[keiridin]

I'm installing KW HAS on a 2021 G82 and was wondering if the front perch is down low enough. For some reason, I'm thinking it needs to be about half way down? There is about 3/4 inch sticking out of the top in the pic.

Any help or guidance is appreciated.

[iviegatron]

If you look at the instructions the bottom of the perch is suppose to be two inches down from the edge as shown in the picture below.

[keiridin]

Thanks for the quick response. The problem is, the perch won't go that far down. I'm wondering if the KW doc is referencing the F80 doc which that page is identical in both docs. If you look at the next page from your image, it shows a metal perch which is not what is included in the kit.

This is why I'm asking the question. I wonder if the documentation doesn't match the G8X strut.

Can you confirm how much strut sticks out from the top of the perch or how low the bottom of the perch is from the top on an existing install?

[iviegatron]

Originally Posted by keiridin

Thanks for the quick response. The problem is, the perch won't go that far down. I'm wondering if the KW doc is referencing the F80 doc which that page is identical in both docs. If you look at the next page from your image, it shows a metal perch which is not what is included in the kit.

This is why I'm asking the question. I wonder if the documentation doesn't match the G8X strut.

Can you confirm how much strut sticks out from the top of the perch or how low the bottom of the perch is from the top on an existing install?

I did find that a little odd, the perch didn't match what's in the picture. That's one of the reasons I went with MSS, the installation instructions were a bit confusing. MSS keeps the stock perch.

Unfortunately I can't confirm since I don't have the KW kit. Maybe someone else can chime in.

Are you doing the install yourself?

[iviegatron]

What you have looks to be correct. I'm comparing the distance between the perch and the sticker on the strut. It looks very identical to what you have. That's if all the sticker location are the same on all the struts. Below are pics from YouTube videos.

[keiridin]

That's what we pretty much assumed as well. The KW instructions appear to be using struts from an F80 from what I can tell.

I had my mechanic install them. He usually does springs which are different because the oem perch is left in place. He's done KW HAS but in an F80. Mine was his first G82.

[tom @ eas]

Just completed another HAS install today and wanted to follow up on this. Making a reference line of 50mm (1.96") from the tapered point. gives a reference point where to seat the perch when pressing into place.

Here's the measurement from a different perspective. With the front perch seated - you should see 11/16" from top of perch to top of strut housing. The perch can't seat any lower since it bottoms out on the strut housing.



Measurement of 9 3/4" from bottom of seated perch (end link side) to bottom of strut housing:



Hope this helps or anyone else tackling this in the near future.

[BulkBen]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

Just completed another HAS install today and wanted to follow up on this. Making a reference line of 50mm (1.96") from the tapered point. gives a reference point where to seat the perch when pressing into place.

Here's the measurement from a different perspective. With the front perch seated - you should see 11/16" from top of perch to top of strut housing. The perch can't seat any lower since it bottoms out on the strut housing.



Measurement of 9 3/4" from bottom of seated perch (end link side) to bottom of strut housing:



Hope this helps or anyone else tackling this in the near future.

Great info there, always nice to get input from a shop.

Are you doing any recoding of the diffs for customers after the install?

The Studio RSR guys who are tracking a G80 said they had all kinds of issues at the track once the car was lowered, the electronics in the diffs apparently not liking the new heights.
They mentioned that had to recode everything to prevent the car from going into limp mode.

This may not be an issue for those cruising around the streets but given many of these cars will hit the track, its bound to come up.

[mike@x-ph.com]

Originally Posted by BulkBen

This may not be an issue for those cruising around the streets but given many of these cars will hit the track, its bound to come up.

First-time im hearing of this, anyone on the forum with first-hand experience?

[McLaren720s]

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but I've tracked my G82 on MSS HAS and haven't had any issues with electronics or whatever because the car is lower. Sounds like nonsense to me

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by BulkBen

Great info there, always nice to get input from a shop.

Are you doing any recoding of the diffs for customers after the install?

The Studio RSR guys who are tracking a G80 said they had all kinds of issues at the track once the car was lowered, the electronics in the diffs apparently not liking the new heights.
They mentioned that had to recode everything to prevent the car from going into limp mode.

This may not be an issue for those cruising around the streets but given many of these cars will hit the track, its bound to come up.

Coding the diff is unnecessary.

Recoding wouldn't solve any potential issues unless that specific coding was modified to begin with (highly unlikely this early in production). If anything - it automatically cleared errors doing so as part of the coding process.

[BulkBen]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

Coding the diff is unnecessary.

Recoding wouldn't solve any potential issues unless that specific coding was modified to begin with (highly unlikely this early in production). If anything - it automatically cleared errors doing so as part of the coding process.

Sorry, I haven't been clear with the issue, apparently its to get rid of the 'stabilization errors" which come up when running lowered cars on the track hard.

The Studio RSR guys mention it in the video in this thread, and I discuss it with their manager in the same thread.
https://g80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1851816

I'm really surprised it hasn't affected more people, but seems to have affected their performance quite a bit until it was solved.

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by BulkBen

Sorry, I haven't been clear with the issue, apparently its to get rid of the 'stabilization errors" which come up when running lowered cars on the track hard.

The Studio RSR guys mention it in the video in this thread, and I discuss it with their manager in the same thread.
https://g80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1851816

I'm really surprised it hasn't affected more people, but seems to have affected their performance quite a bit until it was solved.

Most likely since it isn't an issue. One scenario does not speak for everyone.

Coding wouldn't solve this, only write default values and clear codes in the module as part of the process. Most likely the acceleration sensor was damaged or left unplugged after installing - which would cause this type of error.

[BulkBen]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

Most likely since it isn't an issue. One scenario does not speak for everyone.

Coding wouldn't solve this, only write default values and clear codes in the module as part of the process. Most likely the acceleration sensor was damaged or left unplugged after installing - which would cause this type of error.

RSR mention in the thread that they have recoded a few BMWs due to the issue, providing a pic of another.

Look, I'd love it not to be an issue as I will face the same problem when I move into a G80 in a few months.

I'm at a loss as to why one company (Suspension tuner - RSR) are suggesting its an issue and has been in many cars for them, but no one else is reporting the problem.

We need more fast guys tracking these to get a clearer picture.

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by BulkBen

RSR mention in the thread that they have recoded a few BMWs due to the issue, providing a pic of another.

Look, I'd love it not to be an issue as I will face the same problem when I move into a G80 in a few months.

I'm at a loss as to why one company (Suspension tuner - RSR) are suggesting its an issue and has been in many cars for them, but no one else is reporting the problem.

We need more fast guys tracking these to get a clearer picture.

Most likely because it isn't a problem.

Not sure what else I can say this to help you fully understand what coding entails. Errors are reported either due to failure, failed part (or module(s)) or a sensor operating outside of a range intended, controlled by said module. If the error was never discovered and fixed - "recoding" is not going to fix any issue unless coding was somehow corrupted, which is highly unlikely. Or they are doing something else to cause the error.

HAS doesn't lower the car much more than springs do. In fact, most street vehicles are running lower than track vehicles, as they aren't driving as aggressively. What happens in a lowered car with 4 people in it, fully loaded? There are so many variables involved when it comes to ABS/DSC, the error could have been triggered by one or more issues, and not even the HAS kit.

Without more cars coming forward and actual data to support what actually cause the error and steps taken to fix, it's unfortunately meaningless.

[BulkBen]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

Most likely because it isn't a problem.

Not sure what else I can say this to help you fully understand what coding entails. Errors are reported either due to failure, failed part (or module(s)) or a sensor operating outside of a range intended, controlled by said module. If the error was never discovered and fixed - "recoding" is not going to fix any issue unless coding was somehow corrupted, which is highly unlikely. Or they are doing something else to cause the error.

HAS doesn't lower the car much more than springs do. In fact, most street vehicles are running lower than track vehicles, as they aren't driving as aggressively. What happens in a lowered car with 4 people in it, fully loaded? There are so many variables involved when it comes to ABS/DSC, the error could have been triggered by one or more issues, and not even the HAS kit.

Without more cars coming forward and actual data to support what actually cause the error and steps taken to fix, it's unfortunately meaningless.

Appreciate your explanation here. My concern was no way specific to the KW HAS kit, I've just used this thread to bring up a potential issue with lowered G80's that see track time.

I'm trying to work out how / why (and if) this is even an issue.

If a stablization sensor was operating outside its intended range, could the ECU be reprogrammed to allow this new range?
Ie, instead of setting off a fault code, it sees the new parameter as acceptable?
Im thinking about what a tuner does when recoding an ECU for an ethanol tune, my tuner is making what was far too rich a fuel mixture acceptable once again.
What was setting off fault codes, now isn't.

I agree with you about a loaded up car, or a car hitting a pot hole. You think it would also trigger on the street.

What do you make of what RSR are reporting, just marketing talk?

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by BulkBen

Appreciate your explanation here. My concern was no way specific to the KW HAS kit, I've just used this thread to bring up a potential issue with lowered G80's that see track time.

I'm trying to work out how / why (and if) this is even an issue.

If a stablization sensor was operating outside its intended range, could the ECU be reprogrammed to allow this new range?
Ie, instead of setting off a fault code, it sees the new parameter as acceptable?
Im thinking about what a tuner does when recoding an ECU for an ethanol tune, my tuner is making what was far too rich a fuel mixture acceptable once again.
What was setting off fault codes, now isn't.

I agree with you about a loaded up car, or a car hitting a pot hole. You think it would also trigger on the street.

What do you make of what RSR are reporting, just marketing talk?

It wouldn't be fair for me to speak on their issue without knowing all the details. If this was an issue - it would be much more widespread through all installers - not at one particular location. Hopefully, they get it worked out.

[moproblems]

Haven't had a problem on h&r with chassis stabilization errors, but I did do a steering relearn and a ride height reset with ista.

[BulkBen]

Originally Posted by moproblems

Haven't had a problem on h&r with chassis stabilization errors, but I did do a steering relearn and a ride height reset with ista.

Intersting, thanks for chiming in. May be just as simple as that. This is all reducing my apprehension about a lowered car on the track.