[Bee Pee]

Originally Posted by rwalker

This platform really needs a solution for the street, though. Everyone I talk to about their F-series car, whether they track it or not, complains about outer front tire wear. I suspect that a fully streetable camber plate (e.g. fixed at -1.0deg or -1.5deg with a urethane or rubber top bushing) would sell like hotcakes.

Agree 100% hence why I was interested in M4GTS top mounts as believe they are offset inwards but fixed and of same design as F series top mounts.....

Can't get these for love nor money though......

[Anthony235]

I've ran front camber plates in probably 4 of my cars. Never had these noise issues that seem to plague the BMWs.

The plates I've ran were not 3rd party plates, but came with the coilovers as a set. Maybe that's the issue.

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by Bee Pee

Agree 100% hence why I was interested in M4GTS top mounts as believe they are offset inwards but fixed and of same design as F series top mounts.....

Can't get these for love nor money though......

Where did you get your information about "same design as F-series top mounts"? My eyeballing of those parts indicated to me that they have a smaller diameter spring perch, and so are incompatible with our stock springs.

[Bee Pee]

Originally Posted by rwalker

Where did you get your information about "same design as F-series top mounts"? My eyeballing of those parts indicated to me that they have a smaller diameter spring perch, and so are incompatible with our stock springs.

RW - looks like you are correct - can't get them, cost a fortune if you could & then won't work with stock springs - I'm getting of this bus !!! BP

[csg]

Originally Posted by rwalker

This platform really needs a solution for the street, though. Everyone I talk to about their F-series car, whether they track it or not, complains about outer front tire wear. I suspect that a fully streetable camber plate (e.g. fixed at -1.0deg or -1.5deg with a urethane or rubber top bushing) would sell like hotcakes.

I posed this question in another thread a few months back to very little interest. Looks like there is interest building and that's awesome! I would kill for a "set and forget" option that gives me -1.5(ish) degrees at stock ride height and retains some more NVH. IMO that's the perfect solution to a guy like me who drives their car enthusiastically every day, and in anger on track once or twice every couple of years.

Maybe another thread with a poll is in order?

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by csg

I posed this question in another thread a few months back to very little interest. Looks like there is interest building and that's awesome! I would kill for a "set and forget" option that gives me -1.5(ish) degrees at stock ride height and retains some more NVH. IMO that's the perfect solution to a guy like me who drives their car enthusiastically every day, and in anger on track once or twice every couple of years.

Maybe another thread with a poll is in order?

Be a sweet option. Cheaper too. Maybe have offer 3 different cambers.

1.5
2.0
2.5

I'd buy the -2.5

[Poboy]

Originally Posted by csg

I posed this question in another thread a few months back to very little interest. Looks like there is interest building and that's awesome! I would kill for a "set and forget" option that gives me -1.5(ish) degrees at stock ride height and retains some more NVH. IMO that's the perfect solution to a guy like me who drives their car enthusiastically every day, and in anger on track once or twice every couple of years.

Maybe another thread with a poll is in order?

I would be interested, what is stock front camber?

[Anthony235]

I guess the problem is that with fixed camber plates it will never be 100% accurate as there are other alignment factors that determine camber.

[csg]

Originally Posted by Poboy

I would be interested, what is stock front camber?

Not positive but I believe it's -0.5 degree or so.. Hardly enough!

[HP Autosport]

Originally Posted by csg

Not positive but I believe it's -0.5 degree or so.. Hardly enough!

It's better than 0.

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

I guess the problem is that with fixed camber plates it will never be 100% accurate as there are other alignment factors that determine camber.

Which factors are those? Do you mean manufacturing tolerances of the body in white, or slop in the front subframe mounting points?

Front camber is fixed on these cars when stock. There are no slider holes, no alignment pins, no elliptical washers or bushings.

Moving to a fixed plate that approximates an additional -1.5deg camber (moving the top mount ~1.5-2cm inboard) will result in an alignment that has no larger error side-to-side than stock.

[casper83]

Originally Posted by rwalker

installation of the stock isolators fixed the issue covered by my video

the slight rattle at low speed is what I'm griping about: you'll find that you'll be able to hear it at nearly any speed over rough surfaces, and that it will become worse over time, ultimately requiring replacement

Yup, the slight noise I had upon initial install has become much louder after a track day.

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by rwalker

Which factors are those? Do you mean manufacturing tolerances of the body in white, or slop in the front subframe mounting points?

Front camber is fixed on these cars when stock. There are no slider holes, no alignment pins, no elliptical washers or bushings.

Moving to a fixed plate that approximates an additional -1.5deg camber (moving the top mount ~1.5-2cm inboard) will result in an alignment that has no larger error side-to-side than stock.

I was actually referring to adjusting the toe will effect the camber. So a fixed camber plate would be off after adjusting toe.

But I just looked it up to make sure I was correct. I was wrong though

Toe will not change front camber. But that's not true vice versa.

I do believe changing toe in the rear does effect rear camber though.

[Pparana]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

I was actually referring to adjusting the toe will effect the camber. So a fixed camber plate would be off after adjusting toe.

But I just looked it up to make sure I was correct. I was wrong though

Toe will not change front camber. But that's not true vice versa.

I do believe changing toe in the rear does effect rear camber, though.

fixed is never 100%, that is why the factory spec is so wide, I think .3 maybe even more.

Weight, suspension wear, shock/ spring wear, can all affect the camber.

Funny to see these long threads on plates, you can buy the K-mac stage 2 plates. If you install them properly, there is no noise, no problems. I have ran them on stock springs, lowering springs, and coilovers, lcas, no lcas, ts, stock wheels, track wheels, ext.

No complaints. 12k on the set, at least 6k track miles, might need a new bearing at 24k, no biggie they are completely buildable.

I do not think any design other than kmak will work on the stock shocks. The kmak design spreads the load across the plate, as the bearing is below, not above in most of the designs.

The forces involved are too large, they will distort the bearing housings eventually . On stock struts, which are soft, they end up fully compressed on track all the time, so all the force gets put on the housing. lowering springs only increase this.

I do not really overly blame the manufacturers, it is a pretty odd scenario not seen in many cars, the designs they have is there standard stuff. It just so happens kmak's standard design works well for this, they are an Aussie company, and most of the roads there are unpaved, or horrendous. They also love muscle cars, big and heavy. Their design is way overbuilt, This works out well in this application. They hold quite a few patents, so don't expect to see another company duplicate this.

[HP Autosport]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

I was actually referring to adjusting the toe will effect the camber. So a fixed camber plate would be off after adjusting toe.

But I just looked it up to make sure I was correct. I was wrong though

Toe will not change front camber. But that's not true vice versa.

I do believe changing toe in the rear does effect rear camber though.

Well, yes, it will affect camber a bit.

As you toe in more negative camber is added, but at a very tiny amount. Camber changes will have more affect on toe, however.

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by HP Autosport

Well, yes, it will affect camber a bit.

As you toe in more negative camber is added, but at a very tiny amount. Camber changes will have more affect on toe, however.

I generally run 0 toe up front with slight rear toe in. So for me a fixed camber solution would be fine.

[HP Autosport]

Originally Posted by Anthony235

I generally run 0 toe up front with slight rear toe in. So for me a fixed camber solution would be fine.

Yes, fixed camber you are fine.

With adjustable camber plates and going to a track setting you will want some toe-in for street use as you adjust for more negative camber for the track you will end up at zero toe.

[casualDIYer]

Originally Posted by Pparana

fixed is never 100%, that is why the factory spec is so wide, I think .3 maybe even more.

Weight, suspension wear, shock/ spring wear, can all affect the camber.

Funny to see these long threads on plates, you can buy the K-mac stage 2 plates. If you install them properly, there is no noise, no problems. I have ran them on stock springs, lowering springs, and coilovers, lcas, no lcas, ts, stock wheels, track wheels, ext.

No complaints. 12k on the set, at least 6k track miles, might need a new bearing at 24k, no biggie they are completely buildable.

I do not think any design other than kmak will work on the stock shocks. The kmak design spreads the load across the plate, as the bearing is below, not above in most of the designs.

The forces involved are too large, they will distort the bearing housings eventually . On stock struts, which are soft, they end up fully compressed on track all the time, so all the force gets put on the housing. lowering springs only increase this.

I do not really overly blame the manufacturers, it is a pretty odd scenario not seen in many cars, the designs they have is there standard stuff. It just so happens kmak's standard design works well for this, they are an Aussie company, and most of the roads there are unpaved, or horrendous. They also love muscle cars, big and heavy. Their design is way overbuilt, This works out well in this application. They hold quite a few patents, so don't expect to see another company duplicate this.

Looked at kmac. Looks like they only have the 3 hole design. Nothing for 5 holes?

[rwalker]

Originally Posted by menncars

Looked at kmac. Looks like they only have the 3 hole design. Nothing for 5 holes?

I just bought a pair of the KMAC Stage 2s. They support 5-holes and 3-holes with knockout studs. Pretty slick. I haven't installed 'em yet, but will review once I do.

[casualDIYer]

Originally Posted by rwalker

I just bought a pair of the KMAC Stage 2s. They support 5-holes and 3-holes with knockout studs. Pretty slick. I haven't installed 'em yet, but will review once I do.

Look forward to the review. Curious about whether they creak or clunk.

[Anthony235]

Originally Posted by rwalker

I just bought a pair of the KMAC Stage 2s. They support 5-holes and 3-holes with knockout studs. Pretty slick. I haven't installed 'em yet, but will review once I do.

Lol how many camber plates have you gone through now?

[DVC]

Originally Posted by rwalker

I just bought a pair of the KMAC Stage 2s. They support 5-holes and 3-holes with knockout studs. Pretty slick. I haven't installed 'em yet, but will review once I do.