[tylerhart_21]

Not sure if this would be helpful to anyone. But found out people on the m3 forms are using Porsche parts. If you want to get air to your brakes check this out. I am probably going to try a similar concept since I have the standard bumper and have the brake ducts.

Forum:
https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1406400

Part: (Doesn't say left or right)
https://www.pelicanparts.com/More_In...iABEgK8mfD_BwE

[Biginboca]

Originally Posted by tylerhart_21

Not sure if this would be helpful to anyone. But found out people on the m3 forms are using Porsche parts. If you want to get air to your brakes check this out. I am probably going to try a similar concept since I have the standard bumper and have the brake ducts.

Forum:
https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1406400

Part: (Doesn't say left or right)
https://www.pelicanparts.com/More_In...iABEgK8mfD_BwE

I started to install a set of those and then gave up. I cut one down to mount it and by the time I got it sized to fit there was hardly any scoop left. On top of that it would require cutting away a section of the brake shield to allow the “scooped air” to get to the center of the rotor.

And then I also looked at the F30 brake shield I’m running and it has a large scooped out area to catch air from the brake duct and direct it to the center of the rotor already.

If anyone wants a set of these 997 GT3 brake scoops I have another brand new set I’d be willing to sell. Unfortunately for me when I bought them they were marked as discontinued and they were like $25/ea on Amazon and EBay.

[Peter Morrin]

Good comments on brakes in general and thanks for the suggestions regarding pads and brake fluid. I have run the ATE fluid, but never with serious track use. Is an annual flush adequate for the SRF fluid in a dual purpose vehicle?

I am also wondering if people have programed out the electronic over-rides that activate the brakes. This may only be an issue in the awd cars, but could be part of the reason for excessive rear brake wear.

I will certainly keep an eye open for the 340 mm rotors and Brembo 4 pots. This seems like a great OEM upgrade option. Will these clear 17" wheels?

Peter

[Tambohamilton]

Yes, you certainly want to code out the worst of the nannies; there are a lot!

[Biginboca]

Originally Posted by Peter Morrin

Good comments on brakes in general and thanks for the suggestions regarding pads and brake fluid. I have run the ATE fluid, but never with serious track use. Is an annual flush adequate for the SRF fluid in a dual purpose vehicle?

I am also wondering if people have programed out the electronic over-rides that activate the brakes. This may only be an issue in the awd cars, but could be part of the reason for excessive rear brake wear.

I will certainly keep an eye open for the 340 mm rotors and Brembo 4 pots. This seems like a great OEM upgrade option. Will these clear 17" wheels?

Peter

Yes an annual flush with SRF is fine. My car is dual purpose and that’s exactly what I do.

Coding out the Electronic Brake Nannie’s is definitely needed for tracking. There are like 5-6 settings you will have to turn off. This topic has been discussed many times if you Google you can see threads which show the settings you’ll want to adjust.

My buddy has the 340mm F30 Brakes on his 128i with 17” ARC 8’s, so yes they can clear depending on the wheel you are using.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Biginboca

Yes an annual flush with SRF is fine. My car is dual purpose and that’s exactly what I do.

Coding out the Electronic Brake Nannie’s is definitely needed for tracking. There are like 5-6 settings you will have to turn off. This topic has been discussed many times if you Google you can see threads which show the settings you’ll want to adjust.

My buddy has the 340mm F30 Brakes on his 128i with 17” ARC 8’s, so yes they can clear depending on the wheel you are using.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160223...w-actually-fun

[Peter Morrin]

Gents,
Thanks for the comments on brakes and programming out the nannies. I had already seen other articles and wondered if the higher than normal rear brake wear mentioned was possibly due to the nannies.

I would like to enquire about options for increasing the front camber. Since my E90 is a dual purpose x-drive, I will not go to adjustable camber plates and cannot use the M3 tension rods. I was planning on running the OEM x-drive strut bearings with my existing ST-X springs and shocks. I was looking at using the Dinan camber plates, but slotting the shock towers would avoid some cost and also save some suspension travel. I then saw that Biginboca has used the Dinan plates in addition to slotting the towers. I will likely install an M3 front brace with full aluminum top plate. I am not sure what a good front camber setting would be, but 2 degrees seems reasonable to start.

Can I simply slot the holes in the top of the shock towers and slide the strut assembly inwards. What kind of camber can I expect from this mod?

Do I need to reinforce the strut towers in any way?

Is there any difference in durability of the OEM strut bearings (Sachs, Lemfroder, Meyle)?

Is there any shim, plate, or cushion necessary between the strut bearing and the underside of the shock tower?

Can anyone comment on the recommended bump stop for the ST-X front struts?

If I want to furhter increase the front camber, what are my options short of going to racing style camber plates?

I think there is fair bit of fuzzy information on this topic and this group could really provide some track-proven clarity.

Thanks, Peter

[Tambohamilton]

Originally Posted by Peter Morrin

Is there any shim, plate, or cushion necessary between the strut bearing and the underside of the shock tower?

Yes, there should be a paper gasket, nothing else.

[AmuroRay]

You need a proper exhaust on this thing now - Single 3" from the Y pipe back. I think the last time we measured it out, the optimal part was near the transmission tunnel - you can make some torque and shave some weight. The only other thing I believe works is actually having the cams reground and then a custom dyno tune (dyno tune no matter what at this point)

But this is an awesome build.

[Biginboca]

As per my pondering on this a few pages ago I finally swapped to the E9XM3 rear subframe to chassis bracing. This saved 1lb but I feel good about this mod because it also was an upgrade. When I swapped to the e92m3 rear subframe to chassis brace I also used a F80 aluminum cross brace to bridge the tunnel where the braces mount under the exhaust. So with hardware the old Series set up was just over 12lbs and the new E92/F80 M set up is 11lbs. I got the braces with hardware off a part out on M3 post for $100 shipped. The F80 crossmember was like $25 new from ECS. So not a bad deal price wise either.

The M3 braces are thicker and have welded joints where my series brace had some bolted joints where the smaller wings attach to the chassis near the rear subframe, so I feel good about this one even though only 1lb it was also a bracing strength upgrade lol.

In this first pic I think it’s funny that the F80 cross brace screw spacing for the width of the car was a direct bolt up. Seems like BMW built the F80 chassis off the e90 drawings as a starting point:



But that said, I did have to drill a couple holes because the spacing front to back of the car was different. I also made this piece a little less wide while I was at it. This is the finished product:

[Biginboca]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

You need a proper exhaust on this thing now - Single 3" from the Y pipe back. I think the last time we measured it out, the optimal part was near the transmission tunnel - you can make some torque and shave some weight. The only other thing I believe works is actually having the cams reground and then a custom dyno tune (dyno tune no matter what at this point)

But this is an awesome build.

Yes an exhaust would be nice. Trust me I’ve thought about it. Ideally I would swap to S54 headers and then do a 3” back from the merger. I’ve just been pretty happy with the power and feeling like the juice isn’t worth the squeeze because I’ll need to go full custom to get the exhaust I really want since no one makes bolt ons to match my desires lol

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by Biginboca

Yes an exhaust would be nice. Trust me I’ve thought about it. Ideally I would swap to S54 headers and then do a 3” back from the merger. I’ve just been pretty happy with the power and feeling like the juice isn’t worth the squeeze because I’ll need to go full custom to get the exhaust I really want since no one makes bolt ons to match my desires lol

It’s really going to be about 10whp or less, but it will shave a few pounds. Sell the PE to recoup the cost. The PE actually doesn’t flow that well over stock, and the stock muffler itself is about 5-7whp less over a good muffler.

But custom is good - you can try those guys custom Mandrel Bends in Miami/Lauderdale to see if they can cheaply bend you the pipes (like $300 bucks is what they cost for their complete kits - that cheap) at decent Y pipe (2” in 3” out Vibrant or the like) choose your muffler (Borla XS 3”) and Resonator (Vibrant Ultra quiet 3”) and full send.

[Peter Morrin]

If you choose the custom route, I suggest you look at Burns Stainless (www.burnstainless.com) at least for ideas. They have the best engineerng grade data I have found for custom exhausts on the web.

One caution is that gas velocity is very important in a naturally aspirited car. A 3" single pipe might drop your velocity to the point it hurts your low-mid end torque (velocity decreases with increasing diameter). I would look carefully at engines of similar horsepower that have had their exhaust optimized by someone who has a flow bench and bench dyno.

How the cyclinder banks merge after the headers is another area where careful design and fabrication can yield benefits. The Burns web-site discusses this.

One thing running dual exhausts permits is slightly different path lengths/baffle configuration to achieve slightly offset accoustic profiles from each bank of cylinders. By combining the two exhausts, sound attenuation can be achieved by cancelling accoustic waves, without adding physical restriction of the gas flow. I don't know if BMW did this with the 328, but I suspect they may have with the 335 dual exhaust cars. Something to be aware of when going the custom route with a daily driver.

Peter

[Peter Morrin]

I sent a PM to Biginboca and received this response. I am posting it back to his thread for the benefit of all.

From Biginboca:

Yes slotting the strut mounts is perfectly safe and in my opinion advisable to do because it’s easy and free. I slotted mine about 1/4” (6mm) and gained about 1/2 degree of camber. The reason why I used the Dinan plates with the slot is I wanted extreme camber for track use. So you can stack different mods to get more camber, like I also made the slots larger by opening them a second time to about 1/2” total larger than oem size (~13mm) which allows about 1* camber gain. So with 1/2” slot, Dinan camber plates, M3 arms, and a f80 spindle I was able to get to -3.5 front camber without using adjustable camber plates.

The Dinan plates add 0.7* camber and they will make the fender gap approx 6mm higher (their top plate is about 6mm thick). And then 1/4” (6mm) of added a lot is approx 0.5* camber gain also. So if you do both you can expect about -1.2* on top of whatever camber you are running now.



I do have a question:
What is the limiting factor in how far in one can push the strut bearing to increase negative camber? Using conventional springs, I would have thought it was the spring contacting the inside face of the shock tower sheet metal. If this is the case, I am not sure what the Dinan (or fixed camber plates such as made by Tambohamilton) would do for you that slotting the tops of the strut tower would not.

Peter

[Peter Morrin]

Looking at the pictures of the brace from Biginboca, I am wondering if this brace might be a candidate to be made our of carbon-fibre. I would think an additional 4 or 5 pounds might be possible given the size of the diagonal braces. Those braces look to be about the same dimension as a carbon fibre hockey stick shaft, of which I understand there are many in the waste bins of local arenas.

Thoughts from those who have installed this brace?

Peter

[Biginboca]

Originally Posted by Peter Morrin

Looking at the pictures of the brace from Biginboca, I am wondering if this brace might be a candidate to be made our of carbon-fibre. I would think an additional 4 or 5 pounds might be possible given the size of the diagonal braces. Those braces look to be about the same dimension as a carbon fibre hockey stick shaft, of which I understand there are many in the waste bins of local arenas.

Thoughts from those who have installed this brace?

Peter

So that is a smart idea if someone can make it work. The weight of the braces I installed is about 11lbs with the mounting hardware:



In carbon fiber it could probably be shaved down to 6-7lbs. You would have to use the Series brace winglets pieces to bolt to the subframe mounts, which those winglets are still heavy, about 2lbs each:

[Tambohamilton]

Originally Posted by Peter Morrin

I sent a PM to Biginboca and received this response. I am posting it back to his thread for the benefit of all.

From Biginboca:

Yes slotting the strut mounts is perfectly safe and in my opinion advisable to do because it’s easy and free. I slotted mine about 1/4” (6mm) and gained about 1/2 degree of camber. The reason why I used the Dinan plates with the slot is I wanted extreme camber for track use. So you can stack different mods to get more camber, like I also made the slots larger by opening them a second time to about 1/2” total larger than oem size (~13mm) which allows about 1* camber gain. So with 1/2” slot, Dinan camber plates, M3 arms, and a f80 spindle I was able to get to -3.5 front camber without using adjustable camber plates.

The Dinan plates add 0.7* camber and they will make the fender gap approx 6mm higher (their top plate is about 6mm thick). And then 1/4” (6mm) of added a lot is approx 0.5* camber gain also. So if you do both you can expect about -1.2* on top of whatever camber you are running now.



I do have a question:
What is the limiting factor in how far in one can push the strut bearing to increase negative camber? Using conventional springs, I would have thought it was the spring contacting the inside face of the shock tower sheet metal. If this is the case, I am not sure what the Dinan (or fixed camber plates such as made by Tambohamilton) would do for you that slotting the tops of the strut tower would not.

Peter

There's a lot of space in there before the spring hits the sheet metal. I didn't fancy cutting into my car, and had access to free 10mm aluminium plate and a laser cutter at the time, so I opted to make my own plates. Also I already had the XD top mounts and was moving to BMWP springs but not wanting the full drop in ride height... So that way made most sense to me really.

[Biginboca]

Originally Posted by Peter Morrin

I sent a PM to Biginboca and received this response. I am posting it back to his thread for the benefit of all.

From Biginboca:

Yes slotting the strut mounts is perfectly safe and in my opinion advisable to do because it’s easy and free. I slotted mine about 1/4” (6mm) and gained about 1/2 degree of camber. The reason why I used the Dinan plates with the slot is I wanted extreme camber for track use. So you can stack different mods to get more camber, like I also made the slots larger by opening them a second time to about 1/2” total larger than oem size (~13mm) which allows about 1* camber gain. So with 1/2” slot, Dinan camber plates, M3 arms, and a f80 spindle I was able to get to -3.5 front camber without using adjustable camber plates.

The Dinan plates add 0.7* camber and they will make the fender gap approx 6mm higher (their top plate is about 6mm thick). And then 1/4” (6mm) of added a lot is approx 0.5* camber gain also. So if you do both you can expect about -1.2* on top of whatever camber you are running now.



I do have a question:
What is the limiting factor in how far in one can push the strut bearing to increase negative camber? Using conventional springs, I would have thought it was the spring contacting the inside face of the shock tower sheet metal. If this is the case, I am not sure what the Dinan (or fixed camber plates such as made by Tambohamilton) would do for you that slotting the tops of the strut tower would not.

Peter

Yes the limiting factor is how far you can push the strut inwards before it gets into contacting the tower. Mine is currently pushed as far as possible with a stock top mount and top hat, and Dinan plate. In other words, even if I slotted more I could not move the strut inwards more.

So I’m at -3.5 camber but some of that camber is from M3 arms, Dinan camber plates, and F80 spindles. I would say with a stock strut assembly and no other supporting camber mods I could probably get to -1.5 to -1.7 just slotting about the 1/2” I did. I don’t think I could slot any more than I did.

And I would definitely recommend you do that. I also think if you have your toe dialed in properly (approx 1/8” front toe in) then you can run up to -2.0* camber without getting horrible front tire wear. At least that’s been my experience.

Let me warn you though… If you run “zero toe” or “toe out” with that much camber then the tires inside treads will be toast in short order.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by Peter Morrin

If you choose the custom route, I suggest you look at Burns Stainless (www.burnstainless.com) at least for ideas. They have the best engineerng grade data I have found for custom exhausts on the web.

One caution is that gas velocity is very important in a naturally aspirited car. A 3" single pipe might drop your velocity to the point it hurts your low-mid end torque (velocity decreases with increasing diameter). I would look carefully at engines of similar horsepower that have had their exhaust optimized by someone who has a flow bench and bench dyno.

How the cyclinder banks merge after the headers is another area where careful design and fabrication can yield benefits. The Burns web-site discusses this.

One thing running dual exhausts permits is slightly different path lengths/baffle configuration to achieve slightly offset accoustic profiles from each bank of cylinders. By combining the two exhausts, sound attenuation can be achieved by cancelling accoustic waves, without adding physical restriction of the gas flow. I don't know if BMW did this with the 328, but I suspect they may have with the 335 dual exhaust cars. Something to be aware of when going the custom route with a daily driver.

Peter

Dual exhausts are a waste of time and space unless you have packaging constraints that don’t allow for a single pipe. On my original build, I had a burns stainless Y pipe that I opted not to use, but honestly any decent Y pipe/crossover will do.

You’re not going to lose power with a 3” exhausts, and there are a few dynos floating around to prove it. Beyond that, there really isn’t any power to be gained beyond the crossover - so exhaust velocity is a moot point. The biggest issue is finding out where the ideal crossover location is - too close and you can lose torque - too far back, and it’s not as effective as it should be.

Bimmerworld’s Single 3.5” for rhe E46 is a good example of a incorrectly placed crossover - their X pipe exhaust for the E90 is a crossover done correctly - it has the most peak HP AND torque, including low end torque gains over any other X pipe exhaust on the market.

[Tambohamilton]

Originally Posted by Biginboca

Let me warn you though… If you run “zero toe” or “toe out” with that much camber then the tires inside treads will be toast in short order.

Depending on who you ask...some folk can apparently get completely normal wear with those settings

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by Biginboca

Yes the limiting factor is how far you can push the strut inwards before it gets into contacting the tower. Mine is currently pushed as far as possible with a stock top mount and top hat, and Dinan plate. In other words, even if I slotted more I could not move the strut inwards more.

So I’m at -3.5 camber but some of that camber is from M3 arms, Dinan camber plates, and F80 spindles. I would say with a stock strut assembly and no other supporting camber mods I could probably get to -1.5 to -1.7 just slotting about the 1/2” I did. I don’t think I could slot any more than I did.

And I would definitely recommend you do that. I also think if you have your toe dialed in properly (approx 1/8” front toe in) then you can run up to -2.0* camber without getting horrible front tire wear. At least that’s been my experience.

Let me warn you though… If you run “zero toe” or “toe out” with that much camber then the tires inside treads will be toast in short order.

0 toe won’t increase wear, but it will make the car darty in the front, and oversteer prone in the rear

[335i54n]

you could lighten the flange to save some weight

https://www.wholesalepartsexpress.co...250-b250e-246/

https://www.fcpeuro.com/products/por...160500#fitment