Some history-- before I got my car, it was in a collision involving the R front side. I know this because the R front fender has been replaced (no VIN) and the front valance on that side is damaged. The trunk is original so it probably wasn't THAT bad.
Anyway, I've noticed that the R tire wears out on the inner edge faster than the L tire (more neg camber). Since there was a collision there, I attributed it to that. So I went to a Firestone service shop (I know, I know...) to ask about the alignment, and they said that they'll lift the car and if they see anything bent or physically damaged, they'd tell me about it and not charge anything. If everything was okay, they'd do the alignment. I figured it was $50, so why not. I understand that they're trying to make $$, so maybe they wouldn't be completely honest, but a large branch like that can't be completely dishonest.
When they lifted the car, they inspected the suspension and said nothing was wrong. I've taken a look at it before, I've never seen anything obviously wrong either (but I'm no expert). So they went along with the alignment. Here are some notable specs that I got. They only worked on the front, as their printout instructions told them that.
Left:
camber -1.3 (specified range -1.2,-0.2)
caster 6.4 (8.0,9.0)
toe -0.04 changed to +0.13 (0.11,0.19)
Right (ranges same as left)
camber -2.1
caster 6.2
toe -0.03 changed to +0.14
Their computer printout instructed them not to mess with the camber or caster in the front or anything in the rear, so they didn't (and rightfully so). All they really did was increase the toe in to spec.
Anyway, my main question is that the R front camber was WAY off (-2.1). I understand that they can't fix it, but doesn't this mean that there WAS some structural damage to the suspension parts? Is there another way the camber could be so far off? I know some people like running camber that high (low?), but I'd at least like both sides to be equal.
Also, should I even care that the caster values are a bit low?
One more thing: I've heard that zero toe is ideal, so why do the specs say to align to positive values like that?
Thanks.
Anyway, I've noticed that the R tire wears out on the inner edge faster than the L tire (more neg camber). Since there was a collision there, I attributed it to that. So I went to a Firestone service shop (I know, I know...) to ask about the alignment, and they said that they'll lift the car and if they see anything bent or physically damaged, they'd tell me about it and not charge anything. If everything was okay, they'd do the alignment. I figured it was $50, so why not. I understand that they're trying to make $$, so maybe they wouldn't be completely honest, but a large branch like that can't be completely dishonest.
When they lifted the car, they inspected the suspension and said nothing was wrong. I've taken a look at it before, I've never seen anything obviously wrong either (but I'm no expert). So they went along with the alignment. Here are some notable specs that I got. They only worked on the front, as their printout instructions told them that.
Left:
camber -1.3 (specified range -1.2,-0.2)
caster 6.4 (8.0,9.0)
toe -0.04 changed to +0.13 (0.11,0.19)
Right (ranges same as left)
camber -2.1
caster 6.2
toe -0.03 changed to +0.14
Their computer printout instructed them not to mess with the camber or caster in the front or anything in the rear, so they didn't (and rightfully so). All they really did was increase the toe in to spec.
Anyway, my main question is that the R front camber was WAY off (-2.1). I understand that they can't fix it, but doesn't this mean that there WAS some structural damage to the suspension parts? Is there another way the camber could be so far off? I know some people like running camber that high (low?), but I'd at least like both sides to be equal.
Also, should I even care that the caster values are a bit low?
One more thing: I've heard that zero toe is ideal, so why do the specs say to align to positive values like that?
Thanks.
Comment