A little toe out up front will help with turn in, you might give it a shot. Does increase tire wear though.

 

You know what's the best racing mod you can do for your car? Go to a performance driving school or attend Solo 1 or 2 driving clinics. It's not the car you should be worried about, it's yourself.

 

Does anyone run non-standard alignment specs on your 3G for racing purposes? I finally put the rear camber bolts on my car and got it aligned today. I am thinking about going back to zero out toe and minimize rear camber. Since I didn't tell them otherwise, they just centered averything up within spec.

where/how much did you get the cambers from?? I kinda need em too.

 

where/how much did you get the cambers from?? I kinda need em too.

http://www.roadraceengineering.com/3gsuspension.htm

 

A little toe out up front will help with turn in, you might give it a shot. Does increase tire wear though.

That's sound advice but you don't really want to do this on a daily-driven car. When we say toe changes (especially toe out) increases tire wear, we are not implying that it's a marginal increase.

 

An eighth inch of toe-out will scrub your tires pretty good, that said I drive mine that way on the street all the time. Replace my tires about 20,000 miles or so--they still have tread on the outside edges, not a whole lot but some, while the insides are bald. Depends on what you want to do with the car.

 

The car is a daily driver, albeit of limited milage. It is a '00 and still has less than 50K. But Ecsta MX don't last very long to begin with when both my wife and I are racing it in auto-x and open lap twice a month, I don't want to kill them even faster. As I said, I will probably go for neutral toe.

I am more interested in the effects of camber. Due to the ProKit suspension, I had about 2.5deg of negative camber in the rear. After installing the camber bolts and having it realigned, that is now down to 1.4deg of negative (spec being .8 to 1.8 negative). The car definitely feels more lively and responsive. Obviously there is diminishing returns here. If you zero out camber you hurt would hurt performance. Has anyone taken rear camber down to .8deg negative, or less?

You know what's the best racing mod you can do for your car? Go to a performance driving school or attend Solo 1 or 2 driving clinics. It's not the car you should be worried about, it's yourself.

A very valid point, completely irrelevant to the question I asked.

 

The car is a daily driver, albeit of limited milage. It is a '00 and still has less than 50K. But Ecsta MX don't last very long to begin with when both my wife and I are racing it in auto-x and open lap twice a month, I don't want to kill them even faster. As I said, I will probably go for neutral toe.

I am more interested in the effects of camber. Due to the ProKit suspension, I had about 2.5deg of negative camber in the rear. After installing the camber bolts and having it realigned, that is now down to 1.4deg of negative (spec being .8 to 1.8 negative). The car definitely feels more lively and responsive. Obviously there is diminishing returns here. If you zero out camber you hurt would hurt performance. Has anyone taken rear camber down to .8deg negative, or less?

Negative camber in the rear has a negative affect on your performance. The more negative camber you have back there, the less contact patch you have with your rear tires leading to lessened grip. Incorporating negative camber in the front tires is to compensate for your wheels leaning towards positive camber when turning. This is why road racing vehicles have so much negative camber in the front. Lessening grip in the rear as with negative camber leads to increased lift-throttle oversteer and also forces the front tires to work harder.

A very valid point, completely irrelevant to the question I asked.

No, it's not irrelevant. Realize that more often than not, novices to racing tend to concentrate on lesser issues with modding or tweaking and not enough time on the most important aspect of racing: technique. I seriously doubt that your skills match that of your car's current handling limits to the point that you would see an appreciable difference by adjusting your alignment.

 

No, it's not irrelevant. Realize that more often than not, novices to racing tend to concentrate on lesser issues with modding or tweaking and not enough time on the most important aspect of racing: technique. I seriously doubt that your skills match that of your car's current handling limits to the point that you would see an appreciable difference by adjusting your alignment.

That's because you have no idea what my driving experience or skill are.

 

That's because you have no idea what my driving experience or skill are.

The fact that you're asking about "racing alignments" and "negative camber in the rear" clues me in a little bit, guy. Those are novice questions any skilled club racer that turns a wrench on his own vehicle should already know. Please stop taking offense to my words because they're not exactly what you want us to tell you; you're missing the forest for the trees.

 

You're killing me here. You have yet to answer any question I have asked (in this or any other racing thread), despite the fact that you are apparently the all-knowing racer guy. You also continue to provide advice that I didn't ask for and already know.

So help me out, have you adjusted suspension outside of factory specs or not (the original question)? Have you reduced rear camber to between 0 and .8deg negative (the second question)? If not, just tell me you have no useful information to provide on this subject. Or better yet don't post in the thread if you don't have any pertinent information to offer.

Right back at ya

 

You're killing me here. You have yet to answer any question I have asked (in this or any other racing thread), despite the fact that you are apparently the all-knowing racer guy. You also continue to provide advice that I didn't ask for and already know.

So help me out, have you adjusted suspension outside of factory specs or not (the original question)? Have you reduced rear camber to between 0 and .8deg negative (the second question)? If not, just tell me you have no useful information to provide on this subject. Or better yet don't post in the thread if you don't have any pertinent information to offer.

Right back at ya

Did you miss my entire post about negative camber in the rear? I think it answered your question quite succinctly. Heed it or heed it not, I care not.

From my personal experience, I've driven a 240sx with camber in the rear as far out of spec as -1.4 and it did naught for me but make my rear end squirrelly; an effect that, again, I stated in my earlier post will happen from a lack of tire contact patch. A few of the Spec Miata guys advocate negative camber in the rear, some do not, I myself do not see much, if any, benefit.

 

I added camber bolts, to rectify the -2.5deg resulting from the suspension change. I am down to -1.3deg , factory tolerance is -0.8 to -1.8deg.

So you are saying you had rear camber as low as -1.4deg? Or were you 1.4deg negative beyond factory spec (like -3.0, or more)? I am unclear as to what you are trying to describe.

You are also talking about a rear wheel drive car, the info will be less relevant to a FWD car.

 

No, it was -1.4 degrees from 0 camber. And I disagree that what I say is much less relevant; lack of contact patch is lack of contact patch.

 

Negative camber in the rear has a negative affect on your performance. The more negative camber you have back there, the less contact patch you have with your rear tires leading to lessened grip. Incorporating negative camber in the front tires is to compensate for your wheels leaning towards positive camber when turning. This is why road racing vehicles have so much negative camber in the front. Lessening grip in the rear as with negative camber leads to increased lift-throttle oversteer and also forces the front tires to work harder.

Ummm, wrong. In case you didn't notice, the rear of the car rolls, also. That means that adding negative camber in the rear will add grip in cornering, for exactly the same reason that adding negative camber up front adds cornering grip - the static negative camber counters the dynamic camber gain due to body roll. I will 100%, absolutely, positively guarantee you that if you took an Eclipse with -2.5* rear camber (as mko9 started with) and then set it to 0* rear camber the car would be looser in the corners. As soon as you enter a corner the rear tires would be into positive camber (due to roll) and they're losing traction. Not good.

As a somewhat obscure example of a manufacturer taking advantage of this, take a look at a Saab 9-5. They have significantly more negative camber in the rear, so much so that it's plainly visible to the naked eye. All that negative camber in the rear ensures that the car remains biased towards understeer, so the granola-crunching soccer moms who drive them don't swap ends as they approach a highway off-ramp a bit hot.

Hey, look, it's a FWD BTCC Touring car with rear camber! They must have dialed that in to make it grip less, because traction is bad in racing!

Hey, look, it's a RWD BTCC Touring car with lots of rear camber! Wow, those guys are insane the way they purposely sacrifice their performance by dialing in lots of rear camber!!

Live axle race cars (Mustangs, Camarobirds, etc) often have the outer tubes welded onto the center pumpkin with permanent negative camber (if the race specs allow them to do that). It makes the bearings wear out more quickly, because the axles are now running through the outer bearings at a slight angle, but it gives them more grip in the corners and the bearings can be easily replaced after a race or two.

 

I will 100%, absolutely, positively guarantee you that if you took an Eclipse with -2.5* rear camber (as mko9 started with) and then set it to 0* rear camber the car would be looser in the corners. As soon as you enter a corner the rear tires would be into positive camber (due to roll) and they're losing traction. Not good.

I can personally attest to this as I lowered my car with the KYB/Eibach Prokit without a rear camber kit. My rear camber was about -1.5 on each side. With crappy tires, the rear still stayed put during spirited driving. When I got to Cali, a rear camber kit was finally installed on the rear essentially zeroing out the negative camber in the rear. I could immediately tell that the rear end was loser when pushed harder. All of this was without the st sway bar which I put on after the rear camber kit. At that point, the car to me felt much like it did without the bar, but with the negative rear camber.

To sum it up from my personal experiences;
-Stock sway bar/camber = "loose"
-Stock sway bar/lowered/negative rear camber = better
-Stock sway bar/lowered/no negative camber = not as better
-ST sway bar/lowered/no negative camber = better then better
-ST sway bar/JICs/no negative camber = sex on wheels as far as the 3G is concerned
-ST sway bar/JICs/Fully Muellerized = something better than sex on wheels as far as the 3G is concerned


Just as a side note, this is all street/normal driving, not on the track or crushing cones.

 

I'll concede that a little negative camber in the rear could be beneficial to counteract body roll but -2.5 degrees worth? Put down the crack pipe, dude.

And I didn't advocate 0 camber. Your car should still stay within spec with camber in the rear even if you have it biased negatively. We're talking street cars here, PNOgoof, not race cars.

 

Thinking about this:

If you add negative camber and in a corner, it plants almost all the tire's footprint onto the ground right? Traction=good

But, on a FWD car, it should make the back grip more. Thinking about it, that's not such a good thing as it'll attribute to understeer. Well that is, unless the rest of the suspension is set keeping that in mind. Any thoughts?

(thread pissing contest -> discussion please)

 

More grip in the rear lessens understeer because the front tires are doing less work to keep the chassis planted. My entire point in this thread hasn't been zero camber in the rear; it's that excessive negative camber in the back is detrimental in a street car. The rear tires only rollover so much. You'll see them on race cars because those cars have tuned racing suspensions, fat rims and slicks that have grip to spare. Most AutoX and road course weekend racers do not.

 

Don't circuit track slicks have super stiff sidewalls to begin with?

I'm thinking from the other side of the pencil here. If you have more grip in the back, that should stress your front tires more :scratch:

 

Don't circuit track slicks have super stiff sidewalls to begin with?

I'm thinking from the other side of the pencil here. If you have more grip in the back, that should stress your front tires more :scratch:

I can kinda see what you're saying but that's assuming that there is greater grip in the back than in the front, as in the case of the 350Z stock. Because of the skinnier front tires, the car understeers at the limit. But I don't believe that that is the case where the front tires are the same width as the rear.

 

(thread pissing contest -> discussion please)

To sum up, this is all about reducing negative camber in the rear, and how little is too little. What few facts I have:

Installing the Eibach Prokit and Koni reds resulted in -2.2 and -2.5deg of camber in the rear.
According to Sears, the desired range is -0.8 to -1.8deg.
After installing the Eibach camber kit and having the car realigned by Sears, they set it at -1.2 and -1.3. Pretty much in the center of the accepted range.

The question is has anyone had their Eclipse aligned to less? And how low can you go before you start hurting more than helping? Presumably, you can safely go down to -0.8deg. Mitsubishi would not set that as the minimum if it did not still fall within what they consider safe (understeer). But I don't think I will be able to get back to Sears before Super Lap on Saturday, so we'll have to find out later.

 

last alignment, had all four done 1% neg., seems to work good for me!

track & street.

 

Thinking about this:

If you add negative camber and in a corner, it plants almost all the tire's footprint onto the ground right? Traction=good

But, on a FWD car, it should make the back grip more. Thinking about it, that's not such a good thing as it'll attribute to understeer. Well that is, unless the rest of the suspension is set keeping that in mind. Any thoughts?

That's exactly right. Notice in the 2 pics I posted that the Bimmer is running a lot more negative camber in the rear than the FWD car (Rover? Something Euro...). A RWD car wants to plant the rear tire nice and flat to be able to power out of the corner. The FWD car probably is prone to understeer at the limit, so uses less rear camber (hence less mid-corner grip in the rear) to allow the car to rotate.

Of course, as you've pointed out, rear camber is far from the only factor that determines cornering balance. Front/rear spring rates, swaybars, weight distribution, roll center heights, tire pressures, etc all affect the cornering balance. Rear camber is one of the pretty easy ones to fiddle with, assuming you've done the camber kit like mko9 has.

More grip in the rear lessens understeer because the front tires are doing less work to keep the chassis planted.

...as in the case of the 350Z stock. Because of the skinnier front tires, the car understeers at the limit.

Could you please reconcile these two statements? They seem to directly contradict each other. (I'll give you a hint - the first statement is wrong.)

I'll concede that a little negative camber in the rear could be beneficial to counteract body roll but -2.5 degrees worth? Put down the crack pipe, dude.

Show me where I advocated -2.5* as being a good thing to have? I simply mentioned -2.5* because mko9 said that's where his alignment ended up after installing the lowering springs and camber kit.

I agree that -2.5* is very excessive for a street car, and will chew up the inner shoulders of the rear tires pretty quickly. I also agree that 0* camber is not a good idea - the car would probably be pretty squirelly in cornering, and you'd probably wear the outside shoulders of the tires (assuming one was doing any sort of aggressive driving).

The PNO

 

Thank you PNO. I was going to step in here but I didn't think I would be heard. I've been running about -2.5 front and about -1 rear for a few auto-x events and the car feels MUCH better than it did before. This is on a stock suspension, mind you, and the car will still understeer, but it feels much better. Only reason I'm running that much front is because I hate my tires and don't care if I kill them :lmfao: