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

Alignment Spec vs Tire Wear

Joined
5 November 2002
Messages
3,487
Location
MN
So if I did a search correctly there are 3 OEM alignment specs.

1) 91-94 Spec which is moderately aggressive

2) 02+ spec which is fairly balanced

3) -R spec which is most aggressive

When I dug into a Hunter machine today the specs were the same for 91-05. Is this because they changed the original 91-94 spec because of complaints on tire wear?

Questions:

1) Anyone know the original 91-94 spec?

2) Those running the -R spec, are your front tires lasting you more than 5-7k miles?

3) Does anyone have a happy medium spec that (for an OEM ride height) is a nice compromise between handling (more aggressive than OEM) and tire wear?

THANK YOU ALL
 
Here is what Hunter said for 91-05

Front:

Left Camber -0.33
Right Camber -0.33
Caster 8 degrees
Total Toe -3.5mm

Rear:

Camber -1.50
Total Toe 4.00mm
 
I have a similiar question.

My question is, what exactly IS the specs in the hunter machine? As in, did they stick with the 91-92 or later?

Sorry, I read your question wrong. My belief is that the machine shows the LATER spec and replaced the earlier, more aggressive one, with the soft/neutral late spec.

Make sense?

I only say this because I know its not the other way around.
 
Here is what Hunter said for 91-05

Front:

Left Camber -0.33
Right Camber -0.33
Caster 8 degrees
Total Toe -3.5mm

Rear:

Camber -1.50
Total Toe 4.00mm


i believe the only difference for 91-93 is the rear toe was changed from 6.00mm (91-93)to 4.00mm (94-05)
 
There is only one alignment spec for the US market NSX, and it is the recommended spec for all years.

When the NSX was first introduced for '91, the recommended alignment spec was a bit more aggressive, with 6 mm of rear toe. In '93, as a result of litigation involving owners unhappy with rapid rear tire wear, Acura changed the recommended rear toe from 6 mm to 4 mm, which improved tire wear at the expense of a slight degradation in handling. The recommendation was made retroactive to the previous years as well.
 
Last edited:
I used to downplay the loss in handling as in no big deal, it handles so well you won't notice much. Now, I spend thousands trying to improve my handling..... sheesh.
 
I got a set of cheap tires on my car during my second round.

Front is still good and it has 35k miles on it, and I can still probably put another 10 on it.

My rear lasted 25k miles before I changed it.

ES100 if you're willing sacrafice little handling to save money.

Since I don't drive much any more, I'll go with more aggresive tires when it is ready for the next round.
 
Back
Top