Is this too much negative camber for daily driving?

[zzzzz]

This is with Eibach pro kit and 255/30/19 on the rear

[l4zy]

camber is adjustable. telling us you are on a pro kit and giving a tire size tells us nothing about your camber. you are going to have to get an alignment to see how much camber you are running. btw too much or too little toe angle will wear your tires more than having too much camber.

[seank]

Your front camber is very low for a BMW. The rear is a lot for a daily driver. It is actually a lot for the rear of a track car.

1.5-2 front and .5-1 rear is a decent daily driving amount.

[zzzzz]

Originally Posted by seank

Your front camber is very low for a BMW. The rear is a lot for a daily driver. It is actually a lot for the rear of a track car.

1.5-2 front and .5-1 rear is a decent daily driving amount.

Thanks for the useful input
I'll bring it back to see if he can
adjust the rear into spec

[Kgolf31]

Originally Posted by seank

Your front camber is very low for a BMW. The rear is a lot for a daily driver. It is actually a lot for the rear of a track car.

1.5-2 front and .5-1 rear is a decent daily driving amount.

+1 that's alot...might need adjustable arms in the rear to bring that back to spec.

Im running -2.3 w/zero toe upfront and -1.3 maxed out in the rear with 1/16 toe in.

Excessive toe w/camber is asking for trouble

[zzzzz]

The tech told me he can not turn this bolt any further (photo below) and that I need to get this bolt from the dealer, with a thicker washer, so he can adjust it back to spec.
Anybody knows what this bolt is called and anyone here had to replaced this bolt bc of the pro kit?

[Shipkiller]

For a 3.0i Roadster:

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...39&hg=33&fg=30

You never stated what MY and car you drive.

[zzzzz]

I have a 2.5i roadster

[Finnegan]

I believe the specs for the non-M are:

Front Camber = range of -0.5 deg to -1.4 deg
Front Toe = +0.05 deg to +0.18 deg (toe in)

Rear Camber = -2.6 deg to -3.1 deg
Rear Toe = +0.17 deg to +0.37 deg (toe in)

So you're within specs for your model.

Front is fine, maybe a little less toe-in would help with tire wear, but you're not running that much negative camber, and the toe-in isn't excessive.

You'd probably get better tire wear rear with it closer to -2.6, but getting it there with control arms is a PITA (DIY).

[Shipkiller]

The question I have is HOW does one get that much rear camber on STOCK camber arms? Most I have ever seen on stock arms is -2.1. I personally cannot get more than -2.0.

This is not a criticism, just want to figure this out.

[Kgolf31]

Originally Posted by Shipkiller

The question I have is HOW does one get that much rear camber on STOCK camber arms? Most I have ever seen on stock arms is -2.1. I personally cannot get more than -2.0.

This is not a criticism, just want to figure this out.

+1

Mine are maxed at -1.3 rear

[v3.2mc]

Originally Posted by Shipkiller

The question I have is HOW does one get that much rear camber on STOCK camber arms? Most I have ever seen on stock arms is -2.1. I personally cannot get more than -2.0.

This is not a criticism, just want to figure this out.

the non-///m's have a lot more neg camber (front and rear) from the factory in comparison to the ///m cars to make up for the "passenger car" chassis/suspension. this allows them to carry more speed through corners relative to their speed and acceleration values.

basically, the dynamic suspension geometry and the power of the engine are considered when choosing the alignment of the wheels. if the ride is soft (and for the nit-pickers out there...yes, we all know there's nothing soft about a z4's ride) and the power is small, then dialing more aggressive alignment settings will give the car a sportier feel through the turns.

guaranteed... if the non-///m cars had the same alignment as the ///m cars, they would feel much slower and sloppier.

[zzzzz]

Originally Posted by Shipkiller

The question I have is HOW does one get that much rear camber on STOCK camber arms? Most I have ever seen on stock arms is -2.1. I personally cannot get more than -2.0.

This is not a criticism, just want to figure this out.

tech told me it's the lowering springs that caused it to go -3+ in the rear

car is currently on the lift and the tech is going to adjust toe out to compensate for the neg camber
New spec sheet below with rear camber at -2.9

[zzzzz]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

I believe the specs for the non-M are:

Front Camber = range of -0.5 deg to -1.4 deg
Front Toe = +0.05 deg to +0.18 deg (toe in)

Rear Camber = -2.6 deg to -3.1 deg
Rear Toe = +0.17 deg to +0.37 deg (toe in)

So you're within specs for your model.

Front is fine, maybe a little less toe-in would help with tire wear, but you're not running that much negative camber, and the toe-in isn't excessive.

You'd probably get better tire wear rear with it closer to -2.6, but getting it there with control arms is a PITA (DIY).

thanks for the info
it's good to know I'm within spec, but unlike others here -2.9 is my minimum setting :0

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by zzzzz

tech told me it's the lowering springs that caused it to go -3+ in the rear

car is currently on the lift and the tech is going to adjust toe out to compensate for the neg camber
New spec sheet below with rear camber at -2.9

Yep, it's the drop. Lowering "adds" negative camber. I can't remember the general rule, but it's like -.5 for every 3/4 inch lower (depends on xar of course--hence "general rule").

[seank]

When I bought my car, and before I raised the car-----it had nearly 4 degrees front and 3 degrees rear. So, I know it is possible with the M coupe.

[l4zy]

ohhh there is a picture of your alignment specs! no wonder i didnt get your post...lol. looks like you got it all sorted out.

[Incompatible]

On my 07 Si I'm running -1.3 front and -2.5 rear with Eibachs and stock arms. Toe is 0.11 front and 0.13 rear degrees.

Car handles great, noticeably better then the original sport setup. Only have a few thousand miles since the springs/alignment so can't comment on tire wear.