[alexandros89]

Hi all,

I have an '05 E91 330i automatic and have the following issue.

Last year, I swapped out rear springs (Eibach Pro Kit), shocks (Bilstein B6) as well as rear control arms (M3). Afterwards I got an alignment and everything was fine.

Over the last few weeks I put in

- new rear subframe (aftermarket part with new bushings etc) due to rust on the original one
- new wheel bearings + wheel hubs
- new alignment bolts and nuts
- new wheel carrier on the rear right as one of the threads was destroyed - I did the bushings etc on both wheel carriers of course
- new track control arms (lemförder)
- new CV shafts (Spidan from a manual since I got them from my friend - specs are identical in terms of length, they are just a bit thicker so they should affect anything)

Went and got an alignment afterwards and the guy told me that can't get the rear camber any less negativ than -2.45 (left) and -2.31 (right) - bolts are already "maxed out"

Two questions:
- how bad is this?
- which parts should I check in terms correct installation that could cause this?

Car overall drives well - no noises etc.

Thanks in advance!

[335i54n]

unless u know the previous printouts, hard to compare. for dd, yeah inner wear gonna suffer (flipping tires), thats lowered life.

[alexandros89]

here is the most recent sheet - sorry it's in German Hope it still helps?

[335i54n]

not really, u need the printout before all the work to compare. ur probably only .5 off as lowered e9x lose camber adj depend on height and imo i would take a little front toe out (min toe spec or just under)

[Tambohamilton]

The only thing that can cause this are the 4 control arms (not toe) each side, the subframe, and the wheel carriers. Of those, I'd say it's most likely either the subframe is out of spec, or you've somehow got the upper arms the wrong way around or something? At least the adjusters are in the correct place for what the alignment guy says is happening.

Anyhow -2.5 isn't terrible, but it will cause inner edge wear. My concern would be why this issue exists, not really the severity of the issue.

[Will_460cs]

m-sport spec is 1.8 degrees negative for rears.

I would say the the subframe is the culprit.

The only other option is upper central control arm - but both would have to be shorter than factory.

The "aftermarket subframes" are from asia, probably china and I doubt they are made as well as oem.

If you have the old subframe measure from lower camber arm bolt locations from the bolt centre to the bolt centre and compare.

[rothwem]

Can you use that upper eccentric to push the upper control arm out? It looks like the lower eccentric adjusters are maxed out, pulling the arm inboard, but the uppers look like they have some adjustment left.

There is also adjustable toe/upper control arms available. I'm not endorsing this brand, I've never used them, but parts like these are widely available. Not sure if they'll work with your German inspection system though.


https://mrtengineering.fi/products/b...r-control-arms

[Tambohamilton]

The upper eccentric is the toe adjuster - doesn't affect camber.

[Tambohamilton]

A while back I remember seeing fixed U-washers that replaced the eccentric on the bolt. Notion was that the bolt could slip, so replace the eccentric with something fixed. They were sold in a pack with different offsets to make adjustments. Maybe if you rule out all other things, you could have some washers made to fix the camber problem.

[rothwem]

Originally Posted by Tambohamilton

The upper eccentric is the toe adjuster - doesn't affect camber.

Ah. Yeah that makes sense. I didn't see where that part attaches.

Still, I wonder if an adjustable upper control arm could get camber somewhere back to normal.