With 1996+ E36M3 FLCAs NLA, linking threads.
https://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/s...E36-M3-spindle
Does anyone have the dimensional chart for the “A” and “B” dimensions including the 1996M3 FLCA?
http://vorshlag.smugmug.com/Projects...61_8DtDR-M.jpg
So using E30 M3 aluminum control arms with offset bushings should give me the same caster as running '96+ control arms with centered bushings?
-Phil
1996+M3 King Pin/Spindles + E30 Aluminum FLCAs + Offset FLCA Bushings + 1995M3 or 1996+M3 Guide Supports (Strut Mounts) ~= 1996+M3 caster / Wheel Base.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by bluptgm3; 10-29-2020 at 12:48 AM.
What's the geometry difference between the 95 and 96+ M3 spindles?
Be aware that you can max out camber or caster with the plates, but not max both at the same time. The limiting factor is the strut top nut hitting the strut tower sheet metal. I've seen special nut designs that give a tad more clearance, but it's not much. In practice you generally go for camber and the correspondingly available caster is what it is.
Neil
Question:
If you run 95 M3 control arms with the centered FCAB, you will reduce caster and also gain static camber? Or do you only get a reduction in caster and keep similar camber? I imagine the ball joint rotating backwards in an arc...
Case in point, my own experience:
I have run 96+ lower control arms with a centered & offset FCABs. With the offset FCAB, I lost slight static camber to achieve higher caster settings because the outer ball joint essentially swung in an arc forward.
What I'm aiming to do is run lower caster settings to minimize the weight jacking effect to help keep weight on my inside rear tire. Currently lighting off the inside tire on power and am looking for potential options. Lower caster is good if I get that camber with it.
Your kidding, correct?
Reposting ‘link’ already in this thread -
https://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/s...E36-M3-spindle
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m sure there is small insignificant amount, though I do not have a lot of experience, nor do I have data.
I’m having a hard time believing that the loss in camber is significant.
I’m guessing a softer rear bar (maybe none) and/or more aggressive differential set up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by bluptgm3; 04-12-2019 at 11:19 AM.
Jesus. I'll be really careful of what I ask next time. And no, it was far from obvious that any links in this thread were about spindle geometry. And no, the thread linked to was far from clear about spindle geometry. So, for the record, about the only post in that thread I trust is from =BA=:
"If you swap a 96+ spindle on a 95 M3 the biggest difference you will see is in negative camber, you can suddenly get a lot more."
His full post:
https://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/s...0#post20850150
BJO posted this, but he changed multiple things.
"I did the 96+ spindle swap on my 95M3 a little while ago. there is a difference in thickness in the bottom mount points. I gained over 1deg of negative camber and I can now max out the camber to -4.1, where I could only get to -3.0 before with camber plates and shims. I also changed the control arms and bushing to 96+. "
https://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/s...8#post20850868
Last edited by aeronaut; 04-12-2019 at 07:36 AM.
His full post:
https://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/s...20850150<br />
Talk to the guys at Vorshlag and/or BimmerWorld, as James used to have a pallet of 1996+M3 Spindles he was offering in various packages, though his approach was 1996+M3 Spindle + Meyle FLCA + Offset FLCAB. Either should be able to supply the numbers you are looking for including the camber gain at steering full lock.
From the factory both 1995M3 and 1996+M3 have the same wheelbase. The 1996+M3 Spindle, FLCA, FLCAB, and Strut Mount changes were contain within the same wheel base - the wheelbase did not ‘grow’ as =BA= suggests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by bluptgm3; 04-12-2019 at 11:34 AM.
Bookmarks