to the fronts, from what I can see in this thread getting more then -1.1 might be difficult without camber plates and I'm really not into pulling the suspension apart again. (Don't ask).

2) Switch the fronts to a 35 profile instead of the 40 that's on it to see if that gives the tire more vertical clearance under the fender lip where it rubs ?

I was told by BMW in Atlanta that the 264's would work with 225/40/18 as they were OEM on some versions of this car which is what leads me to believe that the 235/3518 will work as the overall diameter is almost the same. What I didn't tell them when I asked was that I have the BMW PS and with this being a vert it probably rides slightly lower due to the extra 400 pounds I carry around with me :-O

Any suggestions ?