[CSBM5]

It's my understanding that the Bilsteins have this affect on most, if not all cars. I remember reading several places (to include Bilstein's own FAQ), that it was perfectly normal to have a slight increase in ride height. Obviously that affect is more dramatic if you're replacing older suspension parts and so on.

On my E90 330i with ZSP, the Bilsteins raised the car about 8mm compared to the stock sport shocks.

 

[CSBM5]

I think there is confusion there since the fender lip to wheel centerline distance is shorter in the rear by chassis design like most all cars. Perhaps they are referring to the measurement Dinan quotes -- the difference in distance to the ground from the lower body line (below doors) between the front most point and the rearmost point...that difference should be about 5/8-3/4" with the front lower than the rear. You achieve that range (slight rake downward to the front) by having the fender gaps (centerline to lip) about equal on the E39.

 

[CSBM5]

The board standard all these years is to measure ride height from center of hub to fender lip. This eliminates tires, tread depth and inflation pressure as variables from ground measurements. For example, Dinan quotes their spring spec ride height as 14" +/- 0.25"; mine show about 3/8" less than that all around however (13 5/8").

 

[CSBM5]

It may be helpful for this thread for all of us to measure consistently, which is typically fender to bottom of 18" wheel rim. This eliminates tire pressure and guessing where center of rim is.

Bentley gives M sport as:
F 603 mm (23.7)
R 577 (22.7)

My OEM fronts match Bentley, my rear stock was at 597, a bit higher than specified. Bentley specifies "normal loaded position" as each front seat having 150 lb, center of rear 150, trunk with 46 and full fuel tank. I had no weights, and half tank for my measurements.

The attempt at comparable measurements is why long ago the board zeroed in on hub center to fender lip as I mentioned. When you measure to the wheel you now introduce another potential variable into the equation that isn't necessary and now creates data that isn't universally useful.

 

[CSBM5]

I agree completely on quick and accurate except not everyone has the Style 65 wheels; hence why the board and Dinan have used hub to lip since forever. While those factory manual type measurements might useful to most, the hub to lip is useful to everyone. Clearly if you are trying to get as accurate as possible, you want to use a reference surface like the bottom rim as pointed out. However, most ride height measurements don't need accuracy greater than +/- 1/8" which is easy to obtain on a hub to lip measurement.

All that said, does anyone have the exact measurement from the rim surface to the wheel centerline for a Style 65?

EDIT:

Measuring is a piece of cake - just hook the end of the tape between the wheel & tire, make sure the tape passes through the center of the BMW Roundel, and read the measurement at the arch. **If you would like to convert these measurements to the "wheel center" method, just subtract 246mm (the radius of the Style 65 wheel)**

-------------------------------------------------

Sorry Rontgen, I was replying to last post above mine and didn't see yours. I went and got the info from your post to answer my question.

 

[CSBM5]

It would appear that the rear lower perch location is not M5 compatible. Does it have a ring that you can relocate like the Konis do? Measure the stock location from lower eye to ring and set it there if possible.