• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Alignment setup

Joined
2 October 2007
Messages
155
Location
Idaho falls, ID
Alright i searched around and didnt find really any answers and if i did they were from 04.

on the alignment I want something that will be able to drive daily but I track and auto x every chance I can. Im not to worried about tire life as long its not some setup going to eat them in 1500 miles lol. I have had all my cars setup with fairly aggressive alignment but each car is different so help me out primers

suspension is on tein flexes moderate lowering.

thanks
 
The early 1991-1992 alignment specs are the most aggressive alignment specs with the exception of the Type-R, as far as I know, but I could be wrong. The front camber is already quite substantial with these settings, but I'm no alignment expert.
 
This is my current alignment on a 91 for street/track use.

It works out well, but I do go through rear tires.

Caster: Left 8.3, Right 8.2
Camber: Left -0.5, Right -0.5
Toe: Left -.15, Right -0.15, Total -.30

Rear:
Toe: Left 0.25, Right 0.25, Total 0.50
Camber: Street: Left & Right -2.4
Camber: Track: Left & Right, -2.7 to 2.9

KSport Circuit Pro's & Falkin 452 street tires.
 
Last edited:
This is my current alignment on a 91 for street/track use.

It works out well, but I do go through rear tires.

Caster: Left 8.3, Right 8.2
Camber: Left -0.5, Right -0.5
Toe: Left -.15, Right -0.15, Total -.30

Rear:
Toe: Left 0.25, Right 0.25, Total 0.50
Camber: Street: Left & Right -2.4
Camber: Track: Left & Right, -2.7 to 2.9

KSport Circuit Pro's & Falkin 452 street tires.
did you really have -0.5f -2.5ish rear camber when I drove your car?

Dosnt seem like enough front camber atall...
 
Billy,
Yes on the front of 0.5
2.7 On the rears at that time.

What are you suggesting for the fronts for 60% street-40% track use ?

Good luck this weekend !

did you really have -0.5f -2.5ish rear camber when I drove your car?

Dosnt seem like enough front camber atall...
 
Last edited:
Billy,
Yes on the front of 0.5
2.7 On the rears at that time.

What are you suggesting for the fronts for 60% street-40% track use ?

Good luck this weekend !
at least -1 to -1.5 front, rear is good at -2.5 to -2.7

Front toe barely out (1/16" total) rear 2-3/16" in.

Might be worth trying.

On my way home, weekend didn't go so hot.
 
Having the alignment done on Monday.

I will do these specs and see....

New motor is going to Reno-Fernley 6/11 & 6/12 for some casual break in, figuring out my brake bias adjustments after doing the ABS bypass, and me learning the new power curve with the new motor and blower.

Shame you're not closer, would love to have you there.

Let me know what happen when you can. Bummer my brother...

at least -1 to -1.5 front, rear is good at -2.5 to -2.7

Front toe barely out (1/16" total) rear 2-3/16" in.

Might be worth trying.

On my way home, weekend didn't go so hot.
 
Last edited:
Here's some good info I found on Prime.

http://www.nsxprime.com/wiki/Alignment

What Are The Factory Alignment Settings?

Front End
Factory front alignment (ALL years):
Total toe: -3.5mm +/- 1mm
Camber: -20 min +/- 30min (-0.33 deg +/- 0.5 deg)
Caster: 8 deg.
Alternative front alignment with OEM tires (ALL years):
[KJ] The front tires typically wear out on the inside long before the outside is worn. Reducing or even removing the front toe-out and minimizing the camber improves the tire wear, at the cost of some turn-in crispness and, high speed stability. Even with no camber or toe, the front Yokos would wear on the inside due to their internal bias that pre-tensions them for turning. The rears have the opposite bias, so negative camber acts to balance the wear between outside and inside.
Total toe: -2.5mm
Camber: 00.00 degree
Caster: 8deg. Caster does not wear tires.
What the front tires do:
The front tires pull out (RF pulls to the right, LF pulls to the left) slightly to follow the alignment settings. The purpose of this is to remove the compliance or "slop" associated with moving parts, (ball joints, tie rod ends, pivot points, etc.) Each tire slips sideways 1.75mm with each revolution.
The Toe is there to make the car push (understeer) slightly. The camber on the front is to give you a better rubber patch on the ground when turning. The car wants the tire go straight when the alignment setting makes the tire want to turn, thus, (simplified) the car is dragging the inside of the tire more than the outside. and wearing the inside. Hard cornering does not effect wear as much as straight line driving.
What you feel when driving:
With the Yoko-Bridgestone tire and the stock settings, going down the freeway at 70 mph, a slight tug on the steering wheel would put the car in the next lane.
With Goodyear Eagle, Firestone, Comp T/A, Michelin, etc. the car will feel like it has low tire pressure when compared to the OE tires, and a quick lane change will give a *** wind-up/sling-shot ***effect before the car starts to go into the next lane.

Rear End
1991-1992 Factory Rear alignment with OEM tires
The original factory alignment specs for the rear were designed to provide maximum performance at the expensive of shorter tire life.
Total toe: 6mm +/- 1mm
Camber: -1 deg 30 min +/- 30min (-1.5 deg +/- 0.5 deg)
1993+ Factory Rear alignment with OEM tires
After a class action lawsuit about what they considered to be premature tire wear, the rear alignment settings were changed. With less rear toe, the rear tires last longer. There is no reason you can't run the original '91-'92 settings if ultimate performance is the goal and tire life is not a primary concern.
Total toe: 4mm +/- 1mm*
Camber: -1 deg 30 min +/- 30min (-1.5 deg +/- 0.5 deg)
*The only change to any of the settings was for the rear toe in 1993.
Alternative rear alignment with OEM tires
Running 1.5mm toe-in per side seems to provide even tire wear on the rear tires and makes them last even longer. Again, but further reducing rear toe there is some performance tradeoff.

Total toe: 3mm
Camber: -1 degree
What the rear tires are doing:
The rear tires pull in (RR pulls to the left, LR pulls to the right) slightly to follow the alignment settings. The purpose of this is to remove the compliance or "slop" associated with moving parts, (ball joints, tie rod ends, pivot points, etc.) AND to help keep the rear of the car tucked IN when in turns.
 
Last edited:
Here's some good info I found on Prime.

http://www.nsxprime.com/wiki/Alignment

What Are The Factory Alignment Settings?

Front End
Factory front alignment (ALL years):
Total toe: -3.5mm +/- 1mm
Camber: -20 min +/- 30min (-0.33 deg +/- 0.5 deg)
Caster: 8 deg.
Alternative front alignment with OEM tires (ALL years):
[KJ] The front tires typically wear out on the inside long before the outside is worn. Reducing or even removing the front toe-out and minimizing the camber improves the tire wear, at the cost of some turn-in crispness and, high speed stability. Even with no camber or toe, the front Yokos would wear on the inside due to their internal bias that pre-tensions them for turning. The rears have the opposite bias, so negative camber acts to balance the wear between outside and inside.
Total toe: -2.5mm
Camber: 00.00 degree
Caster: 8deg. Caster does not wear tires.
What the front tires do:
The front tires pull out (RF pulls to the right, LF pulls to the left) slightly to follow the alignment settings. The purpose of this is to remove the compliance or "slop" associated with moving parts, (ball joints, tie rod ends, pivot points, etc.) Each tire slips sideways 1.75mm with each revolution.
The Toe is there to make the car push (understeer) slightly. The camber on the front is to give you a better rubber patch on the ground when turning. The car wants the tire go straight when the alignment setting makes the tire want to turn, thus, (simplified) the car is dragging the inside of the tire more than the outside. and wearing the inside. Hard cornering does not effect wear as much as straight line driving.
What you feel when driving:
With the Yoko-Bridgestone tire and the stock settings, going down the freeway at 70 mph, a slight tug on the steering wheel would put the car in the next lane.
With Goodyear Eagle, Firestone, Comp T/A, Michelin, etc. the car will feel like it has low tire pressure when compared to the OE tires, and a quick lane change will give a *** wind-up/sling-shot ***effect before the car starts to go into the next lane.

Rear End
1991-1992 Factory Rear alignment with OEM tires
The original factory alignment specs for the rear were designed to provide maximum performance at the expensive of shorter tire life.
Total toe: 6mm +/- 1mm
Camber: -1 deg 30 min +/- 30min (-1.5 deg +/- 0.5 deg)
1993+ Factory Rear alignment with OEM tires
After a class action lawsuit about what they considered to be premature tire wear, the rear alignment settings were changed. With less rear toe, the rear tires last longer. There is no reason you can't run the original '91-'92 settings if ultimate performance is the goal and tire life is not a primary concern.
Total toe: 4mm +/- 1mm*
Camber: -1 deg 30 min +/- 30min (-1.5 deg +/- 0.5 deg)
*The only change to any of the settings was for the rear toe in 1993.
Alternative rear alignment with OEM tires
Running 1.5mm toe-in per side seems to provide even tire wear on the rear tires and makes them last even longer. Again, but further reducing rear toe there is some performance tradeoff.

Total toe: 3mm
Camber: -1 degree
What the rear tires are doing:
The rear tires pull in (RR pulls to the left, LR pulls to the right) slightly to follow the alignment settings. The purpose of this is to remove the compliance or "slop" associated with moving parts, (ball joints, tie rod ends, pivot points, etc.) AND to help keep the rear of the car tucked IN when in turns.
??? Don't quite understand half of what was said. I don't believe it to be well written, clear, or technically accurate.

Its important to keep in mind the tire technology and sizing especially when looking at early model alignment specs. Early cars had relatively narrow 205/225 width tires with taller sidewalls than later model/aftermarket setups. Tire technology has improved significantly in the past decade, that combined with the use of wider, larger wheels with smaller profiles make said alignment specs somewhat irrelevant.

With modern, wide rear tires that have smaller profiles, less rear toe is necessary, since rear grip is improved substantially over the stock 225 width tire. Anything over -2.5 to -2.7 in the rear will cause excess inside tire wear on cars that are not cornered hard/daily/freeway driven. 1/4" (roughly 4-5mm total rear toe-in) is a lot. I wouldn't use this much on a daily driven/non-tracked car that has wider than stock rear tires.

I'm not sure about -0.5* of camber causing excessive front inside tire wear even for freeway use. Zero front toe will make the car 'darty' or 'sharper' while causing it to follow/track the grooves in the road. Some front toe out will add some stability and reduce this.

0.02
 
Lowering the car also increases negative camber.
 
I'm running 17x40x235 on the fronts currently, 1" lower.

Its important to keep in mind the tire technology and sizing especially when looking at early model alignment specs. Early cars had relatively narrow 205/225 width tires with taller sidewalls than later model/aftermarket setups. Tire technology has improved significantly in the past decade, that combined with the use of wider, larger wheels with smaller profiles make said alignment specs somewhat irrelevant.

With modern, wide rear tires that have smaller profiles, less rear toe is necessary, since rear grip is improved substantially over the stock 225 width tire.
 
I know, I've driven your car.

235/40-17 ;)

I'm running 17x40x235 on the fronts currently, 1" lower.

Its important to keep in mind the tire technology and sizing especially when looking at early model alignment specs. Early cars had relatively narrow 205/225 width tires with taller sidewalls than later model/aftermarket setups. Tire technology has improved significantly in the past decade, that combined with the use of wider, larger wheels with smaller profiles make said alignment specs somewhat irrelevant.

With modern, wide rear tires that have smaller profiles, less rear toe is necessary, since rear grip is improved substantially over the stock 225 width tire.
 
Coz / Billy, I need some consultation on my vehicles setup.

Mainly on swaybars. Im running 91 spec alignment with NT01's
F 235/40/R17, Rear 275/40/R17
SOS swaybars. Rear in softest setting, front in Middle Setting.
Installing non comp links asap.

Car pushes HEAVILY in the front, rear is like glue, little to no rotation.

Any suggestions?

-Ravi, #399... Trying to setup for TTD star.
Car is DD's a bit but not often. So not overly concerned about excessive wear.
 
Last edited:
Alright i searched around and didnt find really any answers and if i did they were from 04.

on the alignment I want something that will be able to drive daily but I track and auto x every chance I can. Im not to worried about tire life as long its not some setup going to eat them in 1500 miles lol. I have had all my cars setup with fairly aggressive alignment but each car is different so help me out primers

suspension is on tein flexes moderate lowering.

thanks

If you run street tires, go with the '91 toe but with the same camber front and rear (-1.5 to -2.0).

If you run r-tires, go with -3.0° camber all round. Stiffer sways would be a plus.
 
Caroline-NSX hooked me up with my own "customized" alignment.

I didn't want to start a whole new thread, but you track guys, can you tell me your thoughts on my new alignment specs? I have added more negative camber in the front, as I noticed the tire rolling out of grip in the corners, now it feels much better in the turns and can physically feel the front's increased grip. Is this a pretty good track alignment? I'm not interested in tire wear too much, I'm aware this is not the best for tires, I'm interested in grip, stability, feel, etc. Car gets driven mostly on the street but briskly and with spirited drives out to twistie farm roads, I will soon also be tracking it just to get a baseline but it won't be a track rat.
I'm open to any opinions, examples, suggestions, recommendations, etc.

before


After
 
Last edited:
That looks like you have toe-in in the front? .. thats not correct. The car should have toe out in the front. That makes a huge difference in the way the car turns.

Bernhard
 
That looks like you have toe-in in the front? .. thats not correct. The car should have toe out in the front. That makes a huge difference in the way the car turns.

Bernhard
In terms of TOE I agree, very slight toe IN in the rear, plus a little toe OUT in the front will feel the best on the track.

Basically, maximize the mechanical front grip......then tune the rear for balance.

But, listen to Coz and Billy first and foremost!

Brian
 
I have seen that there are wrong numbers in those alignment computers for our cars. I have an alignment sheet for my car saying it should have 6° caster which is wrong. Look at the service manual. There are the correct specs listed but I think they are more or less what Coz wrote.

Bernhard
 
the car should have a little toe out..or- in front as has been said.the big confusion is some machines use degrees or radians and others use the easier to comprehend mm.
 
Back
Top