Has anyone tried Dinan Stage I w/GC Camber Plates

[kitw]

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

Nice to see you around Kit..we missed you...at least I did anyway Hows the 997.2S? Licking my chops with the 991 soon to be out.

Dave

I'm back in a real way, the 997.2 is up for sale.

[kitw]

Originally Posted by Elementary

A. - I'm fully aware of gc vs stock. The argument is the shaved hats - travel is not "increased".

B. - Correct. You're not doing any modifications to the actual shock shaft so the base/mounting of the top hat is still at the same location. All you're doing is shortening the overall length of the shock, thus you're not "increasing" any travel.

Again, you're incorrect. The TOP of the top hat is in the same location, the bottom IS NOT.

[JM3]

Originally Posted by Elementary

So....With the GC camber plates your car will be roughly .3" higher than the current ride height suspension travel remains the same.

The original poster is a nice guy, but he made a critical error in his comparison. He forgot to include and measure the bottom part of the stock mount, yet it IS included and measured on the GC camber /caster assembly.

This makes any comparisons reach a false conclusion.

Here is an illustration of what I am referring to, along with a picture of a special GC assembly of increased travel. You do have to be careful, and the 11mm is about the limit for the EDC motor vs. negative camber vs. stress bar bracket.

[kitw]

^ Thanks for chiming in Jay. what exactly are you showing there?



There is just a flat washer, and it's about 1/8" thick. I don't see what else is there? Your picture implies that the curved washer's entire thickness is part of the stack height and it's not.

[JM3]

Originally Posted by kitw

^ Thanks for chiming in Jay. what exactly are you showing there?

I trying to show that when comparing apples to apples, that GC and stock are equal "stack height" and equal suspension travel.

Originally Posted by kitw

There is just a flat washer, and it's about 1/8" thick. I don't see what else is there?

It is a 10.5mm thick washer, with a hidden countersink that matches the GC countersink.

Originally Posted by kitw

Your picture implies that the curved washer's entire thickness is part of the stack height and it's not.

Correct! The spacer is not part of the "stack height", the spacer is part of the "block height", which is how it affects available
travel.

"Stack height" is a contrived term, and can be very confusing, if not downright misleading.

The pic I attached we are trying to show "stack height" as being 29mm across the board, while the crucial "block height" can vary, and is actually the TRUE indicator of available suspension travel.

I only heard about this thread via some emails asking questions that didn't make sense to me, so I hope this explains to the guys who emailed me.

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by JM3

Dinan claims an increase in suspension travel by shaving the bottom of the OEM mount. So would the plate in the middle provide a similar amount of suspension travel gain that Dinan claims?

In my mind, that would be ideal for the Dinan suspensions that will see track and street use.

Am I on the right track?

[kitw]

Here are the parts off my car:

31332283379 is the smaller washer

31332283038 is the larger one on the bottom. It's nowhere near as thick as the one in your photo. was it a production change?

[kitw]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

Dinan claims an increase in suspension travel by shaving the bottom of the OEM mount. So would the plate in the middle provide a similar amount of suspension travel gain that Dinan claims?

In my mind, that would be ideal for the Dinan suspensions that will see track and street use.

Am I on the right track?

That is a race plate and will transmit more NVH than the shaved Dinan parts, and will not work with stock diameter springs. (It's actually more than what Dinan gives, they shave the top hats by 6.35mm.)

[tibra1]

Originally Posted by kitw

Wow, you've made yourself out to be an idiot. I'm allowed to say that because I made the same mistake you are making. Stop while you're behind.

+1 ..and someone should tell him its affect (verb) not effect (noun).. this forum is priceless

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by kitw

That is a race plate and will transmit more NVH than the shaved Dinan parts, and will not work with stock diameter springs. (It's actually more than what Dinan gives, they shave the top hats by 6.35mm.)

I thought GC was making the middle plate to work with the OEM springs. Oh well.

So will the normal GC plate with the Dinan setup work.

[TX335]

It's my understanding that the middle plate is a modified version of their street plates that will fit stock springs. It just has a different overall height from the regular street version. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jay.

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by TX335

It's my understanding that the middle plate is a modified version of their street plates that will fit stock springs. It just has a different overall height from the regular street version. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jay.

Thanks for chiming in! I'll take a little extra NVH in this case...a fair trade off.

[JM3]

Originally Posted by kitw

Dinan claims an increase in suspension travel by shaving the bottom of the OEM mount. So would the plate in the middle provide a similar amount of suspension travel gain that Dinan claims?

In my mind, that would be ideal for the Dinan suspensions that will see track and street use.

Am I on the right track?

Yes. But from my experience, the limitation is how high the EDC motor can go,11mm or so, before it starts to restrict camber adjustment (not an issue with Dinan, because there is no adjustment)

Originally Posted by kitw

Here are the parts off my car:

31332283379 is the smaller washer

31332283038 is the larger one on the bottom. It's nowhere near as thick as the one in your photo. was it a production change?

Not that I know of.

The thin washer is the TOP washer. The thick one in my pic, and hidden in the pic you posted, is the lower washer and I have not seen or heard of any changes. In fact it is the same washer as used on early e34 M5, and very early e36 four doors, so it has been around a while and probably wont be changed

[JM3]

Originally Posted by TX335

It's my understanding that the middle plate is a modified version of their street plates that will fit stock springs. It just has a different overall height from the regular street version. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jay.

Correct!

"Modified" is perhaps even too strong of a word, because it is just assembled differently with existing modular parts from a modular system of STREET camber/caster plates.

The RACE camber/caster plates are even thinner than that pic, but cannot accommodate stock diameter springs, and the EDC motor can get too far upward.

Thanks.

JM3


wwtsf:
T-hp-f
D-ngfd-fn
M-bm5/bm-s
J-gwthke-s

[kitw]

Originally Posted by JM3

Correct!

"Modified" is perhaps even too strong of a word, because it is just assembled differently with existing modular parts from a modular system of STREET camber/caster plates.

The RACE camber/caster plates are even thinner than that pic, but cannot accommodate stock diameter springs, and the EDC motor can get too far upward.

Ok, so if I want to order the middle plate, what do I reference? Looks like a great solution if it works with stock diameter springs.

[kitw]

Originally Posted by JM3

The thin washer is the TOP washer. The thick one in my pic, and hidden in the pic you posted, is the lower washer and I have not seen or heard of any changes. In fact it is the same washer as used on early e34 M5, and very early e36 four doors, so it has been around a while and probably wont be changed

Ok. I don't have the parts right now, but I'll take your word for it. I don't remember it being that thick but it's been quite a few months. Thanks for the replies!

[Richard@M-World]

Originally Posted by JM3

The original poster is a nice guy, but he made a critical error in his comparison. He forgot to include and measure the bottom part of the stock mount, yet it IS included and measured on the GC camber /caster assembly.

This makes any comparisons reach a false conclusion.

Jay, I don't think anyone suggested that the stock top mount is shorter than GC's. Only that Dinan's modified stock top mount is shorter than GC's. Hope this makes sense. We have too many conversations going on in here

Originally Posted by kitw

Here are the parts off my car:

31332283379 is the smaller washer

31332283038 is the larger one on the bottom. It's nowhere near as thick as the one in your photo. was it a production change?

Mine (and dozens of cars I've worked on) all have the "thin" washers you mentioned (31332283038) at the bottom of the top mount. Perhaps there was a change

[kitw]

Originally Posted by Richard@M-World

Mine (and dozens of cars I've worked on) all have the "thin" washers you mentioned (31332283038) at the bottom of the top mount. Perhaps there was a change

Attachment 643153

Ok, then I'm not crazy. Mine looked like this too. Thanks!

[kitw]

Originally Posted by Richard@M-World

Jay, I don't think anyone suggested that the stock top mount is shorter than GC's. Only that Dinan's modified stock top mount is shorter than GC's. Hope this makes sense. We have too many conversations going on in here

The Dinan modified mount looks like it is shorter than the regular street plate, but the one in the middle, if it is 11mm shorter than stock, should be shorter, as Dinan's is only 6.35mm shorter.

(I machined a set of stock mounts down by 8mm with no issues at all, btw)

What is the middle plate and does it have the same kind of not-completely solid mounting as the street plate?

[JM3]

Originally Posted by kitw

What is the middle plate and does it have the same kind of not-completely solid mounting as the street plate?

That is the street plate, just different configuration. I have already ordered another 31332283038 and a 31332283379 , just to see what I get. It will take a few days.

[Brainofjjj]

I just ordered my GC plates to go with my KW springs. Thanks Jay!!

Had i known i would have just done the GC kit with springs and plates but I didn't think I'd need the plates right away.
Unfortunately for me i can't get enough camber out of the driver side now to match the passenger's.

Gonna take it in on Saturday and get them installed and aligned. I think the shop who installed the springs last week messed up my headlight arms because my headlights are all outta whack now.

Worst thing about Nashville is the lack of good shops. I have a good body shop and there are some decent indy shops but no one stop shop. My indy bimmer shop doesn't have an alignment rack so I have to hit a standard Firestone and walk the guy through my alignment.

[Ti-Jean]

For those interested, I just ordered the shorter GC plate to go with my Dinan stage 1 suspension. I's planned to go in next week. I'm no expert in suspension but my local shop confirmed that it should work fine.

If I get this whole thing correctly my 2 choices were:

A) Get Dinan camber plate
This would raise the front by 1/4" which I'm not excited as I find it a bit too high already and the amount of camber you can get is limited. In my case, I could only get -1.4 with the pin pulls so probably ~-2.1 with Dinan plate

B) Get GC plates (modified shorter one)
This gives me all the camber I want or may want in the future, increase the suspension travel on top of what I already have with Dinan and doesn't increase the ride height like the Dinan plates would. That sounds to good to be true, what did I miss??? Someone said something to the effect that the EDC strut could have a problem with too much increase in suspension travel. Could I switch back to my OEM bumpstop (from the Dinan E36 one) if this a problem to reduce the suspension travel?

Here is a version of the side-by-side comparison that I modified to what made sense to me. Anyone care to comment if I got this right or am I totally off? If the install is successful, I'm taking this to the track next Friday.