Honda Car Forum

I've always read that you should get a four-wheel alignment performed
if you make major changes to suspension geometry, such as lowering your
car. I am planning on buying camber adjusters for my front wheels; they
replace the damper pinch bolts on the MacPhersons. The maximum negative
camber I can set is 1.75 degrees, which I will be doing.

Is that going to require an alignment? I'm wondering if changing camber
values has an effect on your toe. Alignment service is expensive, and
my budget is tight.

And hopefully, having some negative camber up front will help with the
understeer...

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156979707.119430.53050@i3g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
> I've always read that you should get a four-wheel alignment performed
> if you make major changes to suspension geometry, such as lowering your
> car. I am planning on buying camber adjusters for my front wheels; they
> replace the damper pinch bolts on the MacPhersons. The maximum negative
> camber I can set is 1.75 degrees, which I will be doing.
>
> Is that going to require an alignment? I'm wondering if changing camber
> values has an effect on your toe. Alignment service is expensive, and
> my budget is tight.
>
> And hopefully, having some negative camber up front will help with the
> understeer...
>

Abso-frickin-lutely will it affect your alignment, and too much negative
camber will eat the insides off your tires.

Get the alignment done, or, spend tons and tons on tire replacements.

Spdloader

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1156979707.119430.53050@i3g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com:

> I've always read that you should get a four-wheel alignment performed
> if you make major changes to suspension geometry, such as lowering
> your car.


Correct.



> I am planning on buying camber adjusters for my front wheels; they
> replace the damper pinch bolts on the MacPhersons.



Macpherson struts do not have damper pinch bolts.

Why on earth you would want to mess with your camber I cannot imagine.




> The maximum negative
> camber I can set is 1.75 degrees, which I will be doing.



You racing this thing?


>
> Is that going to require an alignment?



Well, yeah.



> I'm wondering if changing camber
> values has an effect on your toe.



Yes it does, since you have positive caster.



> Alignment service is expensive, and
> my budget is tight.




Then don't mess with it. ANY alteration of some aspects of your geometry
will require verification of the other ones.




>
> And hopefully, having some negative camber up front will help with the
> understeer...


You have it quite backwards here, which clearly indicates your
misunderstanding of the issues at hand. Understeer is a product of your
REAR suspension setup. Since you initially mentioned a "pinch bolt",
this suggests a pre-Macpherson vehicle (pre-'00), and thus one with an
independent rear suspension. Rear toe on such cars is positive, and rear
camber is negative. Honda wished to bestow directional stability on
users of the public road who may not have the sort of training F1
drivers have.

Should you be stupid enough to want to reduce understeer on a road car,
all you need to do is make your rear toe zero, which is easily done
without the installation of new parts. What will then result is highly
entertaining behavior in turns. You insurance company may notlike it,
and neither will you once you find out what it will cost you...



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

televascular wrote:
> I've always read that you should get a four-wheel alignment performed
> if you make major changes to suspension geometry, such as lowering your
> car. I am planning on buying camber adjusters for my front wheels; they
> replace the damper pinch bolts on the MacPhersons. The maximum negative
> camber I can set is 1.75 degrees, which I will be doing.
>
> Is that going to require an alignment? I'm wondering if changing camber
> values has an effect on your toe. Alignment service is expensive, and
> my budget is tight.
>
> And hopefully, having some negative camber up front will help with the
> understeer...
>
what kind of car? if it's a taurus, you're wasting your time. in my
highly biased opinion, if you have mcphersons, you're wasting your time.
if you're talking integra, you don't have mcphersons.

replacing the damper pinch bolts? what kind of car?

alignment? what kind of car?

understeer? what kind of car?

TeGGeR®,

I have the 2006 Civic Si Coupe, with MacPhersons up front and
independent double wishbone in the back. The Helms OEM service manual
specifies them as "damper pinch bolts", but maybe we are talking about
two different things.

While this car is not being prepped for autocross, I live in an area
with long, curvaceous roads with above-average speed limits. I enjoy
driving my cars fast and hard, somewhat dangling on the border of
recklessness.

I understand that a car with understeer is more predictable and
intuitive than a car with oversteer/neutral steering capability, which
is why most production cars understeer by default. However, I'd like to
achieve neutral-ness and then force myself to adapt, as an experiment
of my driving technique/vehicle capability.

Saying that understeer is a product of the rear suspension setup is
only a half-truth. The rear has more of an effect than the front. The
Si comes stock with a 1.5 LSD up front and about two degrees negative
camber on the rear... and even with an aftermarket 28mm rear swaybar, I
can still detect mild understeer. Increasing negative camber on the
front WILL decrease understeer: as the car corners, the stroke of the
suspension brings the outside wheel camber to zero, widening the tire
contact patch and increasing traction. This is a step I am taking only
because my other upgrades were not sufficient, but such is the way of a
FF car.

However, I am interested in this method of manipulating rear toe to
achieve oversteer. I believe I can mess with it easily enough if its
the thread-type adjustment, but I have no way of measuring the changes.
Can you elaborate, or is this something I shouldn't try to do myself?

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1156991839.326753.138110@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:


<snip>


>
> However, I am interested in this method of manipulating rear toe to
> achieve oversteer. I believe I can mess with it easily enough if its
> the thread-type adjustment, but I have no way of measuring the changes.
> Can you elaborate, or is this something I shouldn't try to do myself?
>
>



You certainly seem to have an abundance of suspension knowledge. Why ask
here? Just do what you so obviously know already.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

jim beam wrote:

> what kind of car? if it's a taurus, you're wasting your time. in my
> highly biased opinion, if you have mcphersons, you're wasting your time.
> if you're talking integra, you don't have mcphersons.

I am far from being a suspension guru, so excuse my ignorance. Why am I
wasting my time putting negative camber on MacPhersons? I have read
that they are inferior to double-wishbones, purely as a matter of being
able to control suspension compliance. Are MacPhersons inherently less
adjustable, or harder to get favorable results from?

>From what I've read, the only good things about MacPhersons are their
compact size. It seems Honda used them on the front so they could save
more room for the engine bay, which is already tiny enough as it is!

TeGGeR® wrote:

> You certainly seem to have an abundance of suspension knowledge. Why ask
> here? Just do what you so obviously know already.

I read up a lot on the subject, but what I know is only from what I
read. I have little hands-on experience when it comes to suspensions,
so I go on theory and basic physics.

Also, I do not feel comfortable realigning my wheels without accurate
measurements. I was wondering if you knew anything about that, besides
the "string around the car" method.

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1156993090.888062.99790@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com:

>
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>
>> You certainly seem to have an abundance of suspension knowledge. Why ask
>> here? Just do what you so obviously know already.
>
> I read up a lot on the subject, but what I know is only from what I
> read. I have little hands-on experience when it comes to suspensions,
> so I go on theory and basic physics.
>
> Also, I do not feel comfortable realigning my wheels without accurate
> measurements. I was wondering if you knew anything about that, besides
> the "string around the car" method.
>
>


Well, the first thing you need to do is establish the car's "thrust
centerline". This is determined from the rear suspension toe. Once that is
known, you can then adjust front toe on either side so that it is parallel
to the thrust centerline.

Can you do this with a "string"? I suppose, but I wouldn't want to try it.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

televascular wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> what kind of car? if it's a taurus, you're wasting your time. in my
>> highly biased opinion, if you have mcphersons, you're wasting your time.
>> if you're talking integra, you don't have mcphersons.
>
> I am far from being a suspension guru, so excuse my ignorance. Why am I
> wasting my time putting negative camber on MacPhersons? I have read
> that they are inferior to double-wishbones, purely as a matter of being
> able to control suspension compliance.

if you mean compliance in terms of vertical travel, there's no
difference. if you mean compliance in terms of geometry control and
degrees of freedom, wishbones are the way to go. basically, you can
keep the camber appropriate to lean angle /both/ sides of the car. with
mcpherson, you can kinda-sorta get it ok-ish for the outer wheel, but
the inner one goes to heck. in low traction environs like rallying on
dirt, it doesn't matter, hence subaru dominance in that arena. but on
black top, wishbone is the way to go. somewhere on the web is a table
of cornering g's pulled by different compact sport cars from the 80's &
90's. the crx was [is] better than than any other car in it's
class/tire width. look at any mcpherson vs. wishbone - they all have
wider tires just to keep the thing on the road. better yet, check out
any wide-tired car like bmw in a parking lot with the wheels at full
lock. see how much [how little] rubber is on the road on the inside tire?

> Are MacPhersons inherently less
> adjustable, or harder to get favorable results from?

both.

>
>>From what I've read, the only good things about MacPhersons are their
> compact size.

that's minor. biggest advantage is /significant/ cost saving - much
lower component count and each component that's left is /much/ cheaper
to manufacture. look at the [forged?] knuckle on an integra - that
thing is at least 3 forming operations, each needing very expensive
tooling. a strut just has a cast sub axle bolted on the bottom.

> It seems Honda used them on the front so they could save
> more room for the engine bay, which is already tiny enough as it is!

there's plenty of room. mcpherson is all about cost. end of story.

if you want a car that can be tweaked and really handle on the curves,
get a post 88, pre-2000 civic, a post 88 crx, post 89 integra or a
prelude. the 06 si has a nice motor, but that's about it. seriously,
if you sell that car, you'll have money to spare for a good base car
from the above, /and/ a motor like this:

http://www.theoldone.com/articles/La...rrys_Civic.htm