Oh wow, that's a big difference. Definitely would cause a pull to the side.
Rear axle replaced under warranty; new axle within specs
Rear axle replaced under warranty; alignment is still off
Waiting for warranty replacement axle
Axle temporarily or permanently aligned with DIY fix
Rear alignment inspected & deemed within specs by dealer
Oh wow, that's a big difference. Definitely would cause a pull to the side.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 49.2 mpg (US) ... 20.9 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 59.1 mpg (Imp)
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 37.6 mpg (US) ... 16.0 km/L ... 6.3 L/100 km ... 45.2 mpg (Imp)
Hey that's very good thinking!I did not think of that but I doubt it would put enough force spreading the front to go as much as we need the geometry to change.
Plus you would have to drop the front of the beam completely out of the mounting ears to access the side of the bushings and cut a lot of thickness off. If it worked though,it would be way more elegant compared to what I'm doing.
My other idea was to go brutal on it.Set it up on the alignment rack, hook a come-along (ratcheting winch) near the lower shock mounts and cold bend it while watching the alignment monitor live to see the results.
Hooking it low also removes some of that crazy negative camber as well as positive toe. (visible on my printout)
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 66.3 mpg (US) ... 28.2 km/L ... 3.5 L/100 km ... 79.7 mpg (Imp)
I don't notice any pull on mine, but I wouldn't mind doing something to correct it. Having the tires up to 50 PSI seems to keep the contact patch small enough so that it lessens the effects of the toe. I sent an email out to Mitsubishi to at least document my complaints for when something gets figured out to fix this problem.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 49.2 mpg (US) ... 20.9 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 59.1 mpg (Imp)
Me too. I'm waiting for a reply from them.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 37.6 mpg (US) ... 16.0 km/L ... 6.3 L/100 km ... 45.2 mpg (Imp)
Got the call back from Corporate, and their answer was to take it to a dealer to have it diagnosed. Basically, runaround. I went though the same thing when I had excessive camber before installing the lowering springs, but that camber apparently went into increasing the toe after the springs were installed. They just said "We can't do anything unless something's broken."
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 49.2 mpg (US) ... 20.9 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 59.1 mpg (Imp)
So, they want you to have diagnosed and then what? Go home happy?
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 37.6 mpg (US) ... 16.0 km/L ... 6.3 L/100 km ... 45.2 mpg (Imp)
After the diagnosis, they determine the proper course of action, like replace broken parts, if any. Since nothing's broken and it's simply a flawed design the dealership can't do anything about, it would be a complete waste of time and gas to drive 3 hours round-trip to go to the dealership for them to tell me what I already know.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 49.2 mpg (US) ... 20.9 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 59.1 mpg (Imp)
I think the negative camber may be quite intentional.
i have no experience with cars with torsion beam or twist beam axles, but they have an interesting interplay of forces acting on them.
That torsion beam effectively provides camber control, toe control and acts as an antisway bar. The angle of the pivot points of the trailing arms have an effect also.
The Mirage pivot points angle forward as you go towards the centerline of the car, and so if they were semi trailing arms with rigid bushings and no torsion beam, then as the wheel rises you would get
1 more positive camber
2 more toe out
In bump the effect of the torsion beam will be to lessen the amount of both of the above
So it might be that the system has been designed for a lower ride height.
If you're able to, it would be interesting if you were able to measure camber and toe with different amounts of weght in the trunk.
I don't believe these syspension systems will be "in spec" at all ride heights, so I'd certainly expect what you measured to change, and might even be "right" at some ride height.
With the torsion beam, and the body leaning as in going round a turn, things seem to get even more interesting.
The camber will increase (more positive) as the body leans because the pivot angle is close to directly across the car.
The cornering force will try and rotate the trailing arm around its longitudinal axis, resisted by the torsion beam which doesn't want to bend.
The cornering force aft of the trailing arm pivot points will try to push in the wheel end of the trailing arm, thus reducing the toe in on the outer wheel, resisted by the torsion beam, which doesn't want to turn into an S-shaped beam (as seen in plan vew).
As the outer wheel rises relative to the body, and the inner wheel drops relative to the body, the torsion beam will be twisted, acting as an anti sway bar.
At the same time the distance between the 2 wheels will increase, resisted by the torsion beam, which doesn't want to stretch. This will reduce the toe in while cornering, and in combination with the increased camber will lead to oversteer.
So it's all rather complicated.
The easiest way for mitsubushi to make these axles come within spec is of course to change the spec.
3dplane, I think your best possible mod is to do what Opel apparently have done of the new Opel Astra, and add a Watts linkage for lateral location.
See http://www.richardaucock.com/vauxhal...nsion-a-twist/
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 46.0 mpg (US) ... 19.5 km/L ... 5.1 L/100 km ... 55.2 mpg (Imp)
Eggman (02-25-2016)
After I lowered mine, the negative camber was reduced and the toe-in increased.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 49.2 mpg (US) ... 20.9 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 59.1 mpg (Imp)