[rwalker]

Originally Posted by Pparana

I would not run the lca without the ts, esp. if tracking. I noticed the lca bushings on mine were pushed all the way forward. I had to recenter on the press.

mine

[Pparana]

Originally Posted by rwalker

mine

mine were all the way forward. I run r comps w slick tread design though.

[gtmax500]

Quick question for anyone who knows. I'm planning on installing these today or tomorrow (along with ebc yellow brakes and etc 200 fluid) and was wondering how quickly I should get an alignment? Is it something that I need to do right after I install them or can I wait until Monday when all the shops open? Basically will driving 50 miles without a proper alignment hurt my car. Thanks!

[rwalker]

you'll be fine for 50 miles, just set the camber close to stock until you get to the shop

[DVC]

Originally Posted by gtmax500

Quick question for anyone who knows. I'm planning on installing these today or tomorrow (along with ebc yellow brakes and etc 200 fluid) and was wondering how quickly I should get an alignment? Is it something that I need to do right after I install them or can I wait until Monday when all the shops open? Basically will driving 50 miles without a proper alignment hurt my car. Thanks!

Installing the LCAs on my 335i knocked the toe so far out of alignment that the car was nearly undriveable...it was a long 3 miles to the alignment shop.

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by DVC

Installing the LCAs on my 335i knocked the toe so far out of alignment that the car was nearly undriveable...it was a long 3 miles to the alignment shop.

I thought he was talking about camber plates...

LCAs and TSes: you need to drive directly and very carefully to the shop. Better still: have them installed at the alignment shop.

[DVC]

Originally Posted by rwalker

Where did you hear/read that?

It's possible that TSes don't help much with caster, but I find that hard to believe given how much the wheel moves back when you add TSes.

The community suffered a bit of a setback when some aftermarket vendors initially evaluated the TSes and said "ah, they don't fit and they're the same length as stock anyway". Pparana is our TS Prometheus.

I heard that from an aftermarket vendor (who I won't throw under the bus) ... maybe the same one you're thinking of, though.

Originally Posted by rwalker

What means did you use to come up with the 7mm figure? Pretty exact

To clarify, I meant that with the wheels pushed forward in the wheel wells, I had 7mm less clearance to the fender before I got tire rub. I determined this by doing a little quick arithmetic based on which size wheel spacers I could fit without tire rub before the LCA install, and which fit after... : )

Originally Posted by rwalker

I think Pparana said he guesses his front wheels moved back 1/2" with the TSes.

The before/after of wheel placement with TSes is definitely non-null. TSes will get you there.

Check my posts on TSes. You can see that the F8x TSes are obviously longer, even on the bench.

There is a small caveat to running TSes: less steering lock with aggressive front fitments. With 255/35r18s on 18x8.5et42, my front tires hit the TS just before full lock...

I guess I need to do a bit more research on the TSs, as I had already written them off as a no-go... But I am very interested in re-centering my wheels. That said, the loss in wheel turn clearance you mention above is a bit concerning - especially considering that my goal is to go as big as possible with my front wheel/tire.

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by DVC

To clarify, I meant that with the wheels pushed forward in the wheel wells, I had 7mm less clearance to the fender before I got tire rub.

Ah. Good info. Note that the LCAs push out both the bottom and the top of the wheel, so only part of your loss of clearance can be addressed with TSes.

Originally Posted by DVC

I guess I need to do a bit more research on the TSs, as I had already written them off as a no-go... But I am very interested in re-centering my wheels. That said, the loss in wheel turn clearance you mention above is a bit concerning - especially considering that my goal is to go as big as possible with my front wheel/tire.

To help you feel better about it: my setup has the absolute minimum clearance on the inside, and I didn't even notice the lack of lock until ICTZHP mentioned it, and I had to see for myself. After seeing that my tire was touching the TS at full lock, I inspected the TSes and my tires for evidence of interference, and in several months of driving, I'd never actually used enough lock to have the tire touch.

It's just something to note. By far the smallest compromise I'm making to be able to run 255 square. The biggest compromise (IMHO) is noisy camber plates.

[DVC]

Originally Posted by rwalker

Ah. Good info. Note that the LCAs push out both the bottom and the top of the wheel, so only part of your loss of clearance can be addressed with TSes.

Pushing out is fine, I can manage strut and fender clearance by dialing in wheel offsets and spacers... it's the pushing forward that's caused the tire rub because it reduces how close I can get to the fender, i.e., less space to work with in there overall.

Originally Posted by rwalker

To help you feel better about it: my setup has the absolute minimum clearance on the inside, and I didn't even notice the lack of lock until ICTZHP mentioned it, and I had to see for myself. After seeing that my tire was touching the TS at full lock, I inspected the TSes and my tires for evidence of interference, and in several months of driving, I'd never actually used enough lock to have the tire touch.

It's just something to note. By far the smallest compromise I'm making to be able to run 255 square. The biggest compromise (IMHO) is noisy camber plates.

Ok, then maybe that's not such a big deal...sounds like it might even be minimal enough to dial out with a few mm of spacer.

I seem to remember that there was some other challenge associated with the TSs, though... something related to the headlight leveling sensors maybe? I don't recall...

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by DVC

Pushing out is fine, I can manage strut and fender clearance by dialing in wheel offsets and spacers... it's the pushing forward that's caused the tire rub because it reduces how close I can get to the fender, i.e., less space to work with in there overall.

Ok, then maybe that's not such a big deal...sounds like it might even be minimal enough to dial out with a few mm of spacer.

yeah: with a 335i, you have a good bit more space to play with on the fender side...

[MyM235i]

Originally Posted by rwalker

the tire doesn't move if you do the tension struts at the same time

I was under the impression that it still moved about 3/4" forward even with the TS. How much does it actually move forward stock vs LCA and TS?

Also by the time you paid for the LCA and TS you are in camber plate territory. Is the NVH that much higher with the plates? Are the advantages of the LCA and TS really only there in addition to plates?

Cheers

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by MyM235i

I was under the impression that it still moved about 3/4" forward even with the TS.

What gave you that impression? Whose experience are you basing that opinion on?

Originally Posted by MyM235i

How much does it actually move forward stock vs LCA and TS?

I haven't measured, but by the looks of it, zero.

Originally Posted by MyM235i

Also by the time you paid for the LCA and TS you are in camber plate territory.

Actually, you're a fair bit past camber plate territory .

Originally Posted by MyM235i

Is the NVH that much higher with the plates?

Yes, the NVH is higher with plates.

Originally Posted by MyM235i

Are the advantages of the LCA and TS really only there in addition to plates?

Beyond additional camber, the main benefit of the LCAs is the more robust inboard bushings, which prevent loss of negative camber in turns.

The TSes are just required when doing LCAs.

Don't do LCAs without TSes.

[MyM235i]

"jmwilson125
Lieutenant
United_States 49
REP
409
POSTS

Drives: 2016 M235i
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Somerville, Ma

iTrader: (0)

Camber plates vs M4 LCA
Hey guys,

I have read that the M4 LCA's can you you roughly -1.7 front camber. They also push the wheel forward about an inch.

My question is what would the performance/feel difference between -1.7 degrees from M4 LCA and a camber plate set to -1.7 degrees?

I ask because I have heard the wheel fitment I want to run will rub with LCA's because of the 1" bump forward.

Any insight?"

granted this is heresay to start with. it was indicted here. In another post Pparana indicated getting back 1/4" leaving me with an uneducated impression of a remaining 3/4" forward. I cant seem to find an actual result vs stock.

For aggressive street then is the LCA/TS the ideal over plates? Plates do seem cheaper and simpler in the grand scheme providing the Vorschlag plates come good. They seem to have all the boxes ticked.

Appreciate the education I'm an aircraft mechanic and a former VW guy so BMW is new to me.

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by MyM235i

"jmwilson125
Lieutenant
United_States 49
REP
409
POSTS

Drives: 2016 M235i
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Somerville, Ma

iTrader: (0)

Camber plates vs M4 LCA
Hey guys,

I have read that the M4 LCA's can you you roughly -1.7 front camber. They also push the wheel forward about an inch.

My question is what would the performance/feel difference between -1.7 degrees from M4 LCA and a camber plate set to -1.7 degrees?

I ask because I have heard the wheel fitment I want to run will rub with LCA's because of the 1" bump forward.

Any insight?"

granted this is heresay to start with. it was indicted here. In another post Pparana indicated getting back 1/4" leaving me with an uneducated impression of a remaining 3/4" forward. I cant seem to find an actual result vs stock.

For aggressive street then is the LCA/TS the ideal over plates? Plates do seem cheaper and simpler in the grand scheme providing the Vorschlag plates come good. They seem to have all the boxes ticked.

Appreciate the education I'm an aircraft mechanic and a former VW guy so BMW is new to me.

Good references, thanks.

I wish I could give a definitive answer to the movement issue tonight.

Next time I'm around my friends that are stock or with LCAs only, I'll see if I can get a measurement. I'll take a tape measure to O'fest

[HP Autosport]

Originally Posted by MyM235i

"jmwilson125
Lieutenant
United_States 49
REP
409
POSTS

Drives: 2016 M235i
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Somerville, Ma

iTrader: (0)

Camber plates vs M4 LCA
Hey guys,

I have read that the M4 LCA's can you you roughly -1.7 front camber. They also push the wheel forward about an inch.

My question is what would the performance/feel difference between -1.7 degrees from M4 LCA and a camber plate set to -1.7 degrees?

I ask because I have heard the wheel fitment I want to run will rub with LCA's because of the 1" bump forward.

Any insight?"

granted this is heresay to start with. it was indicted here. In another post Pparana indicated getting back 1/4" leaving me with an uneducated impression of a remaining 3/4" forward. I cant seem to find an actual result vs stock.

For aggressive street then is the LCA/TS the ideal over plates? Plates do seem cheaper and simpler in the grand scheme providing the Vorschlag plates come good. They seem to have all the boxes ticked.

Appreciate the education I'm an aircraft mechanic and a former VW guy so BMW is new to me.

The more robust inner bushing will reduced corner force induced camber changes so that is a good thing.

The forward movement of wheel carrier does pose some issues. However, if clearance is not an issue, you have just gained some castor, which adds camber gain for the outside wheel while turning and promotes stability at speed.

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by rwalker

Good references, thanks.

I wish I could give a definitive answer to the movement issue tonight.

Next time I'm around my friends that are stock or with LCAs only, I'll see if I can get a measurement. I'll take a tape measure to O'fest

I've just gone out and measured my car, wheel center to wheel center: 106"

[modernbeat]

Originally Posted by DVC

Thanks Jason. I received the plates yesterday, and they look great!

allthatisntnow noted above that he found the torque spec for the mounting nuts to be 17 ft-lbs... can you confirm this? Also, is there a spec for the 4 slider adjustment bolts?

The 5/16 cap screws use 18 lb-ft.

How are you guys measuring torque on the locknuts on the mounting studs? Those are nylon insert nuts, which mess with the torque readings.

[MyM235i]

Originally Posted by rwalker

I've just gone out and measured my car, wheel center to wheel center: 106"

Stock with stock tires its approx 2.5" between the fender and the tire front and rear measured longitudinally through the center line of the wheel. So it perfectly centered stock.

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by rwalker

I've just gone out and measured my car, wheel center to wheel center: 106"

wikipedia lists the M235i wheelbase as 105.9", and the M2 wheelbase as 106"; I conclude that my front wheels are exactly where they'd be with the stock suspension arms

[Pparana]

Originally Posted by modernbeat

The 5/16 cap screws use 18 lb-ft.

How are you guys measuring torque on the locknuts on the mounting studs? Those are nylon insert nuts, which mess with the torque readings.

The rule of thumb is to add the prevailing torque to the torque value when applying torque to a Nylock nut. This is because the prevailing torque doesn't contribute to bolt tightening. It is just friction that needs to be overcome.

For example, a Grade 5 1/4-28 bolt in tension lubricated zinc plating, with a torque of 10.5 lb. ft. produces a clamping load of 2,511 pounds.

If we use a use a Nylock nut that takes 2 lb. ft. of torque to turn, then 2 lb. ft. of torque is used in turning the nut leaving only 8.5 lb. ft. for bolt tension. Our clamping load is reduced to 2,009 pounds.

If, however, we take our original torque of 10.5 and add the 2 that the Nylock requires and set our torque wrench to 12.5, our clamp load is 2,511 pounds. The same as it was without the nylock.

You can use your torque wrench to measure Nylock nut torque and then add this value to the bolt's required torque.

Prevailing torque calculation should be done with your nut and your bolt using your thread lubricant. Published prevailing torque charts may give you an idea of how much torque is used up by the nut's locking feature, but in actual conditions, the results will vary. There is an interaction between the bolt threads, nut locking feature, and the thread lubricant (whether liquid or plating) that makes each prevailing torque calculation unique.

[MyM235i]

Originally Posted by rwalker

I've just gone out and measured my car, wheel center to wheel center: 106"

Sounds bang on to me. I measured mine at roughly 106" as well.
So is the consensus of all this that for street, LCA and TS trumps plates due to lack of NVH and plates are the ideal for track due to adjustability?
Due to ease of install and cost are plates still a viable street option?
Cheers

[Liquidpaper]

Originally Posted by MyM235i

Sounds bang on to me. I measured mine at roughly 106" as well.
So is the consensus of all this that for street, LCA and TS trumps plates due to lack of NVH and plates are the ideal for track due to adjustability?
Due to ease of install and cost are plates still a viable street option?
Cheers

I use the plates with no LCA or TS, and I like it just fine. Yeah, there is some more NVH (especially with the not so good Ground Control plates I currently have on), but you get used to it -- the car is generally pretty isolated, so you'll live. For me, its worth the trade off to have adjustable front alignment.