so is this a good alignment? *pic*
so is this a good alignment? *pic*
I just got back from Sears Auto Center to get my new EVO 06 RS aligned (1,000 miles, bought it less than 2 weeks ago) because it kept on tilting to the right when driving on the highway.
Here's the printout (it says 03-05 evos but I called the dealer and he said the specs were the same for the 06):
Is this decent enough or should I go tell them to redo it??
btw- car is completely stock.
Thanks guys!
Here's the printout (it says 03-05 evos but I called the dealer and he said the specs were the same for the 06):
Is this decent enough or should I go tell them to redo it??
btw- car is completely stock.
Thanks guys!
Your front left and right rear toe settings were really screwed up before, which was the main reason your car was pushing right.
But it looks fine now. What part aren't you happy with?
But it looks fine now. What part aren't you happy with?
Last edited by aklucsarits; Sep 7, 2006 at 02:57 PM.
Originally Posted by aklucsarits
Your front left and right rear toe settings were really screwed up before, which was the main reason your car was pushing right.
But it looks fine now. What part aren't you happy with?
But it looks fine now. What part aren't you happy with?
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 136
Likes: 1
From: Mankato, MN
Looks good to me. It has a little more toe in in the rear than I would give it but should still handle great and the tires should wear well. I actually do alignments for Sears. I just alignemd my car and I set it to -1 degree of camber all around and close to 0 toe at all four and have been really happy with the way it handles.
Evolving Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
From: Adelaide, South Australia
Originally Posted by aklucsarits
Your front left and right rear toe settings were really screwed up before, which was the main reason your car was pushing right.
the 'total' toe was better before the alignment, and your cross camber is not within the range. But realistically those values are as close as ever will be required
Dont stress its fine!!when you can go into a suspension place maybe get them to do a bit more of a performance focus.
BTW i thought did change some alignment values Evo 8 to 9 because the SAYC system changed (not applicable to you if in US) but also, the ride height changed....which generally changes geometry a little.
I'd always tend to go with -.8 or threabouts camber on the rears and -1.1camber on the fronts along with MAX castor and yeah a low amount of toe,
still it will be a good alignment man....did they get your steering wheel straight/centered?
thats always a plus !!Trav
Trending Topics
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 136
Likes: 1
From: Mankato, MN
Originally Posted by troe666
Huh? His 'before' toe settings were closer to the spec than how they were adjusted to afterwards, actually, if you read the alignment. And none of those 'before' settings were 'totally screwed'.???
the 'total' toe was better before the alignment, and your cross camber is not within the range. But realistically those values are as close as ever will be required Dont stress its fine!!
when you can go into a suspension place maybe get them to do a bit more of a performance focus.
BTW i thought did change some alignment values Evo 8 to 9 because the SAYC system changed (not applicable to you if in US) but also, the ride height changed....which generally changes geometry a little.
I'd always tend to go with -.8 or threabouts camber on the rears and -1.1camber on the fronts along with MAX castor and yeah a low amount of toe,
still it will be a good alignment man....did they get your steering wheel straight/centered? thats always a plus !!
Trav
the 'total' toe was better before the alignment, and your cross camber is not within the range. But realistically those values are as close as ever will be required
Dont stress its fine!!when you can go into a suspension place maybe get them to do a bit more of a performance focus.
BTW i thought did change some alignment values Evo 8 to 9 because the SAYC system changed (not applicable to you if in US) but also, the ride height changed....which generally changes geometry a little.
I'd always tend to go with -.8 or threabouts camber on the rears and -1.1camber on the fronts along with MAX castor and yeah a low amount of toe,
still it will be a good alignment man....did they get your steering wheel straight/centered?
thats always a plus !!Trav
his before toe numbers were way off spec, except for the left rear, which was set to the right rear to give him 0 thrust angle.
Evolving Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
From: Adelaide, South Australia
yeah the toe was more of a mixed bag really...
FL: 'Spec' is -0.08`. Before, his was -0.10`. That's a difference of only -0.02` to spec.
Yet after it was set to 0.01'. That's a difference of -0.09`, which also puts it out of the spec and out of the range (range is 0.08` from spec -0.08` meaning -0.08` to 0 is acceptable). Thus before, it was in spec and close to exact and now it's out of spec and range.
FR: 'Spec' is -0.08'. Before, his was set to 0.06'. That's a difference of +0.16'. That's out!
It was changed to 0.01', bringing it to within +0.09' of spec. That's still outside the acceptable range, but
+0.09 is closer than +0.16 like it was before.
RL: 'Spec' is 0.04'. Before, his was set to 0.04'. That's exactly right. This was changed, to 0.14', still within
the range (0.04' to 0.24') but 0.10' out of spec.
RR: 'Spec' is 0.04'. Before, his was set to .23'. Thats out by 0.19'. This was changed (as it should have been) to within the range, 0.14'. However, was the RL adjusted to .14' to match this sides minimum value? because otherwise both rears shouldve been taken to 0.04' since RL was already there. But if RR couldnt go that far, it did make sense to even up RL.
UPDATE: Sorry just read your post, hehe yep you evened them out. nice
Overall, a decent alignment, its an improvement in most areas and generally tightened things up. I cant see clearly on the printout due to the circling of the rear camber values but was that running positive camber before the alignment?? hope not lol! run 0 or a touch of negative as is showing in actual now.
FL: 'Spec' is -0.08`. Before, his was -0.10`. That's a difference of only -0.02` to spec.
Yet after it was set to 0.01'. That's a difference of -0.09`, which also puts it out of the spec and out of the range (range is 0.08` from spec -0.08` meaning -0.08` to 0 is acceptable). Thus before, it was in spec and close to exact and now it's out of spec and range.
FR: 'Spec' is -0.08'. Before, his was set to 0.06'. That's a difference of +0.16'. That's out!
It was changed to 0.01', bringing it to within +0.09' of spec. That's still outside the acceptable range, but
+0.09 is closer than +0.16 like it was before.
RL: 'Spec' is 0.04'. Before, his was set to 0.04'. That's exactly right. This was changed, to 0.14', still within
the range (0.04' to 0.24') but 0.10' out of spec.
RR: 'Spec' is 0.04'. Before, his was set to .23'. Thats out by 0.19'. This was changed (as it should have been) to within the range, 0.14'. However, was the RL adjusted to .14' to match this sides minimum value? because otherwise both rears shouldve been taken to 0.04' since RL was already there. But if RR couldnt go that far, it did make sense to even up RL.
UPDATE: Sorry just read your post, hehe yep you evened them out. nice
Overall, a decent alignment, its an improvement in most areas and generally tightened things up. I cant see clearly on the printout due to the circling of the rear camber values but was that running positive camber before the alignment?? hope not lol!
run 0 or a touch of negative as is showing in actual now.
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 136
Likes: 1
From: Mankato, MN
Originally Posted by troe666
yeah the toe was more of a mixed bag really...
FL: 'Spec' is -0.08`. Before, his was -0.10`. That's a difference of only -0.02` to spec.
Yet after it was set to 0.01'. That's a difference of -0.09`, which also puts it out of the spec and out of the range (range is 0.08` from spec -0.08` meaning -0.08` to 0 is acceptable). Thus before, it was in spec and close to exact and now it's out of spec and range.
FR: 'Spec' is -0.08'. Before, his was set to 0.06'. That's a difference of +0.16'. That's out!
It was changed to 0.01', bringing it to within +0.09' of spec. That's still outside the acceptable range, but
+0.09 is closer than +0.16 like it was before.
RL: 'Spec' is 0.04'. Before, his was set to 0.04'. That's exactly right. This was changed, to 0.14', still within
the range (0.04' to 0.24') but 0.10' out of spec.
RR: 'Spec' is 0.04'. Before, his was set to .23'. Thats out by 0.19'. This was changed (as it should have been) to within the range, 0.14'. However, was the RL adjusted to .14' to match this sides minimum value? because otherwise both rears shouldve been taken to 0.04' since RL was already there. But if RR couldnt go that far, it did make sense to even up RL.
UPDATE: Sorry just read your post, hehe yep you evened them out. nice
Overall, a decent alignment, its an improvement in most areas and generally tightened things up. I cant see clearly on the printout due to the circling of the rear camber values but was that running positive camber before the alignment?? hope not lol! run 0 or a touch of negative as is showing in actual now.
FL: 'Spec' is -0.08`. Before, his was -0.10`. That's a difference of only -0.02` to spec.
Yet after it was set to 0.01'. That's a difference of -0.09`, which also puts it out of the spec and out of the range (range is 0.08` from spec -0.08` meaning -0.08` to 0 is acceptable). Thus before, it was in spec and close to exact and now it's out of spec and range.
FR: 'Spec' is -0.08'. Before, his was set to 0.06'. That's a difference of +0.16'. That's out!
It was changed to 0.01', bringing it to within +0.09' of spec. That's still outside the acceptable range, but
+0.09 is closer than +0.16 like it was before.
RL: 'Spec' is 0.04'. Before, his was set to 0.04'. That's exactly right. This was changed, to 0.14', still within
the range (0.04' to 0.24') but 0.10' out of spec.
RR: 'Spec' is 0.04'. Before, his was set to .23'. Thats out by 0.19'. This was changed (as it should have been) to within the range, 0.14'. However, was the RL adjusted to .14' to match this sides minimum value? because otherwise both rears shouldve been taken to 0.04' since RL was already there. But if RR couldnt go that far, it did make sense to even up RL.
UPDATE: Sorry just read your post, hehe yep you evened them out. nice
Overall, a decent alignment, its an improvement in most areas and generally tightened things up. I cant see clearly on the printout due to the circling of the rear camber values but was that running positive camber before the alignment?? hope not lol!
run 0 or a touch of negative as is showing in actual now.
Evolving Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
From: Adelaide, South Australia
ah you know, youre right, guess what i did (rofl), i looked at the words "Specified Range" and saw two seperate columns, SPEC and RANGE (lol lol) and i assumed SPEC was the specified value and RANGE was the tolerance 
not used to seeing that type of alignment printout, lol disregard half of my analysis since the spec and range values are off sorry!!
woops argh. <slides into hole in ground>
not used to seeing that type of alignment printout, lol disregard half of my analysis since the spec and range values are off sorry!!
woops argh. <slides into hole in ground>
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 136
Likes: 1
From: Mankato, MN
Originally Posted by troe666
ah you know, youre right, guess what i did (rofl), i looked at the words "Specified Range" and saw two seperate columns, SPEC and RANGE (lol lol) and i assumed SPEC was the specified value and RANGE was the tolerance
not used to seeing that type of alignment printout, lol disregard half of my analysis since the spec and range values are off sorry!!
woops argh. <slides into hole in ground>
not used to seeing that type of alignment printout, lol disregard half of my analysis since the spec and range values are off sorry!!
woops argh. <slides into hole in ground>
Don't worry about it. Its late and i've been drinking all night
I had to stop and think it over a few times before i posted.Anyways Infid3l; you got a good alignment. Drive the crap out of it
Originally Posted by Turd Squirter
Isn't there a warranty on the factory alignment for a year or something? If not I apologize for drinking to much tonight.
Any adjustments/corrections are free for 12months or 12000 miles.
so guys... I was driving on the freeway today again and I noticed... it still drifts towards the right... what can it be? I'm gonna check the tire pressure but I'm pretty sure that it'll be ok. Balancing perhaps?? Help... 