Good street alignment specs for 80s Carrera - what are they?

[the]

Done a search, couldn't find it.

What's the word on the setup for alignment specs, front and rear, for a street-use-only 80s Carrera? All stock, except lowered to standard "somewhat below Euro" height.

Thx!

[Bill Verburg]

these are factory RoW specs to slightly aggressive
front
camber -10" - -1*
caster 6* 15'
toe 0* pressed

rear
camber -1* 10" - -2*

[the]

Thanks. My car is lowered a half inch or so more than most, we were able to get those camber numbers, but barely! (-.9 on the front, -1.7 on the back was the least amount of negative camber we could get).

[Bill Verburg]

That's normal, Just make sure that both sides are even and that f/r are in agreement as far as agressivness. Did you bump steer it too?

[Bart_dood]

So there is zero degrees toe on the front? I am about to switch to turbo tie-rods on my carrera.

[SteveinTO]

When I did my '82 with new ER bushings, Bilsteins, turbo tie rods, etc., I put just a smidge of toe in at both ends. My rationale was that on the street, the rare full panic stop would be a bit more controllable with a little toe, and the car might "track" a little straighter at a constant freeway speed. I've never tried zero toe to compare, so I could be full of beans. My guess is when rolling forward a net 1/8" in front (1/16th on each side) probably becomes a nominal zero at 70 mph anyway. Probably same dynamic in the rear too.

I know this is counter to the specs in the glove box book, so I'd be curious to know what others think.

I also put in 1 degree of camber at the rear and 1/2 degree in the front, probably pretty mild for the racers out there, but I thought a good compromise for street driving and tire wear.

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by SteveinTO

When I did my '82 with new ER bushings, Bilsteins, turbo tie rods, etc., I put just a smidge of toe in at both ends. My rationale was that on the street, the rare full panic stop would be a bit more controllable with a little toe, and the car might "track" a little straighter at a constant freeway speed. I've never tried zero toe to compare, so I could be full of beans. My guess is when rolling forward a net 1/8" in front (1/16th on each side) probably becomes a nominal zero at 70 mph anyway. Probably same dynamic in the rear too.

I know this is counter to the specs in the glove box book, so I'd be curious to know what others think.

I also put in 1 degree of camber at the rear and 1/2 degree in the front, probably pretty mild for the racers out there, but I thought a good compromise for street driving and tire wear.

The toe figures are pressed, which means the toe under load(150N is the spec) unloaded there will be a little toe in

[SteveinTO]

Bill, could you clarify for me when you say "toe figures are pressed" and "toe under load?"

I aligned my car at home after shimming the garage floor to level with linoleum squares, using fishing line parallel to the center line, etc. I did "load" the car per specs I read somewhere, 1/2 tank fuel, redi-crete for simulated driver & passenger, and some amount on the package shelf. Then I adjusted ride height, camber & toe-in.

Also, in rolling the car to a stop, prior to setting the string, I always stop while rolling forward to get the max "wall-eyed" effect before taking any toe measurements.

Is my redi-crete gambit the "load" you refer to? Or am I missing something here?

[RoninLB]

lotsa good info including pressed wheels



Alignment question, pulls left

[SteveinTO]

Thanks Ron.

I never heard of "pressing" the wheels to simulate rolling forward. I always thought it was enough to stop the car when rolling forward and then measuring. Any further toe out induced by going 70 mph would be more than offset by the net 1/8" toe-in.

Now I gotta do it my way, check toe, and then "press" & see if the values change. With all new suspension pieces, I'd hope it doesn't change much.