Don’t forget toe is adjustable via the slotted trailing arm brackets. The downside to that slotted adjustment is a tendency for the bracket to move when tightening. Sometimes it becomes a compromise; you see which way the bracket chooses to travel for each side and choose the setting closest for the one you want in the direction you want. For instance, 0 toe is desired but the setting flips between -.15 and .1 when the bolt is tightened or loosened.

I have adjustable upper links but set them to stock length so track remains the same and set toe with the trailing arm bracket bolt slots.

 

Yep, that's true... it's a beating to do without a true alignment rig. He's decided to have a 4-wheel alignment after a few hundred miles, which is smart. I did on my car and continue to do so as the suspension evolves... trackside equipment is great for getting close, and works better with some suspension designs, but it's definitely not as great as the full rigs at the shops...

 

yeh i'm talking general. The first two are how the car should come stock. 19mm RSB and about 1 deg of camber should be stock. shock and spring setup are pretty good for a stock car.

ah yes, but i have an 05 MCS, and already have that adjustability...

 

You only have maybe 0.5 degrees of adjustment, per side, with that factory adjustment in the rear... control arms provide a whole lot more than that. Depending on how much you lower the car, you could end up with way more than the -2.0 top range spec...

 

really? So after lowering with M7 springs, i couldn't return to say 1.5?

 

From my experience (with a '06 MCS, lots of options and a big bag of supplies that I always carry in the boot - read: a heavy car), I would highly doubt it.

I'm running the TSW springs on the stock shocks and dropped only 1 inch in the rear. With my car, that equated to -2.7 deg camber in the back on both sides. The M7 springs are a more agressive drop, so one would think that it would have a more agressive change on negative camber given the same weight of car. If I was very, VERY lucky and the factory setting on my '06 had been all the way out and I then changed it to all the way in, that would have taken it back to -1.7 degrees... but that's a best-case scenario.

Maybe if you have a lower optioned car (no sunroof, especially) and you are a smaller person (I'm a fat ****), and keep the car fairly empty, you will be OK. My guess is that you are going to need the lower rear control arms. The good thing is that they are fairly inexpensive ($180-220) and they are easy to install. You can set them to a stock length and install 'em in about an hour with hand tools and a jack/jackstands. Then, an alignment will let you set the rear camber as you wish.

 

well i have virtually no options. MFSW, sunroof, and 17s. What's the smallest possible camber i can achieve? I'll be happy with 2 or less.

 

I can only relate my isolated story. The only MCS I know of personally who installed the M7 springs did a set of lower rear control arms at the same time... expecting to have to dial back the rear camber.

 

Ah ok. Well i'll have to wait and see i guess

 

My guess is that you'll have more than -2.0... You may be able to get back to -2.0 given your options. It's worth a shot, anyway!

 

FYI:

I went in for the 4-wheel alignment this morning. With a whole 5 miles under my belt since the work was done, the car seems more settled and less nervous on the highway (though I've also had several hundred miles to adjust to the new feeling, so that has some effect on my perception as well). It is still amazingly ready to turn-in, but it is much more comfortable on my daily highway commute. I'm looking forward to a nice, spirited drive.

I took k-huevo's photo (post #26 - Thanks!) regarding the slotted trailing arm bracket in the back to the technician and he was able to correct the tow out in the rear to give me a tiny bit of rear tow-in after fussing with the bracket adjustment several times.

 

We expect to see you out autocrossing with us now...

 

My experience has taught me that rear toe influences straight line stabiltiy and turn-in to a higher degree than the front. It's kind of like driving a car whos rear wheels steer.

And in support of K-huevo's post, make sure that your alignment folks do not mess with the upper adjustable endlinks if you've installed these. Tow adjustments should be made via the trailing arm...my shop said it takes three guys for a few moments to keep things where they like as these are tightened down.

 

With my recent experience, I'd definately agree. The feeling of the car has changed for the better in my day-to-day driving. The rear toe-out would have been nice for slow and hard turns (auto-x), I'm sure, but it's a much easier car to drive with a bit of toe in all the way around.

I decided to be a cheapskate and only buy a set of lower adjustable arms... looks like that was $200 well saved.

 

Well, at least alignment type folks won't try to adjust toe with your adjustable upper arm...it's not a good thing.

Also, I'm told, a little toe-in in the rear helps the rear tires to build slip angles a bit more progressively and sooner as the car initially turns-in. I do agree that zero toe or toe out is suited to autoXing and not a road course or the street. The forces acting on a car are much lower in an autoX event - speeds are lower.

 

I'm running toe out up front and neutral toe out back and it works fine for the street, AX, and the track. The speeds at our AX's are similar to what you'd see on a road course, too. It does require a steady hand, however, and as you state, it's preferable to have a bit of toe in for the rear - if my car were a dedicated track car, I'd change the alignment settings a bit.

 

i know that everything is bigger in texas, but......i seriously doubt that you see the 110-120 mph speeds that i see at homestead and sebring. even speaking of cornering speeds, i exit turn 18 at sebring at about 90mph (and i'm a beginner)! i run -2.4 up front and -1.4 in the rear, lowered on coilovers w/ ra-1's on ssr type c-rs., zero toe front and rear. i have a solid 19 mm rear bar (middle setting) w/ pro-grid drop links. tce bbk. the car handles sweet. very steady in high speed sweepers, but turns in nice on slower turns....

 

You'd be surprised - straight speeds of 90+ mph and sweepers up to 60-80 mph. Of course, it depends on the course design. Gotta love Mineral Wells! We usually end up with a mix of slow and high speed elements, but everyone that comes out is still very, very surprised... And, of course, it's a freakin' blast. The local PCA chapter runs their time trials out there - it's a big place!

It's not going to be the same as ALL road courses, but they're very long, very fast courses. Speeds are similar to some road courses (and no, we're not talking about Grassroots Motorsports road test course @ Ocala - it's faster than that), though. Gotta love G's!

 

if i ever take up autocrossing, i'm moving to texas!

 

It is a spoiling experience - if you search the 'net for AX maps and see how small some lots are, whoa! I can say for sure that I'd be much more of a track junkie if it weren't for our ridiculous AX venue...

 

I had no idea that Mineral Wells ran so fast! My wife is gonna kill me when I tell her that I want to take up Auto-X... :D

 

so to get this thread back on topic: first evaluate what you want to do w/ your car, then compromise.....unless you are building a track only car, everything else is a compromise between daily-driven comfort and brutal ride....we all have our own thresholds.....

 

True, but "compromise" has such a negative connotation these days. My MINI is an almost entirely street driven daily driver, but I don't enjoy the sort of ride quality most people consider "comfortable" any more than I like bone-jarring. My compromise ended up being a perfect sweet spot (based on my preferences) - a fun, connected, go-cart-ish ride. Yes, it's a compromise between soft and brutal, but it's still "comfortable" by my standards.
------------------------------
edit: I know, I'm just picking at semantics - useful words to describe subjective things are hard to come by

 

Why?

 

I’m not trying to answer the good or bad question posed to meb I just want to share why I choose the bushing bracket adjustment location for toe; also some people are uncomfortable with the number in my former post count.

In our trailing arm arrangement with the fixed wheel bearing hub, calling the upper link a toe adjuster and the bottom link a camber adjuster is a bit of a misnomer. One works against the other to create camber and as a result toe is altered, but not necessarily the amount or direction desired. If the leading pivot point of the trailing arm remains stationary and both links are adjustable the distance between the wheels can be moved closer or farther away from each other to alter toe settings; with that type of movement, track is altered at the same time. I’m comfortable with stock track so I don’t have a need yet to mess with that and it gets complicated when both arms are used to make toe adjustments; first camber is set with one link (and that alters toe) then you adjust for toe with the other link (and that alters camber) and so on and so forth:impatient. I find it simpler to adjust one link for camber and the trailing arm for toe.

A question for the adventurous aligners (is that a word) what are your thoughts on track?