Z4MC Alternatives

[jimmybell]

Sorry i'm not hot on suspension details .. but quick reading suggests increasing negative camber would cause the car to rock onto the larger surface area of the tyre in cornering (combined with better tyres) gives better front-end grip.. right? Meaning the back end is more likely to lose grip than the front would now be?

interesting!

 

[exdos]

Have zero toe at the front and minimal toe-in at the rear. If you want your car to turn like the "Wild Mouse" at Blackpool Pleasure Beach, try some toe-out at the front.

 

[HughiusMaximus]

I remember when I had my MX5 there were the infamous Lanny settings which were generally agreed to make the car handle much nicer, sounds like there isn't the same consensus with the Z4M?

 

[aerobod]

I remember when I had my MX5 there were the infamous Lanny settings which were generally agreed to make the car handle much nicer, sounds like there isn't the same consensus with the Z4M?

As Exdos says, there are settings which will give a desired outcome, but it depends on your taste. I do have settings on the slightly wild side from a toe perspective (0.06° front toe out) which can be tiresome on a long drive, but gives a very crisp feel to the steering.

The general consensus is that more front camber is needed. You can get to about 1.5° with a 5 minute adjustment when the camber reference pins are removed. 2.5° (requires camber plates or camber washers to achieve) will give very good "bite" in the front end and tyre wear will be even if you make sure to do lots of hard cornering!

 

[exdos]

The general consensus is that more front camber is needed. You can get to about 1.5° with a 5 minute adjustment when the camber reference pins are removed. 2.5° (requires camber plates or camber washers to achieve) will give very good "bite" in the front end and tyre wear will be even if you make sure to do lots of hard cornering!

If you go down the route of fitting front adjustable camber/caster plates, I would suggest that your car will handle better if you increase caster rather than -ve camber. Negative camber is only required when cornering, so if you do lots of regular street driving with increased -ve camber you'll prematurely wear out the inners of your tyres (£££s). Whereas, increasing caster actually increases the dynamic -ve camber, but only when turning, so you get an increased -ve camber only when it's needed. Plus, increasing caster gives the steering a greater tendency to self-centre, which, for me, makes the car much more relaxed to drive, because the road surface gives less bump steer.

 

[aerobod]

The general consensus is that more front camber is needed. You can get to about 1.5° with a 5 minute adjustment when the camber reference pins are removed. 2.5° (requires camber plates or camber washers to achieve) will give very good "bite" in the front end and tyre wear will be even if you make sure to do lots of hard cornering!

If you go down the route of fitting front adjustable camber/caster plates, I would suggest that your car will handle better if you increase caster rather than -ve camber. Negative camber is only required when cornering, so if you do lots of regular street driving with increased -ve camber you'll prematurely wear out the inners of your tyres (£££s). Whereas, increasing caster actually increases the dynamic -ve camber, but only when turning, so you get an increased -ve camber only when it's needed. Plus, increasing caster gives the steering a greater tendency to self-centre, which, for me, makes the car much more relaxed to drive, because the road surface gives less bump steer.

Definitely caster increases will benefit the grip in sharper turns. The 3 common camber plate installs (Vorshlag, Ground Control, K-MAC) all seem to give about 20mm of caster adjustment, which would equate to just over 2°, or about 1/3 variability relative to the standard caster setting.

I will have to play around with the geometry on my car in a couple of weeks after my suspension refresh, but likely will settle on -2.5° camber, 7° caster with very slight toe-out. With 1.5° front camber and stock caster and several autocross sessions per summer, I've been wearing out the outside of the tyres. Even if I wear the insides out faster, I have always discarded the fronts with 4 or 5 mm of tread when the backs are down to the wear bars on the Z4M.

 

[exdos]

Definitely caster increases will benefit the grip in sharper turns. The 3 common camber plate installs (Vorshlag, Ground Control, K-MAC) all seem to give about 20mm of caster adjustment, which would equate to just over 2°, or about 1/3 variability relative to the standard caster setting.

I will have to play around with the geometry on my car in a couple of weeks after my suspension refresh, but likely will settle on -2.5° camber, 7° caster with very slight toe-out. With 1.5° front camber and stock caster and several autocross sessions per summer, I've been wearing out the outside of the tyres. Even if I wear the insides out faster, I have always discarded the fronts with 4 or 5 mm of tread when the backs are down to the wear bars on the Z4M.

Which camber plates and suspension have you gone for? I think your settings will work well. I ditched the OEM suspension virtually as soon as I bought my Z4MC.

 

[aerobod]

Definitely caster increases will benefit the grip in sharper turns. The 3 common camber plate installs (Vorshlag, Ground Control, K-MAC) all seem to give about 20mm of caster adjustment, which would equate to just over 2°, or about 1/3 variability relative to the standard caster setting.

I will have to play around with the geometry on my car in a couple of weeks after my suspension refresh, but likely will settle on -2.5° camber, 7° caster with very slight toe-out. With 1.5° front camber and stock caster and several autocross sessions per summer, I've been wearing out the outside of the tyres. Even if I wear the insides out faster, I have always discarded the fronts with 4 or 5 mm of tread when the backs are down to the wear bars on the Z4M.

Which camber plates and suspension have you gone for? I think your settings will work well. I ditched the OEM suspension virtually as soon as I bought my Z4MC.

K-MAC stage 2 with Bilstein HD dampers. I can't use any lowering kit or coilover suspension, as the car won't be drivable in the snow if I lower it even 1cm (I just scrape the snow mounds as it is with the OEM suspension height, any lower and the car will just high-centre). Unfortunately every suspension kit out there is more than 1cm lower than stock at their highest settings, as far as I can tell.

 

[ga41]

What's the K-MAC's like? Been thinking about those for a while.

 

[aerobod]

What's the K-MAC's like? Been thinking about those for a while.

The Stage 2 ones seem reasonable quality, machined alloy plates and urethane/alloy top mount. I just found out yesterday I was shipped the wrong ones, I currently have a set for the E38/E39/E60/E63 which are a bit big - purchased 193916-K2 for E85/E86 but was shipped 193616-K2.

 

[ga41]

Let us know how you get on with them. Ease of use, adjustability etc.

 

[DONDP]

The Z4M does seem to get criticised a fair bit in reviews for having a tendency for understeer, what's the general feeling about that on here?

Also what understeer it does have can be removed with a good geometry setup.

What setup is that if you don't mind me asking? Seem's like suspension is commonly upgraded?

Have a look at this thread that Daz started:

http://z4-forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=40552

This is what prompted me to play with geometry settings.

 

[mad4slalom]

dont agree that the m3 is a natural progression from an M r/c, the newer v8 maybe if you can afford one, but the e46 is getting dated and is fast becoming the weapon of choice for the more affluent chav and small time drug dealer, shame such an epic car has been hijacked by such types. the z4 still looks fresh and different, the M especially is still a formidable presence in any company, the Mc even more so. jmho

 

[LeeZ4MR]

dont agree that the m3 is a natural progression from an M r/c, the newer v8 maybe if you can afford one, but the e46 is getting dated and is fast becoming the weapon of choice for the more affluent chav and small time drug dealer, shame such an epic car has been hijacked by such types. the z4 still looks fresh and different, the M especially is still a formidable presence in any company, the Mc even more so. jmho

I agree too the E46 M3 is a great car in its own right but the Z4M does feel more special Imo, I am on M3Cutters forum & there are a great number of V8 M3 owners on there that owned a Z4MR/C beforehand so a few do go to one as their next move...the V8 M3 is far more thirsty than the Z4M in my experience.

 

[ChawenHalo]

The E46 M3 is commonly regarded as a better car than the ///MC, so the CS is bound to be a step ahead of the ///MC. As for age, they are only 2-3 years older than the ///M.

My biggest problem with the CS is that it doesn't look as sleek or as sporty as the ///MC.

Really? By whom? I've been up against them on many trackdays and the only one that could keep up with my ///MC was a 450bhp ESS stage I supercharged M3 Coupe with coilovers and a BBK. The only advantage of the M3 over the ///MC is the second row of seats

As for the CS, a friend of mine has one in matte black (resprayed not wrapped) and it looks great, but mechanically amd weight-wise it's no CSL

By the press apparently. The M3 has "sweeter" handling...

Fair comment . Whilst not vicious on the limit the Z4 MC is not exactly sweet. And its a rubbish everyday car. A GT3 is almost better everyday car.