Eibach pro kit e90 m3 - does this look wrong

Does this look wrong? They haven’t fully settled yet only been 3 days. The backs look really low to me, and fronts are really high. I have Dinan camber plate on front.

Curious if others have photos of e90 m3 with the Eibach pro springs. I have 12mm spacer on front and no spacers on back as shop said they were rubbing with 7mm.

Yea the back shouldn’t be that low this is on 18 with ZCP dampers with should make a difference

Did they remove the anything in the rear ?

That doesn't look right - the front is too high, the back too low. Were the front springs installed on the rear, and rears on the front?

I have the same springs and it doesn't look like that. Also running 15mm spacers in front and 12mm in rear, a very common setup with stock wheels, and definitely no rubbing.

Here's some old pics of my car with the Eibach Pro Kit and spacers (really old, I forgot what it looked like on 220's!). My driveway is not quite level, so the middle 2 pics on flat ground are the best representation.

https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1671826

There's no way to install front in rear or vice versa.

Are you on stock struts? Maybe they're just that worn. Perhaps the spring pads were left out but doubt it'd make that big a difference.

M3_Legend wrote

Yea the back shouldn’t be that low this is on 18 with ZCP dampers with should make a difference

a5m wrote

There's no way to install front in rear or vice versa.

Are you on stock struts? Maybe they're just that worn. Perhaps the spring pads were left out but doubt it'd make that big a difference.

The life of the dampers will have zero effect on the car’s static height or steady-state handling height. A damper supports 0% the static weight of the car and 0% of the steady-state load/weight transfer. It’s the job of the springs to carry/support/react the static weight and steady-state weight transfer. For a damper to generate force its piston valve stack must have velocity relative to the damper body and the damping force is in the opposite direction from dynamic cornering, sprung weight motions and unsprung weight motion; i.e., the damper absorbs energy from suspension motion to return the suspension back to the springs initial equilibrium position.

Actually, the first picture with a small amount of forward rake is how a car should look if its ride height and corner balance have been properly done. The forward rake, measured between the center of the front and rear jacking points on the chassis, should be 3/8-7/16”. Setting ride heights so the front and rear fender-tire gaps are the same is not correct and alters the handling balance of the car.

I found that misconception about fender gaps a lot back when I was involved in the Subaru community. Nobody took into account that the front wheel arches need to be different than the rear to accommodate for articulation of the front suspension while steering. Especially on cars that were rally homologation specials. Measure for rake. I usually end up with about 1/2” front to rear at the jacking points or ends of the side skirts assuming they’re straight slabs.

iblue90m3 wrote

Does this look wrong? They haven’t fully settled yet only been 3 days. The backs look really low to me, and fronts are really high. I have Dinan camber plate on front.

Curious if others have photos of e90 m3 with the Eibach pro springs. I have 12mm spacer on front and no spacers on back as shop said they were rubbing with 7mm.

It's worth a look to verify if the whole spring setup is correct. Say for instance the spring pads, upper and lower, etc.

As an FYI, I personally hate the look of the rear appearing lower than the front, so I installed "poor road package" pads on my rear upper spring mounts. Powerflex makes a kit for it--this is common for UK roads (which is why #10 is not offered in the states). This will raise the rear up about 10mm ish and match the front fender gap. Might be something to consider as a very simple fix.

https://www.realoem.com/bmw/enUS/showparts?id=VC92-EUR-03-2006-E90-BMW-330d&diagId=33_1263

RocketyMan wrote

It's worth a look to verify if the whole spring setup is correct. Say for instance the spring pads, upper and lower, etc.

As an FYI, I personally hate the look of the rear appearing lower than the front, so I installed "poor road package" pads on my rear upper spring mounts. Powerflex makes a kit for it—this is common for UK roads (which is why #10 is not offered in the states). This will raise the rear up about 10mm ish and match the front fender gap. Might be something to consider as a very simple fix.

https://www.realoem.com/bmw/enUS/showparts?id=VC92-EUR-03-2006-E90-BMW-330d&diagId=33_1263

Whether you lower the front or raise the rear or both, you have altered the steady-state handling balance relative to stock. Basically, increasing forward rake shifts the car’s balance towards oversteer. You prefer form over function. Generally, lowering spring do not improve handling especially on BMW Ms with minimal bump travel. BMW uses the bump stops to limit bump travel so lowering the car means you’re engaging more of the bump stop which means the effective front spring rate is considerably higher.

iblue90m3

If you can, measure from the bottom of the wheel rim to the bottom of the fender arch (per BMW instructions). For ZCP spec:

Front should be 612 mm +/- 10 mm
Rear should be 597 mm +/- 10 mm

I'm running Eibach springs with the Bilstein B6 EDC shocks, so I have the issue of the fronts being higher than normal. But I can say for sure the rears do get squatted a bit with the Eibach.

My rears measure at ~590 mm as a point of reference.

Here's my car. Running 18 mm F spacers / 12 mm R spacers. Pilot Sport 4S tires at stock size 245/265.

M3SQRD wrote

The life of the dampers will have zero effect on the car’s static height or steady-state handling height. A damper supports 0% the static weight of the car and 0% of the steady-state load/weight transfer. It’s the job of the springs to carry/support/react the static weight and steady-state weight transfer. For a damper to generate force its piston valve stack must have velocity relative to the damper body and the damping force is in the opposite direction from dynamic cornering, sprung weight motions and unsprung weight motion; i.e., the damper absorbs energy from suspension motion to return the suspension back to the springs initial equilibrium position.

Actually, the first picture with a small amount of forward rake is how a car should look if its ride height and corner balance have been properly done. The forward rake, measured between the center of the front and rear jacking points on the chassis, should be 3/8-7/16”. Setting ride heights so the front and rear fender-tire gaps are the same is not correct and alters the handling balance of the car.

Curious then how to account for the Bilstein B6 making the front sit higher? Bilstein confirmed the only difference between the B8 and B6 is the total extended length, with the shock mount and spring perch locations being the same.

kimiraikkonen Car looks great btw and not squatted at all! Is that Sparkling Graphite? One of my favorite colors

a5m wrote

Curious then how to account for the Bilstein B6 making the front sit higher? Bilstein confirmed the only difference between the B8 and B6 is the total extended length, with the shock mount and spring perch locations being the same.

I was just pointing out wya properly corner balanced car looks like. Lowering springs are more about stance or minimizing the front gap, not properly setting up a car for track. This is where a HAS system (only MSS works on Bilstein because you can’t remove the lower spring seat) has a major advantage because you can still corner balance the car.

a5m wrote

Curious then how to account for the Bilstein B6 making the front sit higher? Bilstein confirmed the only difference between the B8 and B6 is the total extended length, with the shock mount and spring perch locations being the same.

kimiraikkonen Car looks great btw and not squatted at all! Is that Sparkling Graphite? One of my favorite colors

Yes, sparkling graphite. It's a great color under natural sunlight. On a cloudy day...maybe not so much and has that eggplant tint to it.

As for accounting for the B6, I went with Dinan springs initially, which supposedly lower 12.5mm/12.5mm (F/R). Those spring performed great from ride and handling, but the front looked still a tad high.

So ended up doing the Eibach Pro Kits, which supposedly are 20mm/15mm (F/R) lowering. I think wheel spacers can have an effect as well, and to be honest, it's a pain when the car is not that lowered. So I've been playing with multiple sets......started with:

12/12 mm spacers F/R
then moved to 18 mm/12mm F/R (which is what you see in the pics)
I then changed to 15 mm/12 mm F/R to reduce the front poke a bit
And now on 15 mm/10 mm F/R
And am thinking of doing 18 mm / 10mm F/R as the final option, which I think will be the best of both worlds. Let's see. hehe

This is what my E90 M3 looks like with the Eibach Pro Kit:

kimiraikkonen wrote

iblue90m3

If you can, measure from the bottom of the wheel rim to the bottom of the fender arch (per BMW instructions). For ZCP spec:

Front should be 612 mm +/- 10 mm

Rear should be 597 mm +/- 10 mm

I'm running Eibach springs with the Bilstein B6 EDC shocks, so I have the issue of the fronts being higher than normal. But I can say for sure the rears do get squatted a bit with the Eibach.

My rears measure at ~590 mm as a point of reference.

Here's my car. Running 18 mm F spacers / 12 mm R spacers. Pilot Sport 4S tires at stock size 245/265.

This is interesting. I'm running the Bilstein b6 EDC and eibach as well on BBS RI-A 18s with 265/285 mps4s tires. No spacers no camber plates. I believe the rear is higher for my car than it should be.

akkando wrote

This is interesting. I'm running the Bilstein b6 EDC and eibach as well on BBS RI-A 18s with 265/285 mps4s tires. No spacers no camber plates. I believe the rear issue higher for my car.

Did you remove the OEM bottom cap on the rear shock (the one crossed out the diagram below)? Could be some slight z-axis buildup if this part was installed.

I also found out the shop made my rears -2.5 camber. This, along with removing 7mm spacer. They said the Eibach springs lowered it a ton, hence the need for no spacer and need for camber so it doesn’t rub. Thoughts?

LKN624 wrote

This is what my E90 M3 looks like with the Eibach Pro Kit:

Looks good! Whats the rear camber do you know? What size spacers are you running f/r and is there rubbing?

kimiraikkonen wrote

iblue90m3

If you can, measure from the bottom of the wheel rim to the bottom of the fender arch (per BMW instructions). For ZCP spec:

Front should be 612 mm +/- 10 mm

Rear should be 597 mm +/- 10 mm

I'm running Eibach springs with the Bilstein B6 EDC shocks, so I have the issue of the fronts being higher than normal. But I can say for sure the rears do get squatted a bit with the Eibach.

My rears measure at ~590 mm as a point of reference.

Here's my car. Running 18 mm F spacers / 12 mm R spacers. Pilot Sport 4S tires at stock size 245/265.

What’s your camber in rear? Is there rubbing? I was told it had to be -2.5 just to not rub. And if doing 7mm spacer it’ll rub at -2.5 even…

kimiraikkonen wrote

Did you remove the OEM bottom cap on the rear shock (the one crossed out the diagram below)? Could be some slight z-axis buildup if this part was installed.

I will look into that, thank you.

akkando wrote

I will look into that, thank you.

Here's the install instructions:






The rears look to have the only OEM part-delete.

iblue90m3 wrote

I also found out the shop made my rears -2.5 camber. This, along with removing 7mm spacer. They said the Eibach springs lowered it a ton, hence the need for no spacer and need for camber so it doesn’t rub. Thoughts?

More negative camber will generally reduce perceived fender gap, as the top of the outboard portion of the wheel/tire tilts in.

After reviewing all the photos in this thread of your car and others, I wouldn't be surprised if there are no defects with your setup. That said, i'd double check the correct parts stack up / orientation just the same.