Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I recently went and got a wheel allignment after i get a new set of tyres fitted. Originally I noticed that the front passanger tyre was wearing out more on the inside then the passanger side, so that was the reason i went for an allignment.

The wheel alligment just did not seem right. As i drive, the car seems to want to go to the left. I tested this by driving slowly (20km/hr) on a flat road, but the car still wants to go to the left. Even driving on a right the is slanted to the right, the car slightly wants to go to the left still.

Here is the measurements of what they gave me after the allignment:

=INITIAL=

-FRONT-

Caster - Left +3.27

Right +3.16

Camber - Left -2.17

Right -1.22

Individual Toe- Left +5.5mm

Right +5.0mm

Total Toe - +10.5mm

-REAR-

Camber - Left -2.04

Right -1.52

Individual Toe- Left +0.8mm

Right +2.4mm

Total Toe - +1.6mm

=FINAL=

-FRONT-

Caster - Left +3.22

Right +3.12

Camber - Left -2.11

Right -1.26

Individual Toe- Left +0.8mm

Right +0.8mm

Total Toe - +1.6mm

-REAR-

Camber - Left -2.04

Right -1.55

Individual Toe- Left +2.0mm

Right +2.0mm

Total Toe - +4.0mm

Can someone please tell me what is the propper measurement for the Camber/Toe/caster (front n rear)? Also, i will be taking my car on the track at the end of the month, so what is teh best setting for the track?

PS. I have stock suspension

Edited by Blitz_R33
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/143559-wheel-allignment-issue-for-my-gtr/
Share on other sites

The rear toe seems a little high, normally would be between 0.5 - 2.0mm in total on the rear of one of them. but the rest of it doesnt sound that bad.

I prolly would of had the front toe set to about 1.5mm a side, 3mm in total.

If your toe on the front was out by 10.5 before they did anything, it would of been feral to drive and been squeeling as you drove it in a straight line and f**king tyres in a few thousand km's.

Ok imagine this. if the wheel is leaning in at the top, then your camber is -ve. but if it is leaning out at the top then it is +ve. and unless you are driving on dead flat roads, like the euro freeways, then i would suggest -ve camber.

as for the rear camber, unless it is doing radical things to your rear tyres, they wont alter the camber, they will normally set the rear up right through toe. if the camber is within specs.

I recently went and got a wheel allignment after i get a new set of tyres fitted. Originally I noticed that the front passanger tyre was wearing out more on the inside then the passanger side, so that was the reason i went for an allignment.

The wheel alligment just did not seem right. As i drive, the car seems to want to go to the left. I tested this by driving slowly (20km/hr) on a flat road, but the car still wants to go to the left. Even driving on a right the is slanted to the right, the car slightly wants to go to the left still.

Here is the measurements of what they gave me after the allignment:

=FINAL=

-FRONT-

Caster - Left +3.22

Right +3.12

Camber - Left -2.11

Right -1.26

Individual Toe- Left +0.8mm

Right +0.8mm

Total Toe - +1.6mm

-REAR-

Camber - Left -2.04

Right -1.55

Individual Toe- Left +2.0mm

Right +2.0mm

Total Toe - +4.0mm

Can someone please tell me what is the propper measurement for the Camber/Toe/caster (front n rear)? Also, i will be taking my car on the track at the end of the month, so what is teh best setting for the track?

PS. I have stock suspension

My guess would be that there is not enough caster on the LHS front, causing drift to the gutter. This not unusual, the LHS front wheel is the one that hit the pot holes on the edge of the road and/or the gutter. So over time all cars gradualy loose caster from the LHS and start to drift to the left. Caster like front camber is not adjustable with standard components. An adjustable caster kit ($110 on the Group Buy) fixes that.

I would also be concerned with the camber differential accross the car, there is limited camber adjustable standard on the rear (0.25 degrees). Perhaps as them if they have exhausted that adjustment. Is that is the case then a rear camber kit would be my suggestion ($123 on the Group Buy). This will fix the uneven tyre wear on the rear.

For the front there is no standard camber adjustment, so a front camber kit would be my suggestion ($183 on the Group Buy). This will also fix the uneven tyre wear on the front.

:no: cheers :laugh:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...