So I have a rear camber question for any alignment gurus out there....

Took my 2010 MCS in for an alignment today, since I installed TSW springs awhile back. Everything aligned just fine, toe was off a bit. But, my rear camber checked in at -1.12 left and -1.20 right. now, they set my camber in the middle of specs, actually adding negative camber. Specs showed to be a window of -1.42 to -2.08...setting my car at -1.60.

So here's my question before I have them change anything...is -1.6 too aggressive for a daily driver who doesn't AutoX? Is this -1.6 an acceptable setting without compromising tire wear?

What's the consensus out here for a rear camber setting on a R56 as a daily driver? I'm sure they're probably right spec wise, but it just looks really aggressive to me.

Many thanks in advance!

 

I thought people.wanted more negative camber in front but less in back. So maybe the original -1.2 was better for autocross and rotating the car.

 

What is your front set to? The general rule of thumb is to not be greater than + or -1.0 difference between front and back. So if you are running -2.5 up front and -1.5 at the back, you'll be pretty good as an aggressive alignment.

-1.6 seems a bit more than usual for stock specs but it's fine for tire wear...toe is what kills your tires.

 

Fronts are still dead center for the alignment pin location, , no adjustable plates, and it was around the -.5 mark (don't have it in front of me right now). -1.6 in the rear just seemed a bit agressive, looking more aggressive than when I went in. They say it's in spec, maybe I was already used to seeing it closer to the 1.0 mark. And this sdtruck me funny too...that if I lowered it with the TSWs (3/4" rear) and the camber was only at the 1.12-1.20 mark...what the hell was it from the factory? Because the rear camber has never been touched since I took delivery.

I think I can live with -1.6, as long as the wear isn't going to be excessive I guess. But I was thinking of having them dial it back a bit to, what they say is the low end of the spec window of -1.4. But, if -1.6 is acceptable...

 

I'm running -1.9 rear left and -1.8 rear right on my daily driver w/o any problems. I had firestone do my alignment a while ago and I dont think its too aggressive at all, you should be fine.

 

I removed the little plastic alignment guide in the strut tower on both front and pushed both shocks inboard as far as possible. Firestone reported a -.7 and -1.0 chamber in the front. Not sure why the difference.

I've run with -1.8 in the back end for 12K miles and not exerienced any uneven wear issues, but it does look agressive.

I've since reduced it to -1.3 just because I don't think this car really needs that much camber and I feel better with a more contact patch for braking, albeit a small difference.

 

I just got my car back from the shop. I had new Koni Sports installed all around, bump stops cut an inch, front strut tower pins removed and pushed inboard. I asked for as much negitive camber as they could find on front. I think I got screwed. Its .5 negative in front and they set the back at 1.5 neg. Its perfectly in spec and oversteers worse than when I had them work on it. I think they did not set my RSB to the same middle position. I got a call in to them, but the shop guy ain't called me. I guess a revisit is in order.

 

Well it's strange, but I'm happy now...got rid of some of the camber today, back to looking like stock before I installed the TSWs. But it's strange, the numbers from the alignment machine aren't making sense to me.

Like I said, I rolled out of the shop yesterday with rear camber readings of -1.63 left and -1.60 right. Went back and told them it was more aggressive than I wanted it to be, and they were very happy to help get it just the way I wanted. So we made an appointment for today at 3pm.

I rolled in, and told the tech I wanted it to be more of the range of -1.2 to -1.3. Puts it on the machine, and a short time later comes to tell me he can't get it any lower than -1.4...not enough camber bolt. Now I'm confused, how do I go from -1.2 to -1.6....but now we can't get it lower than -1.4?

I go have a look with him, and we look at the initial start readings. It's reading in at -2.12 left and -2.02 right. Owner and tech explain to me something about initial settings are taken in a ratio (or something like that), vehicle lifted unsupported. And every time ratios are changed, the initial readings become a bit skewed and not true readings...I don't know, but I'm sure they know what they're doing, all they work on is European cars.

None the less, we dial out as much as the stock control arms will allow, with a final setting of -1.4 left and right. I still have negative camber, and with a visible appearance of the same as stock before installing the TSWs.

Confusing to me, probably you as well. But my setup is now pretty damn sweet, putting my 215s footprint on the ground. Front toe at .08, rear at .10.

Maybe the first alignment numbers skewed due to the software specs used being for an R56, stock suspension, stock 16" wheels? Dunno, but it worked second time around. And honestly, the camber I came home with yesterday (-1.6 by printout) really did look more like -2 plus....it didn't look -1.6.

Personally, I think there was something amiss with the rear camber measurement on the first alignment. I say this because to me it defies explanation as to why my initial rear camber measurements came in at -1.12 and -1.20 AFTER a drop with TSW springs. So, they crank in more negative camber on my car, when that's the last thing I needed. Hence the reason it was over -2 today, and could only get it down to -1.4 with OEM control arms today.

 

The difference in camber settings can be attributed to tire pressure differences from one day to the next(air temps)...the fuel load from one day to the next...a technician's deft of hand from one day to the next. The point here is that there is a ton of variability to be found within a common commuter car...the mini isn't an F1 car...it has rubber bushings and it's not got an unequal weight distribution left to right...or more accurately diagonally from corner to the next.

1.2 - 1.6 is in the correct neighborhood for daily street driving. But you are neglecting the camber/toe curve realtionship and this is much more important than static camber. Camber and toe compensation have to be corordinated with roll so that the rear tires are doing what you expect them to do in a turn and this relates to track width...spring and damping rates etc. The question is, what is the toe setting at 1.6 deg neg camber? How does toe change in roll for both the inside and outside tires?

The more verticle the rear tires the more rotation you should expect...in a vacuum.

 

Well it's not at -1.6 anymore, -1.4 in the rear by the last reading... and .7 in the front. Front toe at .08, rear at .10.

 

The point I was making, in an effort to help, is that 1.6 - 1.4 - 1.2 is not much to worry about.

If your car had a full race roll cage, solid suspension joints, and high spring and damping rates with DOT R compound or better tires, that differences above might be noticable on 'a' track...and perhaps not others.

I've set up and aligned a lot of cars and variability can seemingly come from the angle of the sun where alignments are concerned...especially if the machine and mechanic are different.

 

I appreciate it meb, I didn't think a -1.6 was much to be concerned about either. I saw these numbers on the machine and final printout, but really didn't look at it til I got it home. And when I did, I thought to myself there was no way in hell this was a -1.6 degree camber...it was really squatting and looking like it was dragging its *** like an old tired dog rubbing its butt on the ground.

Great for handling I'm sure, but not the most ideal situation for tire wear on a daily driver...I've seen a -1.6 camber before on these cars, and this was no -1.6....so I went back.

Second time on the rack, they come in at well over a -2.0, and I say ahh....crank the camber bolts as far as possible (because I didn't get control arms for these TSW springs), and we get it down to a -1.4, taking nearly .7 degrees out of them. Not it reads -1.4, and it looks -1.4. I'm very happy now.

And the reason for the initial post.... my "initial" -1.6 camber looked extremely aggressive, no where near what I've seen in the past. At the time, I could not believe what I was seeing. Keeping in mind, they added camber (about a 1/2 degree)....on top of the added camber from lowering it.

 

Okay, my bad as they say. I had the same thing happen when Farnbacher Loles aligned my car, just once. I gave them specs, they aligned the car...I was going stright to the track so I couldn't ask them to re-align the car. As it turned out, they thought this was my first time at the track and dialed in near 3 deg neg camber rear, about a 1/2" toe in per front wheel...can't remember front camber. The car was a beast to drive on the track...but it did track straight ahead amazingly well ...and to your point in your openning above, the specs I gave them looked nothing like the car I picked up.

 

Okay ... I took my JCW in with TSW springs in after about 3 weeks of settling in.

1st question .... how long should you wait to do an alignment? How much time is needed to fully settle?

2nd question .... they made me go buy weights to put in the car to align. 150 lbs driver seat, 150 lbs passenger seat & 47 lbs rear seat. Is this needed? Why the need for weights?

3rd question ... what tire pressure should you use for alignment?

Thx Jackson

 

1. 3 weeks is too long. A day or two is fine.

2. Do you most often drive with a 150 lb passenger up front and a 47lb passenger in the rear? If so, then yes this makes some sense. If not, then they're idiots. My shop puts about 150 lbs in the drivers seat for me when they align. Ride height and therefore minor alignment changes occur when more weight is put in the car....so you try to get it as true to actual use as possible when aligning. If you're stickler for details.

Either way, they should not "make" you go buy weights. That's ridiculous.

3. Whatever tire pressure you use when you drive.

- Andrew

 

Okay here is my current measurements for my JCW with TSW Springs, 17" wheels

Left Front Camber -.7
Right Front Camber -.5

Left Front Caster 3.5
Right Front Caster 3.7

Left Front Toe .09
Right Front Toe .11

Left Rear Camber -2.1 (they said no more adjustment)
Right Rear Camber -2.3 (no more adjustment)

Left Rear Toe .17
Right Rear Toe .24

So I know I need to buy some rear camber links and control arms for more adjustment.

From looking at your posts.... looks like I should have more room for rear adjustment.... not sure why they say I don't, unless JCW is that much different?

Other than the rear camber needing adjusted.. What would you change on this alignment? FOR DAILY DRIVER little fun on the twisties.

Someone else told me 0 degrees toe all around. But than the alignment shop said that setting would eat up the tires. Is this true? So of course I got scared and told them to stay within spec.

Thanks for the advise.

Jackson

 

Dunno how a zero toe would eat tires, maybe someone else a little more educated than me on this could explain. I would think with zero toe, no side scrubbing unless toe is induced by driveline torque...but you're not gonna be at a torque all the time to induce that...at least that's what I think.

As for JCW being different, not as far as camber adjustment is concerned. Although I did note there's slightly different alignment specs in my Bentley Manual for a JCW suspension...but I would think that's irrelevant too with TSW springs.

Here's my last alignment numbers, 16" Konigs with 215/50-16s, for reference...it looks good and handles pretty damn good too. guess we'll see what happens with "toe wear" with time.

Left Front Camber -.78
Right Front Camber -.58

Left Front Caster 2.41
Right Front Caster 2.71

Left Front Toe .08
Right Front Toe .08

Left Rear Camber -1.39
Right Rear Camber -1.41

Left Rear Toe .10
Right Rear Toe .10