|
|
|
2010 2011 BMW 5 Series Forum F10 F10 535i xdrive + 343m + ACS springs |
|
Post Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
07-01-2014, 05:56 PM | #24 |
General
2038
Rep 25,989
Posts |
Looking good! The drop is just right
__________________
VMR|Wheels | 714.442.7916 |
sales@velocitymotoring.com | www.velocitymotoring.com | facebook | flickr | Instagram |
Appreciate
0
|
07-01-2014, 11:10 PM | #26 |
Major
633
Rep 1,083
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-02-2014, 12:43 PM | #27 | |
Making mods count
0
Rep 25
Posts
Drives: F02 - E53 - E9 (currently)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Mid Atlantic
iTrader: (0)
Garage List '67-'17 - Non BMW's ... [0.00]
'18 i8 - Target Pur ... [10.00] 2015 750 - Shrinks ... [0.00] 06 X5 4.8is - NA &a ... [0.00] '72 3.0 CS - E9 &qu ... [0.00] |
Quote:
I put H&R's on and am pretty happy, they did not drop the car this much though. How is the ride quality? Mine is ok to good but a little harsh on bigger bumps. Not bad, but just hits a bit more than I like.
__________________
'15 F02 750 Li
'11 F10 535 (sold) '06 E53 X5 4.8is '01 E46 330ci (sold) '72 E9 3.0 CS |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-02-2014, 05:48 PM | #28 | |
Major
633
Rep 1,083
Posts |
Quote:
Yes these sure are ACS. The ride is ok. Feels softer upfront than oem m sport. Which I'm not sure I like either |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-02-2014, 05:55 PM | #29 |
Major
633
Rep 1,083
Posts |
Does anyone know if the 2013+ 535 xdrive m sports sits lower than 2012?
And if so, do they use shorter springs? And if so, can they be used on a 2012 model to lower a little? |
Appreciate
0
|
07-03-2014, 12:43 PM | #30 |
General
1566
Rep 29,202
Posts |
No, rear's too high.
__________________
F10 520d M-Sport Alpine White | HRE P43SC 20x9+20x11 | Michelin PSS 255/35+295/30 | KW V3 Coilover | M5 Front Sway Bar + M550d Rear Sway Bar | 3DDesign Front Lip | BMW M Performance CF Spoiler | BMW M Performance Diffuser | BMW M Performance Black Grills | BMW M Performance Pedals | |
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 09:05 AM | #32 |
Major
1254
Rep 1,160
Posts |
Had the same problem as you did with the acs and then went to H&R's.
On the xdrive models the part numbered for the front acs springs are different than the non xdrive; as a matter of fact the part numbers for the x drive for acs shares the part numbers for lighter vehicles due to this permissible axle load. My front with acs were too low and soft. I switched to H&R's and could not be happier Here is a copy of my post With more info on part numbers and permissible axle loads with x drive models http://f10.5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=971177 |
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 09:23 AM | #33 |
Major
633
Rep 1,083
Posts |
Hi F10n55. Thanks for chiming in! Saw your post a while ago as well.
What model year is your 535 xdrive? Would you say the rear is lower with h&r vs acs? Hard to see from the pics. |
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 10:03 AM | #34 |
Major
1254
Rep 1,160
Posts |
The rear is a slight slight lower but the front is a bit higher with the H&R's. It is a much better and balanced drop than the acs. When I had the acs felt like the nose of the car was much lower and the driving position felt awkward bc of the nasty rack I had. Now with the h&r it feels more level like it should. The car is a 2014.
Last edited by 4DRS55; 07-08-2014 at 10:27 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 11:00 AM | #35 | |
Major
633
Rep 1,083
Posts |
Your car looks much better with H&R for sure.
From what I saw the 2013+ models sit a little lower than 2012 and older, mine is a 2012. If I had a newer car, I'd likely not even bother with springs Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 11:04 AM | #36 |
Major
633
Rep 1,083
Posts |
Here is the photo of my car when it had H&R springs installed last fall.
It seems the front is just as low as it is now with ACS. I don't understand the different results! |
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 04:32 PM | #37 |
Major
1254
Rep 1,160
Posts |
Interesting Info
http://preisliste.ac-schnitzer.de/ac...3130210710.pdf
535 x drive front part numbers end in 110 535 x drive rear part number ends in 310 535i front part number ends in 310 535i rear part number ends in 310 |
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 04:33 PM | #38 | |
Major
633
Rep 1,083
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 04:44 PM | #39 |
Major
1254
Rep 1,160
Posts |
On page 3 it shows you about the weight load and shows how the x drive differ from the i, according to the part numbers in my opinion reason my we see the I sit much higher in the front and the x drives are slammed in the front with acs springs
Also on Page 4 you can see the difference in the untensioned length of the spring is also less in part number ending in 110. |
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 04:48 PM | #41 |
Major
633
Rep 1,083
Posts |
From my conversations with ACS it seems they have an older version of the front spring that sits 15mm higher. I'm waiting for more details on that.
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 07:19 PM | #43 |
Major
633
Rep 1,083
Posts |
So they are supposed to be sending me the 3133 210 310 front springs instead of the originally included 3133 210 110.
Thanks to your PDF we know that: wire diameter goes from 13.25mm to 13.5 mm un-tensioned length from 318mm to 324mm i really hope this gives the 15mm lift as promised by ACS. The 310 spring is used by the 535 rwd and 550 xdrive, while the even longer 410 spring is used by the 550 rwd. I wonder why the xdrives get the shorter springs? Perhaps because they tend to ride higher in theory from factory. |
Appreciate
0
|
07-08-2014, 08:31 PM | #44 |
Major
1254
Rep 1,160
Posts |
sweet, post pics once you get the new front springs in.
Although I did end up spending double for the install; ACS was very helpful to me and responded to me quickly. They still have great customer service. Hopefully your issues are now resolved. I also question why x drive get shorter springs. |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|