Any downsidesto running 12.75" Front and Rear Height

M3ANMACHINE · Sat, Jun-23-2012, 04:21:34 AM

I'm right around 12.75" front and rear, no complaints on the track or street!

NPalacioM3 · Mon, Jun-25-2012, 02:20:40 AM

Chassis height measurements made with use of fenders is not very accurate, for a couple of reasons. One is that the fender in the rear is lower on the body line than the front, naturally the rear measurement will be shorter if you measure to there. Second is that if/when your car was in an accident, the new fender may be higher or lower when replaced. You cannot get repeatability, which is important. If you want proper chassis ride heights, pick a hard point on the chassis and measure to the ground, on a flat surface. If you run 12.75 F and R, by measuring to the fender, you are actually not running any rake at all. The rear will be lower than the front. There is no such thing as "negative rake".

Tarmac_E36_M3 · Mon, Jun-25-2012, 03:15:27 AM

Where is a point you would recommend measuring from?

OptionLessM · Mon, Jun-25-2012, 03:31:24 AM

points below the rocker panel or jack pads.

///M_Achilles · Mon, Jun-25-2012, 05:38:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NPalacioM3

Chassis height measurements made with use of fenders is not very accurate, for a couple of reasons. One is that the fender in the rear is lower on the body line than the front, naturally the rear measurement will be shorter if you measure to there. Second is that if/when your car was in an accident, the new fender may be higher or lower when replaced. You cannot get repeatability, which is important. If you want proper chassis ride heights, pick a hard point on the chassis and measure to the ground, on a flat surface. If you run 12.75 F and R, by measuring to the fender, you are actually not running any rake at all. The rear will be lower than the front. There is no such thing as "negative rake".

Sounds logical

I've been measuring from the center of the wheel to the the fender, but I'm going to measure this way from now on. What's the equivalent of rocker panel height for a 13.5"F/13.0"R ride height?

NPalacioM3 · Mon, Jun-25-2012, 12:36:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OptionLessM

points below the rocker panel or jack pads.

Yup, that would work. Any hard point that you know will be the same each time you measure from it, to the ground/scale pad, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ///M_Achilles

Sounds logical

I've been measuring from the center of the wheel to the the fender, but I'm going to measure this way from now on. What's the equivalent of rocker panel height for a 13.5"F/13.0"R ride height?

I am not sure what the equivalent would be, it has been so long since I have set the ride heights on my M3 that I just cannot remember. You can use the 13/13.5 as your starting point. Then get new measurements from a better place and use them moving forward.

Rat Fink · Mon, Jun-25-2012, 02:23:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OptionLessM

points below the rocker panel or jack pads.

Fine as long as it hasn't 'stoved' in like mine (left rear). Fook'n design

OptionLessM · Mon, Jun-25-2012, 03:16:32 PM

^^^ true, I moved a bit further inward to the frame

Tarmac_E36_M3 · Mon, Jun-25-2012, 04:04:29 PM

Basically, if measured from the bottom/frame area, if both front and rear are the same height from the ground, its probably a good base height to start from?

NPalacioM3 · Mon, Jun-25-2012, 06:07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarmac_E36_M3

Basically, if measured from the bottom/frame area, if both front and rear are the same height from the ground, its probably a good base height to start from?

Yeah, maybe .5"of rake or so. You would have to call BW or someone like that and ask for baseline rake settings.

Mon, Jun-25-2012, 02:20:40 AM	#22
NPalacioM3 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,415 In the garage: '03 VanDiemen RF '07 GMC YUKON '06 BMW M3 Reputation: 0 Location: Vienna, VA	Re: Any downsidesto running 12.75" Front and Rear Height Chassis height measurements made with use of fenders is not very accurate, for a couple of reasons. One is that the fender in the rear is lower on the body line than the front, naturally the rear measurement will be shorter if you measure to there. Second is that if/when your car was in an accident, the new fender may be higher or lower when replaced. You cannot get repeatability, which is important. If you want proper chassis ride heights, pick a hard point on the chassis and measure to the ground, on a flat surface. If you run 12.75 F and R, by measuring to the fender, you are actually not running any rake at all. The rear will be lower than the front. There is no such thing as "negative rake". __________________ Nick Real race cars don't have roofs or fenders.

Mon, Jun-25-2012, 03:15:27 AM	#23
Tarmac_E36_M3 If it ain't lightweight, it ain't the right weight. Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 3,002 In the garage: '95 BMW M3 '03 BMW M3 Reputation: 0 Location: LA/OC/SD	Re: Any downsidesto running 12.75" Front and Rear Height Where is a point you would recommend measuring from? __________________ Current: 1969 Ford Mustang Coupe; 351w (5.8L) carb engine; Champion 4 row radiator; Edelbrock Performer RPM Intake Manifold; Edelbrock 750 CFM Carb; 15" Cragar Wheels; 215/60-15 front tires, 255/60-15 rear tires; Doug Tri-Y Headers; Custom 2.5" Dual Side Exit Exhaust w/Xpipe; MSD 6AL; Electric Fuel Pump; March Performance U/D Pulley Set; Monte Carlo Bar; 3200 lbs. 1995 M3; single 3" exhaust after cats; CF hood; Apex ARC-8 17x9" wheels; Conti DW 245 square; BC Racing Coilovers. SOLD: E46 M3 SMG; Intrax coilovers; ACPT CF DS; SS V1 Headers/Section 1; Zionsville Type 17 kit; VAC Ultra light pulley set; BMW MS 4.10; Evolve-R Tune; 2980 lbs.

Mon, Jun-25-2012, 03:31:24 AM	#24
OptionLessM Obliging Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,946 Reputation: 0 Location: Hollywood Hills, Poorifornia	Re: Any downsidesto running 12.75" Front and Rear Height points below the rocker panel or jack pads. __________________ There is no need to be upset...

Mon, Jun-25-2012, 03:16:32 PM	#28
OptionLessM Obliging Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,946 Reputation: 0 Location: Hollywood Hills, Poorifornia	Re: Any downsidesto running 12.75" Front and Rear Height ^^^ true, I moved a bit further inward to the frame __________________ There is no need to be upset...

Mon, Jun-25-2012, 04:04:29 PM	#29
Tarmac_E36_M3 If it ain't lightweight, it ain't the right weight. Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 3,002 In the garage: '95 BMW M3 '03 BMW M3 Reputation: 0 Location: LA/OC/SD	Re: Any downsidesto running 12.75" Front and Rear Height Basically, if measured from the bottom/frame area, if both front and rear are the same height from the ground, its probably a good base height to start from? __________________ Current: 1969 Ford Mustang Coupe; 351w (5.8L) carb engine; Champion 4 row radiator; Edelbrock Performer RPM Intake Manifold; Edelbrock 750 CFM Carb; 15" Cragar Wheels; 215/60-15 front tires, 255/60-15 rear tires; Doug Tri-Y Headers; Custom 2.5" Dual Side Exit Exhaust w/Xpipe; MSD 6AL; Electric Fuel Pump; March Performance U/D Pulley Set; Monte Carlo Bar; 3200 lbs. 1995 M3; single 3" exhaust after cats; CF hood; Apex ARC-8 17x9" wheels; Conti DW 245 square; BC Racing Coilovers. SOLD: E46 M3 SMG; Intrax coilovers; ACPT CF DS; SS V1 Headers/Section 1; Zionsville Type 17 kit; VAC Ultra light pulley set; BMW MS 4.10; Evolve-R Tune; 2980 lbs.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode