[utenigma]

No more tire munching front end - just called in my order



I'll take pics and post a review here when they come in and I put them on

[DVC]

Excellent!... and great timing, as I just contacted Vorshlag yesterday to get an update on their status, and they are saying end of summer at the earliest. (A few months ago they said they expected to have them out by the end of 2013)

I just ordered a set as well - thanks for the heads-up, UT

[DVC]

@utenigma, are you going to get the car aligned after installing, or do you have a way of baselining/measuring the new camber/caster angles afterward?
Also, what are your thoughts for target camber settings for street and for the track? My initial thoughts are:

Camber: I'll ask the tech installing mine to give me the camber specs at a couple of different settings, and mark them somehow on top of the plates. Presumably the adjustments are linear, so with two set of markings, you could adjust on the fly and have a pretty good idea of your camber angles at any point. Probably in the neighborhood of -1.0 for the street, and -2.0 to -2.5 for the track, depending on how the tires wear.

Caster: I'll set them to max (even) positive caster, as the results are all positive... i.e. better straight line tracking, more weight to steering, and increased camber angles as the wheels steer.

Toe: I'll probably just leave toe w/in mfr specs... a little rear toe in, and maybe about even up front

[utenigma]

When I get the stock top-hats off the car and have the GC's and stock out on the bench I'm going to try to index where stock positions would be so I've got a point of reference. Put them in that way and then play with them.

I'm going to move it around and see how much I can get before the stock spring hits the inside of the well. I'm hoping for -2.5 in front. I'm going to driveway align to see what I think I can get and play around a little then get it on a Hunter.

Currently I've got a little toe out in the front, I'll probably 0 it out as the extra camber's gonna increase the darty-ness

Rear's at -2 with a little toe in. With square tires and the McPherson tendency to loose a little negative camber after it compresses past ideal I think that'll be stable in the corners. Although not going to know until I try.

[ronin951]

Oh boy, the wife's not gonna be happy. Gotta be extra nice tomorrow lol

[utenigma]

Originally Posted by ronin951

Oh boy, the wife's not gonna be happy. Gotta be extra nice tomorrow lol

Rofl

Tell her "The tires cost twice this much and this will make them last twice as long. So it'll pay for itself in the first set of tires"

So really your saving money by buying them

Worked for me

[rustyminded]

sorry for stupid question but what will this do exactly, I have the H&R springs with bms wheel spacer but I keep hearing noise from the cambers in the front on braking, rough surface ect.

[utenigma]

Originally Posted by rustyminded

sorry for stupid question but what will this do exactly, I have the H&R springs with bms wheel spacer but I keep hearing noise from the cambers in the front on braking, rough surface ect.

Sorry - I don't understand

noise from the cambers

Camber isn't a part of the car, it's a measure of how a particular wheel tilts. If the top tilts out, the wheel has positive camber, if the top tilts in the wheel has negative camber.

Our F30's have no ability to adjust this amount of tilting from the factory. "Camber Plates" replace the factory upper spring perch with an adjustable spring perch that allows you to relocate where the centerline of the spring/strut lands in the shock tower, effectively modifying the suspension geometry with the goal of modifying either camber or caster or both.

If you're hearing noise from the spring perch, top of the shock tower area - and knowing you have H&R sports means someone has already removed and reinstalled that portion of the suspension, my guess would be the nut on top of the strut isn't torqued down to spec. This nut should be 80 ft/lbs. The 3 bolts around it and the bolt for the tower brace only take 18 ft/lbs so don't confuse them.

[jetbill]

They look pretty good- here's a picture of the underside set up for the stock DHP suspension.

[jetbill]

Some install pictures.
The oxygen sensor socket worked out well to tighten the top strut nut.

The picture with the metric ruler is measuring the approximate distance of travel from stock.

The silver dot on the GC camber plate is where the stock aligned up. It's about 22mm of movement to the interior of the vehicle.

GC states this measurement of travel to be 37mm? I suppose the complete travel (+/-) in both directions might be this amount.

Anyhow using a carpenters level and my iPhone I can see about 2.25 degrees of total negative camber maximum. Until I can get back to an alignment rack to formally confirm this number it's just a ballpark, id say its accurate to (+/-) 0.25 degrees.

On another note Ground Control states the travel limit to achieve maximum negative camber is limited to the interference of the spring hitting the chassis. You can see the picture below, it's close but conservative, another 20mm of travel would have been possible but better safe then sorry.

So in summary the quality of the kit is superb. The "final" fitment was perfect. Would like to see some instructions in the kit identifying left and right and torque specs for all hardware. Would also like to see graduation markings on the plate for reference, but can't have everything.

So the major question is the kit noisey? Well there is some increased NVH but manageable.

There is a slight noise on both sides that I'm still trying to identify but so far after re-torquing everything it seems to be slight noise at low speed only. That of the strut shaft play. I'll give it a couple days and maybe contact the GC Guys for remedy. Could have something to do with the insertion depth of the strut but provided(slack). Had a similar issue on my Vorshlag plates and that was the problem.

[jetbill]

Another note, the OEM hardware(bearing) in the first picture is re-used on the GC plate in the 3rd picture.

[jetbill]

Negative travel movement distance 22-23mm. Possible 2.25 to 2.5 degrees total negative (still yet to be confirmed with alignment rack).

[utenigma]

Originally Posted by jetbill

Negative travel movement distance 22-23mm. Possible 2.25 to 2.5 degrees total negative (still yet to be confirmed with alignment rack).

Awesome jetbill-answered a bunch of questions I had while waiting for mine to get here.

So it seems like alignment's gonna be easy-just slam the plate over to maximum negative and be done with it

Also answers another question I had about how much tire can fit between the strut and fender. I had calculated if I could get 3 deg neg camber I could squeeze a 265 on a 9" et 32 up front - guess that's not gonna happen

[DVC]

Originally Posted by utenigma

So it seems like alignment's gonna be easy-just slam the plate over to maximum negative and be done with it

Also answers another question I had about how much tire can fit between the strut and fender. I had calculated if I could get 3 deg neg camber I could squeeze a 265 on a 9" et 32 up front - guess that's not gonna happen

The OEM swivel bearings that I have will give you another -0.5 degree...that should get us close to a full -3 degrees total

@jetbill - awesome write-up - thanks for posting this!

[utenigma]

Right but your losing as much clearance on the shock side with those as gaining on the fender size-and for 265's on 9"s you need every mm both inside and out

I'm still gonna try, but it'll be closer than I was hoping

And it was already going to be crazy close

[jetbill]

Originally Posted by utenigma

Awesome jetbill-answered a bunch of questions I had while waiting for mine to get here.

So it seems like alignment's gonna be easy-just slam the plate over to maximum negative and be done with it

Also answers another question I had about how much tire can fit between the strut and fender. I had calculated if I could get 3 deg neg camber I could squeeze a 265 on a 9" et 32 up front - guess that's not gonna happen

I just threw on a set of track rims for fitment (DD setup are 403M on RE-11's). For reference it's a square setup lowered with Dinan suspension you see above 265/35/18 on 18x9.5 rims. ET45 front and rear with a 10mm spacer upfront (interference with shock). The spacer allows me to have an identical front and rear pair. The rims are the AXIS on close out at tire rack. $150 bucks each and they weigh 24.6 LBS each and are low pressure cast.

[DVC]

Originally Posted by utenigma

Right but your losing as much clearance on the shock side with those as gaining on the fender size-and for 265's on 9"s you need every mm both inside and out

I'm still gonna try, but it'll be closer than I was hoping

And it was already going to be crazy close

True. What you lose in inside clearance you can gain back with less offset (or more spacer)... but you're right, the overall space for wheel/tire is the same - just with a half degree more camber.

[utenigma]

Originally Posted by jetbill

I just threw on a set of track rims for fitment (DD setup are 403M on RE-11's). For reference it's a square setup lowered with Dinan suspension you see above 265/35/18 on 18x9.5 rims. ET45 front and rear with a 10mm spacer upfront (interference with shock). The spacer allows me to have an identical front and rear pair. The rims are the AXIS on close out at tire rack. $150 bucks each and they weigh 24.6 LBS each and are low pressure cast.

That's interesting - This is a conversation I had with David from apex early this week - granted my math/measurements are not reality, based on a combination of data from David's thread on their fit with some rough measurements I took in the garage to see if it was remotely realistic. I was assuming a 265/35 on a 9 et 42 with a 10mm spacer. If you can fit a 265/35 on a 9.5 et 45 I should be able to shrink the spacer down to something rather small and get a ton of fender clearance.

What's your tire to strut clearance now? Any rubbing under compression? More concerned with the top of the fender than rubbing in the well.

The fact that you were able to pull the plate in by 22mm over stock is very encouraging - lined right up with what I thought I'd need to gain clearance for a 265

Originally Posted by David@ApexRaceParts

Looks like you've done quite a bit of research. Theoretically, your research seems all correct, so as long as Ground Control is correct in that you can achieve the clearance needed, it can work. We have not been able to actually test this in house, so we are wary of recommending anything to that extent. Definitely seems reasonable though after your thorough explanation.

[jetbill]

Just confirmed on the alignment rack 2.10 Max camber was achieved.

[DVC]

Originally Posted by jetbill

Just confirmed on the alignment rack 2.10 Max camber was achieved.

2.10... not bad, but I'm thinking the extra half degree that the swivel bearings give maybe won't be superfluous after all.

[jetbill]

Originally Posted by DVC

2.10... not bad, but I'm thinking the extra half degree that the swivel bearings give maybe won't be superfluous after all.

Exactly- I'll be honest.. I was hoping for more. Stock I was 0.7 so it's an additional 1.4 degrees.

If I can sort out the noise I'll keep them.

[DVC]

Originally Posted by jetbill

If I can sort out the noise I'll keep them.

Did you ask GC about it yet?