[deezeedee335]

I am looking into the Ground Control Touring F3X Camber plates for my 2013 F30 335i. I did a search and found there were some issues with the first design in regards to fitment and noise. Does anybody know if that has been resolved?

Does anybody have experience with this on their F30?

Also does any body have this set up with the Bilstein B14 PSS coilovers?

Thanks

[CPWINCH]

I have Tc Kline camber plates for sale. They work perfectly and add sooo much front grip

[Maccan]

This camber plates for the latest 1, 2, 3 and 4-series will fit original suspension and aftermarket suspension.

http://www.millway.se/camber-plates-...0-f31-f32.html

Made in Sweden!

[DVC]

I ran GC camber plates for a couple years... a bit of noise, but really not that bad. I switched over to Vorshlag when I went with coil overs, so PM me if you're interested in a set of used GCs for fairly cheap.

[CPWINCH]

^^ ill beat his price

[MacklinUSOB]

Originally Posted by DVC

I ran GC camber plates for a couple years... a bit of noise, but really not that bad. I switched over to Vorshlag when I went with coil overs, so PM me if you're interested in a set of used GCs for fairly cheap.

So I am about to bite the bullet on some plates and wanted your input. I see you tried the GC but moved onto the Vorshlag. How have the Vorshlag held up for you since then? Experience any more noise than you did with the GC?

[Watsey]

I appreciate that you are asking for inout from another member, but thought you may be interested in my 2 cents.

I have tried camber plates from two different (well known) aftermarket manufacturers, both which have been installed by a business which specialises in suspension and geometry (and nothing else), and they have both been very noisy : rattling/knocking from the monoball bearings.

My 'journey' so far :

OEM (silent)
Camber plates - manufacturer 1 (very noisy)
OEM (silent)
Camber plates - manufacturer 2 (very noisy)

The noise really spoils the relative refinement of the car (it's a road car, not a rally car) and is very intrusive on imperfect tarmac (secondary ride). The root cause is the monoballs which, given the design of the top mounts, do not have any isolation material around the bearings (as per the OEM top mounts) and do not have the fine tolerances required to minimise noise. Reverting to OEM top mounts made the front suspension effectively silent again.

From my research there's a common problem with aftermarket camber plates - the monoball bearings are generally under-sized and are often not motorsport grade (these bearings take a pounding and need to satisfy several requirements i.e. small tolerance and good longevity). This appears to be the case with more than one well known manufacturer, one of which does at least openly state the bearing manufacturer used in their product (i.e. FSK; Chinese, and not regarded as a top quality bearing manufacturer).

There's a double-edged sword here : for those of us that are serious about suspension we expect top mounts to have a solid-mounted monoball in order to achieve good damper response, however, if the monoball bearings are not true motorsport grade (with the very fine clearance tolerances that are required) then noise is a dead cert consequence.

So, I suggest you consider/choose a solution very carefully. Increased NVH can really get under the skin and spoil the refinement of the car.

If I was doing this again (increasing the negative camber) I'd almost certainly utilise F80 lower arms and SuperPro camber-adjustable poly bushes. This would increase the neg camber but also incorporate some camber adjustment to allow fine-tuning of the geometry. Far cheaper, more reliable and not likely to make a discernible difference to NVH. The only potential downside is the retention of the OEM top mounts - the isolation bearing can soften the damper response, but some people may not notice (although I do). It's a compromise I may have been willing to make, and would have saved me significant time, money and frustration.

[MacklinUSOB]

Originally Posted by Watsey

I appreciate that you are asking for inout from another member, but thought you may be interested in my 2 cents.

I have tried camber plates from two different (well known) aftermarket manufacturers, both which have been installed by a business which specialises in suspension and geometry (and nothing else), and they have both been very noisy : rattling/knocking from the monoball bearings.

My 'journey' so far :

OEM (silent)
Camber plates - manufacturer 1 (very noisy)
OEM (silent)
Camber plates - manufacturer 2 (very noisy)

The noise really spoils the relative refinement of the car (it's a road car, not a rally car) and is very intrusive on imperfect tarmac (secondary ride). The root cause is the monoballs which, given the design of the top mounts, do not have any isolation material around the bearings (as per the OEM top mounts) and do not have the fine tolerances required to minimise noise. Reverting to OEM top mounts made the front suspension effectively silent again.

From my research there's a common problem with aftermarket camber plates - the monoball bearings are generally under-sized and are often not motorsport grade (these bearings take a pounding and need to satisfy several requirements i.e. small tolerance and good longevity). This appears to be the case with more than one well known manufacturer, one of which does at least openly state the bearing manufacturer used in their product (i.e. FSK; Chinese, and not regarded as a top quality bearing manufacturer).

There's a double-edged sword here : for those of us that are serious about suspension we expect top mounts to have a solid-mounted monoball in order to achieve good damper response, however, if the monoball bearings are not true motorsport grade (with the very fine clearance tolerances that are required) then noise is a dead cert consequence.

So, I suggest you consider/choose a solution very carefully. Increased NVH can really get under the skin and spoil the refinement of the car.

If I was doing this again (increasing the negative camber) I'd almost certainly utilise F80 lower arms and SuperPro camber-adjustable poly bushes. This would increase the neg camber but also incorporate some camber adjustment to allow fine-tuning of the geometry. Far cheaper, more reliable and not likely to make a discernible difference to NVH. The only potential downside is the retention of the OEM top mounts - the isolation bearing can soften the damper response, but some people may not notice (although I do). It's a compromise I may have been willing to make, and would have saved me significant time, money and frustration.

Please, I really do appreciate your reply here as it is resonating with my thoughts the more I read. At this point I don't think I am going to go with plates.

Like you've said, there doesn't seem to be a clear choice on a plate that is "best" in the NVH department. Even though this car is turning into a weekend/track car I'd rather not compromise it on the occasions I am just cruising or road tripping.

While I do understand the performance benefits of having a more solid top mount it wasn't really why I was after them, anyway. After upgrading to the F80 TS and adding on wider (but same 245/40) RS4 tires I started getting mild sidewall rub on the inner lip of the fender and the tab that protrudes. I didn't have any rub on my 245/40 PS4S, they are 1/2 inch more narrow. My goal here was dialing in some more camber to eliminate that, at least for the fender, the tab may need modification either way.

Adjustible bushings seem the best way (less compromise=better) to approach that. My understanding is that SuperPro offers up to an additional -.5, I'm just not sure if maybe I should spring for the KMAC bushing to give myself more breathing room as I think that can add up to -1.2, not that I intend on going that far, but I'd hate to get it in there and need just a bit more. Have any thoughts on the KMACs? They seem well liked from what I have read.

Thanks again!

Some photos.

[Watsey]

You make a good point about tucking-in the tyres. One of the obvious benefits moving the top of the strut, to achieve negative camber, is tyre tuck. Adjustable bushes on the other hand achieve neg camber by pushing the bottom of the strut outwards.

You are correct regarding the SuperPro bushes - they have a published range of +/1 0.5º, so 1º total range.

I've heard mixed reviews about K-Mac. On the one hand its camber plates look like they should achieve the holy grail increased neg camber without increasing NVH, however, I've heard that K-Mac's customer service isn't that great. That's purely anecdotal, as I haven't bought from K-Mac, but I do recall that when requesting technical information about other K-Mac products the info was light on detail.

K-Mac camber adjustable bushes have a bigger published adjustment range, however, my assumption is that as the centre pin and the bush enclosure are fixed diameters K-Mac must be utilising a thinner poly bush at its narrowest point in order to achieve greater adjustment. I don't know how that translates to longevity, but my interpretation is that it can only reduce it.

On a separate note, but seeing that you also have several performance mods on your car and also track it, I thoroughly recommend Pagid Blue (RS4-2) and Yellow (RSL1 or RSL29) pads. Compared to EBC Yellow, which I ran briefly (until they melted), they are incomparably better. The Pagids withstand track use very well (and my 30d is ~1760kg ballasted) and haven't faded. They can squeal a bit in stop-start traffic when using a very light brake pedal, but that's the only downside that I've noticed.

[MacklinUSOB]

Originally Posted by Watsey

You make a good point about tucking-in the tyres. One of the obvious benefits moving the top of the strut, to achieve negative camber, is tyre tuck. Adjustable bushes on the other hand achieve neg camber by pushing the bottom of the strut outwards.

You are correct regarding the SuperPro bushes - they have a published range of +/1 0.5º, so 1º total range.

I've heard mixed reviews about K-Mac. On the one hand its camber plates look like they should achieve the holy grail increased neg camber without increasing NVH, however, I've heard that K-Mac's customer service isn't that great. That's purely anecdotal, as I haven't bought from K-Mac, but I do recall that when requesting technical information about other K-Mac products the info was light on detail.

K-Mac camber adjustable bushes have a bigger published adjustment range, however, my assumption is that as the centre pin and the bush enclosure are fixed diameters K-Mac must be utilising a thinner poly bush at its narrowest point in order to achieve greater adjustment. I don't know how that translates to longevity, but my interpretation is that it can only reduce it.

On a separate note, but seeing that you also have several performance mods on your car and also track it, I thoroughly recommend Pagid Blue (RS4-2) and Yellow (RSL1 or RSL29) pads. Compared to EBC Yellow, which I ran briefly (until they melted), they are incomparably better. The Pagids withstand track use very well (and my 30d is ~1760kg ballasted) and haven't faded. They can squeal a bit in stop-start traffic when using a very light brake pedal, but that's the only downside that I've noticed.

Yeah that's really the crux of my situation here. I've actually been chatting throughout the day with my friend at FCP Euro and he reminded and cautioned me of what you're saying. These bushes attain the camber increase by thrusting the wheel outward when what I really need to be doing is pulling the top inwards.

I'll take your word on the KMACs. I have seen some people reporting good experience but also a few not so good. As andecdotal as it is, when a company offers a product that can do 100% more than the rest of the competing products, it raises some questions.

You know, I was looking close at the Pagids across a lot of boards and people are raving about them. I feel that the EBC Yellows may have been better suited to the PS4S, but now with these 200tw RS4s they may be out of their depth. Next set is definitely going to be Pagid.

My FCP friend and I talked through a bunch of options today and we concluded I'm really stuck between a rock and a hard place. I may not be able to avoid plates without making another compromise that sends me into another round of trial and error. Truth be told I'm moving to NYC soon and the car will be living in CT, far from being a daily driver. If only there were fixed camber plates like there are for every past model but that would be too easy. Now I'm left picking one from a line of many uncompelling options, it's just the way she goes.

[FaRKle!]

Originally Posted by Watsey

K-Mac camber adjustable bushes have a bigger published adjustment range, however, my assumption is that as the centre pin and the bush enclosure are fixed diameters K-Mac must be utilising a thinner poly bush at its narrowest point in order to achieve greater adjustment. I don't know how that translates to longevity, but my interpretation is that it can only reduce it.

You're right that the center metal cylinder on the K-mac bushing is much larger than the SuperPro one, and thus the thickness of the polyurethane between it and the control arm walls is thinner. I don't think that will have any meaningful effect on wear though since the main metal cylinder is supposed to rotate within the polyurethane caps and you apply grease on that interface. There isn't roughness there to grind away at the polyurethane.