Rebody 250 California build thread for dummies

[Pingu]

The body will be lighter, but I don't think it's that. I just think it is down to fitment.

I had the same problem.

 

[Pingu]

Do you still have to fit the roof? If so, make sure you fit that, as that will be another 25kg-ish over the rear end.

 

[Pond]

Do you still have to fit the roof? If so, make sure you fit that, as that will be another 25kg-ish over the rear end.

TBH 25kg ain't getting rid of 6" of suspension travel.

 

[Pingu]

Do you still have the weights fitted that were under the rear bumper? They make a little difference - not much, but a little.

You will want to have the car fully weighted before you start messing with correcting the suspension heights.

 

[Pond]

Do you still have the weights fitted that were under the rear bumper? They make a little difference - not much, but a little.

You will want to have the car fully weighted before you start messing with correcting the suspension heights.

Yep the bumper weights are there. everything is as it should be, except the arch gap.

 

[Jezza]

As Duncodin says it would be worth checking the height of the car along the sills to check how level it is. That would give an indication of the issue if it's body mount related or suspension related.

 

[Duncodin]

As Duncodin says it would be worth checking the height of the car along the sills to check how level it is. That would give an indication of the issue if it's body mount related or suspension related.

I'm sure Pond has the body on straight. But if his body kit is anything like mine then the Arches are just gimongous.

 

[Jezza]

I'm sure Pond has the body on straight. But if his body kit is anything like mine then the Arches are just gimongous.

But I don't have any issues with mine. About 30mm between the top of the tyre to the arch both front and back.

 

[Pond]

The body is as low as it could go, as the rear curved metal lip (just in front of the old boot) is the datum point for where the body sits at the rear. Mine is hard down on that, so it couldn't go any lower.
The body is on square as I have measured everything (at least 3 times). I have less than 2mm difference across the width of the car (by measuring gaps to tyres on all four corners).

The ONLY thing I can think of is that my rear GRP was moulded with higher wheel arches than the DNA ones; ie from the top of the wheel arch to the top of the rear wing is less. It is definitely not an issue with the mounting of the bodywork on the car, but it could be an issue with the moulding of the body. It wouldn't surprise me, as I am sure my friend who had the kit moulded (you know who you are @jaguartvr) didn't care about quality with anything else.

The ONLY thing I can do is fit coilovers on their lowest ride height and see what it looks like. There is nothing else I can do.

 

[Pond]

Ignoring the arches for a moment - how does the car as a whole sit? ie measuring at the jacking pads to the ground is the car level? If the car/chassis is level then lowering just the rear it"ll look a bit weird.

That, Sir, is a very good point.
So I have done some more measuring......the rear arch gap to the top of the tyre is 103mm. The front arch gap is 74mm (it looks like more of a difference TBH).
The ground clearance difference between the front and rear is 30mm, so it is sitting high at the rear.

One thing I have noticed from studying hundreds of photos of these cars (real and reps) is that they 'should' sit squat at the rear.

I reckon the coilovers will be adjustable to a maximum reduction of around 70-80mm, so all should be good.

 

[Duncodin]

I reckon the coilovers will be adjustable to a maximum reduction of around 70-80mm, so all should be good.

That depends on the adjusters. When I bought my coilovers i talked to ProSport who claims that nobody actually makes coilovers for Z3. The nearest he supplies is for E36 Compact. But, he said, they won't lower much at the rear because the Z3 has a lighter rear end than the E36 Compact.

And so it was. My rear fronts are set quite high and rear are adjusted as low as they'll go and ground clearance at rear jacking point is about 5" vs 4.5" at the front.

Could you measure from the top lip of the arch up to the top of the wing. And, if possible have Jezza do the same just to compare your mouldings

 

[Jezza]

That, Sir, is a very good point.
So I have done some more measuring......the rear arch gap to the top of the tyre is 103mm. The front arch gap is 74mm (it looks like more of a difference TBH).
The ground clearance difference between the front and rear is 30mm, so it is sitting high at the rear.

One thing I have noticed from studying hundreds of photos of these cars (real and reps) is that they 'should' sit squat at the rear.

I reckon the coilovers will be adjustable to a maximum reduction of around 70-80mm, so all should be good.

So it's not the body moulding or the way it was fitted but the rear suspension on your car is 30mm higher at the rear. These cars are 25 years old and the previous owners have more than likely replace springs and shocks. There's no way to tell if they're OEM standard or some other dubious supply. Replacing the suspension will probably solve your issue.

 

[Pingu]

These are the ones fitted to mine (I think)...

BMW Z3 96-02 (INC Z3M OEM CENTRAL TOP MOUNT) - BMW Z3 - BMW - Vehicle Search

www.bc-racing.co.uk

I'm not 100% sure, as they were supplied and fitted by Classic Coachworks, but I had to do the final adjustments, as my car had ride height issues, like you.

I solved it by disconnecting the dampers, removing the springs and lowering the car until it looked correct.

I accurately measured the distance between the lower spring plate and the upper spring support using a large set of internal calipers.

I refitted the springs and adjusted them until the measurement was the same, then refitted the dampers.

Now the car looks right.

 

[Zephyr]

And just a reminder, coilovers typically settle to their final ride height after a period of driving, don't go full slam right from the start.

 

[Pond]

So it's not the body moulding or the way it was fitted but the rear suspension on your car is 30mm higher at the rear. These cars are 25 years old and the previous owners have more than likely replace springs and shocks. There's no way to tell if they're OEM standard or some other dubious supply. Replacing the suspension will probably solve your issue.

BUT...the suspension didn't look odd on the car when I got it (and I haven't touched it). It could be that the rear dampers are 'sticky' as they haven't been used in a while and are probably old. I have noticed that the rear suspension squeaks and creaks when raising and lowering the car, and when getting in and out, so that could be it.
Hopefully the new suspension will sort it out, whatever is causing it.

Actually, looking at the picture again, maybe it was sitting a bit high at the rear?

 

[Duncodin]

Maybe needs a drive.

 

[Pond]

Maybe needs a drive.

Tricky that without any seats, MOT, insurance or tax.

 

[Pond]

All wiring under the driver's side tidied. Rear view mirror fitted. Steering wheel and slip ring almost sorted.
I also re-instated the footwell trims.
I am now waiting for the interior to be finished, so I can get it back in the car and move on to the roof.

 

[Pingu]

The crinckle paint looks good in the image around the steering column.

 

[Pond]

The crinckle paint looks good in the image around the steering column.

It's amazing how photos can make things look different.

Painting the dash is an absolute nightmare, as the wrinkle paint wants to run and being black it is almost impossible to see where you have painted and where you haven't. It is far from perfect, but the bits you see when driving look OK.