Just picked up a pair of Bilstein b14 coilovers and just wanted to ask what you guys did for the upper mounts. There’s tons of threads telling me to stick to oem and tons that tell me to go adjustable camber plates. I plan on going to the track a little bit this year, other than that mostly to get to work. I will be lowering the car. Please send some advice

 

I went adjustable because I wanted more camber than what the IE fixed plates give and because I had a camber imbalance already that I wanted to correct.

 

I literally JUST installed the B14s to my R55 Clubman, and I decided to use OEM front mounts. My only other consideration was the IE fixed mounts. On my Clubman I was able to get -1.2° camber in the front with the stock adjustment slots, so pretty happy about that. With the IE plates that would get me to -2.2° assuming their math is correct. I know that’s not directly relative to your R53, but it’s my experience.

The other influence to my decision was that I was replacing a set of Megan Racing coilovers with adjustable front uppers. The MR came with the adjustable upper hard mounts, and they were very harsh for a daily driver. They gave me lots of clunks and bangs on my commute. After 5 years and 100,000+ miles, I had enough.

I say if you can get -1° to -1.5° camber in the front with OEM mounts, just go with those. Especially if the car is a daily driver.

 

I'm curious. Why install coilovers without improving negative camber? IMHO, you're wasting money. You could've purchased much less expensive struts and shocks and achieved a much more compliant ride. The coilovers, with their smaller diameter springs allow more negative camber if used with camber plates. 2-2-1/2 degrees will give much better handling without affecting tire wear if you get a good alignment.

 

NC, I totally understand your point of view. For me, that much camber was not needed.

I ran ~2° negative camber on the Megan Racing coilovers. I didn't want to make to compromises in strut mounting and comfort with the B14s to get more negative camber. Also, my car is strictly daily driver, and more than -1.5° negative camber wasn't needed for my use case. For public roads, the alignment and ride height I have is plenty for me. If I change my mind in the future, I have plans to slot to OEM mounting holes to match the GP2 slots.

 

I don't know how you would get -1.5° or even -1.0° of camber with stock mounts and a car that isn't bent. OEM spec is -0.5°± 0.4° with essentially no provision for adjustment.

 

What deepgrey said.

I ran a quick trip up my local mountain road and back down. My 06 JCW had the stock, unadjustable plates holding the shocks/struts in place.
After looking at the scrub marks on the tires (with proper inflation !), I decided that some negative camber was in order.
I bought a pair of Ireland Engineering adjustable plates. After the install, and "basic" adjustment, back up into the mountains.
Adjust again, another trip, more adjust, and a final trip into the mountains.

My...(low miles) car, just me in it, likes 1-1/2° neg. camber in the front, and 3/4° neg. in the rear (also Ireland adjustable bars in the back).
This is how I drive the car on a daily basis. Not too concerned about possible excessive wear on the tires, as 1-1/2° isn't THAT harsh. Don't know how many miles since the plate install, but the tires are still doing well.
Makes city driving fun too. Just turn the steering wheel for city corners...who needs brakes !?

Mike

 

Before I switched to camber plates, I always burned off the outside shoulders of my tires first. I'm running -1.5° in the front now like OCR.

 

My experience was on 2nd gen chassis. Sounds like the early cars don’t have the same available camber adjustment.

 

The IE fixed camber plates gave me -1.5 camber on the front of my car at stock height.
No need to cut any metal on top for the adjusters, but the IE plates are a little thicker than OEM.
For me this was a good compromise for my suspension set up.
Post #272
https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ml#post4591584

But if you are planning on lowering... you may want to be able to adjust your camber.

 

I appreciate the help, you gave me a general answer. I was hoping to put -1.5 in the front and around -2.3 in the rear.

 

If I Lower the car until the wheels are flush with the wells, you think the number would be the same? I’m scared that if I do lower it, the number wills change and it will add even more camber to the fixed plates I had installed. I am aiming for around -1.5 in the front and and -2.4 in the rear. I do plan on going for some wider rims later on in the future.

 

With the design of the Mini strut front suspension, there is very little camber gain from lowering. In the rear, it’s very different. There is much camber gain in the rear from lowering.

 

Why -2.4 in the rear? That seems excessive to me....but what do I know?

 

I'm assuming he's going for looks instead of performance by tucking the rear tires. -2.4° sounds like understeer city.

 

Yes, partially for the looks. I do intend to put some wider rims later on either 16x8, 17x7.5 or 17x8 but I am gonna be stuck with my shield rims for a bit. What settings would you recommend to kind of have a hybrid of both, looks and performance?

 

I just saw this really mint looking red r53 and I asked the guy what settings he was running. What would you recommend? I'm fairly new to this stuff so anything helps .

 

Negative 2.4 is right in spec for a trailing arm bmw of e34/36 vintage. iirc I was around 3 rear lowered back in the e34 touring days,

It ain’t the camber that will get you high tire wear.

It’s the toe in or out. Doesn’t take much too much and you will eat tires like mad. Get it back in spec, and you are golden for 50k miles no problem.