While doing me restoration on the 2800 I swapped the rear drum brakes to discs and now the tires rub on the inside of fender lips. Is the disc set up slightly wider than the drum? Looks like I need to roll the aft fenders now too.
Drum vs. Disc
- Thread starter BonitaCS
- Start date
Honolulu
Well-Known Member
I would imagine that you want to check the track distance for the back wheels, check the width of the rim, check the width of the tires installed.
If any of these are larger than OE 2800 spec, you can blame that for your problems, and proceed accordingly.
Sorry I don't have track figures for either vehicle handy.
If any of these are larger than OE 2800 spec, you can blame that for your problems, and proceed accordingly.
Sorry I don't have track figures for either vehicle handy.
did you change the rear swing arms to a pair from a 3.0cs? i have heard that is necessary. i'm going to be doing the same thing this winter. i changed the fronts from non-vented to vented disks and i don't think that changes anything dimensional wise. my car has bilsteins and is lowered ... i put on coupeking alloys (alpina style) with 205/55 - 16's on the front ... i was concerned about how close the tires were to the fender lip. my fenders are NOT rolled. i am now going to roll the fenders and probably put decamber plates on the front. i caught the drivers front lip today. didn't kill the tire, but did pull the lip down.
MMercury
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 481
- Reaction score
- 5
FWIW, technical data, (page 3 and other pages) indicates rear track differences between three different models. Presupposing the vehicle is weighed down with passengers, packages and full fuel load.
2.5cs at 1398 mm
2800cs at 1402mm
3.0cs at 1415mm
How to interpret these numbers is unclear since the "former version" lists all three models at 1402mm as does manual.
Not sure where/how measurements were derived, but consider that some models were equipped with 175 HR 14 tires and others used 195/70 x 14 tires.
hth
http://www.e9-driven.com/Public/Library/BMW-E9-Manual/pages/en/33000000.html#refertoc
http://www.e9-driven.com/Public/Library/BMW-E9-Manual/pages/en/36000000.html#refertoc
2.5cs at 1398 mm
2800cs at 1402mm
3.0cs at 1415mm
How to interpret these numbers is unclear since the "former version" lists all three models at 1402mm as does manual.
Not sure where/how measurements were derived, but consider that some models were equipped with 175 HR 14 tires and others used 195/70 x 14 tires.
hth
http://www.e9-driven.com/Public/Library/BMW-E9-Manual/pages/en/33000000.html#refertoc
http://www.e9-driven.com/Public/Library/BMW-E9-Manual/pages/en/36000000.html#refertoc
6.5mm per side is about what it would take. The tires just barely catch the lip; peels off little strings. No major damage. Anyone with a 3.0 running 225/60r14 on Alpinas had this problem?
Yes I installed the swing arms off a 3.0; easy to do while everything was apart.
Yes I installed the swing arms off a 3.0; easy to do while everything was apart.
blumax
(deceased)
Bonita CS--conversion from drum to disc--when done properly does not create te problem(s) you describe--BLUMAX was done 16 years ago by Carl Nelson with no problem of clearance, etc.
check with Carl Nelson for the answer to your question. Believe you know him.
check with Carl Nelson for the answer to your question. Believe you know him.
Last edited: