Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Out-of-spec camber actually in-spec?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Cani Lupine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 215 Times in 114 Posts
    That makes me wonder if they updated the specs then, since when I had it checked, the max rear camber was listed at -1.0*.

    I'd also be interested in seeing what the difference would be without that weight in the rear, to see how the geometry is affected by load.


        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log 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)


  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Country is Europe, state is Germany
    Country
    Germany
    Posts
    1,713
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 1,158 Times in 670 Posts
    If it were so that the specs were updated, -1.0° rear camber certainly would seem much better than -1.8°.

    In such a lightweight economy car with relatively high air pressure in the tyres, you want the wheels to be virtually parallel for even tyre wear and low roll resistance.

    I say that well aware that some engineers stubbornly and falsely think it being absolutely essential that somewhere around 1° toe-in and 2° camber is needed for any car to maintain going straight ahead on the highway, and for good cornering.
    For improved cornering with 165mm tyres it would seem better using 5J rims and zero camber rather than 4 1/2J rims plus otherwise unnecessary camber.

    Something to think about: My old Metro which was modified for good mpg had parallel wheels front and back. Zero camber and zero toe-in. Maintaining straight ahead on the highway, and general conering was not noticeably different than on an unmodified car.
    Last edited by foama; 09-18-2014 at 08:49 AM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Cani Lupine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 215 Times in 114 Posts
    Toe-in aids straight-line stability, and negative camber aids cornering traction. It's like they couldn't decide which to use, so they went overboard on both! I guess I'll have to shim the rear after I lower it to get all the toe at 0 and about -1* of neg camber, but it's a disappointment that my new car warranty won't even address this.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log 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)


  4. #24
    Senior Member 3dplane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    USA Florida
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    291
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 288 Times in 141 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Cani Lupine View Post
    That makes me wonder if they updated the specs then, since when I had it checked, the max rear camber was listed at -1.0*.

    I'd also be interested in seeing what the difference would be without that weight in the rear, to see how the geometry is affected by load.
    I got the specs right off the machine.
    As to the change in geometry without the weight, when I lifted the rear body the toe was going in the negative(out) direction and camber was going negative direction as well (inward at top).
    Still it would be about the same Out of specs rear toe on mine without the weight.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log 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)


  5. The Following User Says Thank You to 3dplane For This Useful Post:

    Eggman (08-17-2016)

  6. #25
    Senior Member 3dplane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    USA Florida
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    291
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 288 Times in 141 Posts
    Spec is -1.0 for rear camber but tolerance is .75 so our machine rounds it up to .8.Name:  Screenshot_2014-09-18-11-28-15.jpg
Views: 620
Size:  12.5 KB

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log 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)


  7. #26
    Senior Member Cani Lupine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 215 Times in 114 Posts
    Well then, that makes much more sense.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log 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)


  8. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Central NY
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    351
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 20 Times in 17 Posts
    Toe will also wear a tire and more seriously than camber.

    When I got my Focus, I went 10K before I rotated the tires. Why? It's a front wheel drive car. I didn't notice any funny wear on the front tires, so I thought I was good.

    I was in for quite the surprise when the RR tire was worn quite badly and the LR was worn a bit, but nothing serious.

    The LR tire had something like -2* of camber in it (visible) but wasn't wearing terrible. the RR tire (pretty much burnt off on the inside) had -.7* of camber, but had sigificant toe-out ... but still within alignment specs.

    There probably isn't any toe on a twist beam axle.

    Judging by the picture posted earlier - it's definitely toe causing the wear.

  9. #28
    Senior Member Rival Autosport's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Brampton, On
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    280
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 62 Times in 41 Posts
    For anyone thinking about shimming the rears, good luck. The rear end has a pressed bearing. That will make things considerably harder. I went to Can-Alignment and we tried it but the bearing made us hold off.

  10. #29
    Senior Member 3dplane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    USA Florida
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    291
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 288 Times in 141 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by RalliArt_Mirage View Post
    For anyone thinking about shimming the rears, good luck. The rear end has a pressed bearing. That will make things considerably harder. I went to Can-Alignment and we tried it but the bearing made us hold off.
    I can sadly confirm this. It is not possible to make any adjustment,not even shimming.

    It is not that the bearing is pressed,because that slides right off with the drum after the center cap is removed and the large (30mm) nut removed. However I thought that the stub axle is bolted on with the backing plate so after loosening the 4 bolts,I will be able to move the whole stub axle with brakes and everything on it. Wrong!

    The little axle that the bearing and hence the wheel is mounted on is welded to the whole rear suspension beam.
    So loosening the backing plate bolts and shimming would only move the backing plate which is useless.

    This sucks because the excessive toe in on the rear axle of my mirage is now chopping the rear tires and I can hear the tire noise. And I can not do a darn thing about it. Feels like hands tied behind the back.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log 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)


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to 3dplane For This Useful Post:

    Eggman (08-17-2016)

  12. #30
    Senior Member Cani Lupine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 215 Times in 114 Posts
    In your case, I would keep bugging both the dealership and corporate. If there is no adjustment whatsoever and it's causing problems, then it would be a design defect and a recall needs to be issued for new beams to be installed with the proper angles.


        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log 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)


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •