Alignment Specs

[MOMSPH]

Just recently had my rebuilt EPS rack installed and so naturally, i had to adjust the cambers, toe and alignment.

The shop used the hunter oem specs for my 1998 but it felt a little unresponsive (understeer) on the highway. Should I use the Type S settings instead? Or can anyone suggest a more suitable setting?

i am using an 18" fr 19" rr

thank you.

 

[djp5]

You should check the wiki for the alignment spec and take a printout to your shop. It looks like some of the tolerance ranges they have on the printout are incorrect. To add more response you could try more front toe out - I think you are out of spec now. i would not touch the rear toe because any less rear toe in could give you oversteer. While they are dong the front you might also want to ask the, for more camber. Good luck!

 

[MOMSPH]

Thank you!!

 

[docjohn]

those are not 91 spec.....you could use a little more neg camber in front.

 

[Kenwould]

Now that I have new tires and wheels on my car I need to take it for an alignment. I have been noticing that my rears are wearing in the center much faster than the outside. My car was aligned spec and rode great. I know the NSX is notorious for tire wear issues. Do you have specs that would correct for the camber in the back?

I know the thread mentions the Wiki but I wanted to go to the forum to make sure I get it right this time for the new S Drives.

Thanks,

Ken

 

[jwmelvin]

I have been noticing that my rears are wearing in the center much faster than the outside.

That indicates your tire pressure is too high. The alignment you want will depend a lot on how you drive the car, in that more gentle driving will do better with less camber.

 

[Kenwould]

I am a fanatic when it comes to tire pressure. I run the backs at 40.

The Wiki says that the 93 configuration is better for rear tire wear. My fronts have lasted over two sets of backs. I am just looking for the best specs to give the mechanic. It sounds like it is the 93 configuration:

Front Total Toe: -3.5mm +/- 1mm
Front Camber: -20 min +/- 30min (-0.33 deg +/- 0.5 deg)
Front Caster: 8 deg
Rear Total Toe: 3mm +/- 1mm
Rear Camber: -1 deg 30 min +/- 30min (-1.5 deg +/- 0.5 deg)

 

[jwmelvin]

I am a fanatic when it comes to tire pressure. I run the backs at 40.

Your tires are not the stock tires. Your rear pressure is obviously too high if you have center wear.

I am just looking for the best [alignment] specs to give the mechanic.

Best for what?

 

[Kenwould]

There is no significant center wear. This is the inside edge.

 

[Kenwould]

I'm just looking to lengthen the life of my rear tires.

if it were center wear it would be easy.

I just need to know if the 93 configuration is optimal for rear tire wear for spirited street driving and occasional long road trips.

 

[kennyvb]

You'll want zero toe in the rear if you're significantly wearing on the inners.

 

[jwmelvin]

Oh, you said center and meant inside. That confused me. If you have inside wear then yes like kennyvb said, minimize the toe. That was the big change between the initial and revised specs. It’s fine to run zero toe.

 

[Kenwould]

So is there a set of specs I can give the mechanic to accomplish this?

 

[jwmelvin]

So is there a set of specs I can give the mechanic to accomplish this?

Go with the ‘93 specs you listed above. Bust ask him to go for closer to zero toe. Like 1-2 mm total; -out in front (negative toe) and -in in back (positive toe). For gentle driving like you seem to be targeting I’d probably use -0.5 deg front camber and -1.5 deg rear camber, assuming you are close to stock ride height and can hit those numbers. My car I have at -1.2 front and -2.5 rear camber, with ~1.5 mm toe (front out, rear in).

 

[Kenwould]

Thank you for the input. I will pass it to my mechanic and make sure we are at 93 specs with your suggestions.

Ken

 

[nsxspdfreak]

If your car is lowered a -1.5 rear camber will probably be difficult to obtain without installing adjustable camber bushings in the ream main beam.

 

[Kenwould]

I believe my car is slightly lower. I have Eibach springs all around.

My only concern is the rears. Front tire wear has been minimal with one set outlasting two sets in the rear. From my reading of the Wiki it looks like the 93 configuration largely resolved the wear issues in the rear. I will talk it over with my mechanic. I appreciate all of your input in this. Now that my car has new S Drives I want to optimize their performance and longevity. Should I ask to get as close to -1.5 on the rears as possible?

 

[nsxspdfreak]

I believe my car is slightly lower. I have Eibach springs all around.

My only concern is the rears. Front tire wear has been minimal with one set outlasting two sets in the rear. From my reading of the Wiki it looks like the 93 configuration largely resolved the wear issues in the rear. I will talk it over with my mechanic. I appreciate all of your input in this. Now that my car has new S Drives I want to optimize their performance and longevity. Should I ask to get as close to -1.5 on the rears as possible?

See how close the shop can get those spec's on the rear. You'll know right away if you need to get the rear main beam mod. My car was lowered Eibach springs, but is now on coil overs at approximately the same height. I just had the alignment done and it just barely made the -1.5 camber spec with the Cedar Ridge camber bushings.

 

[Kenwould]

Thank you for the input. Hope to have this done next week.

 

[stuntman]

Don't do zero toe in the rear. Have some toe in. Also if you want improved initial steering turn-in response, you can try toe-IN at the front. Also I agree on -0.5* front camber.

 

[Kenwould]

Larry B and I had a lengthy chat. I am going to stick with the 93 specs. I took the car out last week and it was perfect. I may double check with my mechanic but I would like to whats best to be me and the car on the road. If I have to go through rears so be it.

My brother's Porsche 996 chews through them to. I think it is a function of the mid engine rear wheel drive.

 

[Wavey1]

I was just going to do a search on correct alignment specs, so thanks for this guys!

My car is a '92 but with '96 wheels, running 205/50-16 fronts and 245/45-17 rears. Can I assume the standard '93 specs are still the best to use? Mainly aggressive street/country road/highway use.

 

[Wavey1]

I just had the alignment done using the '93-later specs and had really good results. Rear toe is a little assymetrical but I'm good with it. The car tracks straighter, is less darty, turn-in is even both sides and predictable, and it just feels right. Glad I did it and thanks for this thread.

 

[goldNSX]

Toe eats tires mainly. Total toe of +3 mm is a good compromise in the rear while I think that -2 mm of total toe in the front is aggressive enough. My pro wanted to go with zero toe in the front so I went with 1-1.5 mm as a compromise.

The factory specs are for the race track any many dealers in my country went back to much more conservative specs.

 

[Jinks]

What do you guys think of these specs? This is what Shad had done on the car. Obviously, the rears will wear fast.View attachment 151790