stuart2088 Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 I guess this is a question for Tony. Do you have the geometry settings for the above vehicle. Also is the rear camber adjustable? I have been told yes and been told no!!!!!1 Thank You. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 I can get the exact settings..... To my knowledge there is some OEM adjustment, failing that fitting a EZ cam #81260 will offer an additional +-1.75' adjustment range Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart2088 Posted March 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 I can get the exact settings..... To my knowledge there is some OEM adjustment, failing that fitting a EZ cam #81260 will offer an additional +-1.75' adjustment range Thanks for that.If you could whenever no rush. Just as i previously mentioned couldnt get in touch with you so took it to a Subaru independant for tyres and geometry. Pleased with service etc and car feels much better but being a fuss pot i would just like to check the results sheet i got against factory settings. Thanks Stuart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 I can get the exact settings..... To my knowledge there is some OEM adjustment, failing that fitting a EZ cam #81260 will offer an additional +-1.75' adjustment range Thanks for that.If you could whenever no rush. Just as i previously mentioned couldnt get in touch with you so took it to a Subaru independant for tyres and geometry. Pleased with service etc and car feels much better but being a fuss pot i would just like to check the results sheet i got against factory settings. Thanks Stuart. Can you display the Geometry report they gave you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart2088 Posted March 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Yes. I will give you the final settings after adjustment. Left Front. Camber -0 37" Right Front. Camber 0 39" Caster 5 42" Caster 5 44" Toe 0.4mm Toe 0.4mm SAI 13 34 SAI 13 54 Inc. Angle 12 56" Inc. Angle 13 15" Left Rear. Camber -0 14" Right Rear Camber -0 42" Toe 0.2 Toe 0.1mm Hope that makes sense couldnt scan it!!!!! If you want the before measurements i can oblige. Thanks Tony. " I WILL SEE YOU STRAIGHT WHEN I GET MY GLASSES" When i bring the mx5 in i will sort you out for your help. Thanks Regards Stuart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Sort nothing, this is what wim forum is for...... I assume there's a typo with the front camber position ns- os+?... other than that all there is, is a camber balance issue front rear but this is easily sorted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart2088 Posted March 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Apologies Tony F****D that up a bit. To Clarify the right front camber is minus ie -0 39" Left Rear Toe 0.1mm Right Rear Toe 0.2mm Stuart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Apologies Tony F****D that up a bit. To Clarify the right front camber is minus ie -0 39" Left Rear Toe 0.1mm Right Rear Toe 0.2mm Stuart. It all looks reasonable, albeit unbalanced.... I'll get the correct data tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart2088 Posted March 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Apologies Tony F****D that up a bit. To Clarify the right front camber is minus ie -0 39" Left Rear Toe 0.1mm Right Rear Toe 0.2mm Stuart. It all looks reasonable, albeit unbalanced.... I'll get the correct data tomorrow. Yes typo error for front both minus. I know he struggled with rear camber. Its above my head but as i understood it he said rear camber wasnt strictly adjustable but i think he got some adjustment via some bushes or something. Just been studying the figures and if you think there is some imbalance now there certainly was before adjustment. And thats how it left the factory. Only i drive it and no kerbing etc incidents although i appreciate potholes etc can affect. Thanks a lot anyway. S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Your welcome..... The chassis positions are good, you really don't need to worry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart2088 Posted March 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Your welcome..... The chassis positions are good, you really don't need to worry Nice one much appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I have these two on file depending on the year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart2088 Posted March 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I have these two on file depending on the year Thanks for that Tony. Its actually a 2008 Diesel version. Whether there are any differences to those you have sent which are older and petrol versions i dont know. I will contact Subaru Uk Tech and get them just for information. But as you say i think i am pretty near the mark. Thanks for your time. Regards Stuart. Ps yes i will get the MX5 down given half an opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 hmm, pretty big tolerance' there..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 hmm, pretty big tolerance' there..... What about the change in the castor between the years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 hmn what do you think ? I'm guessing maybe the later car had poorer "base" DI and they had to set a more aggresive geometry ? Have to say I'd always take a Legacy over an Imprezza/Evo though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 hmn what do you think ? I'm guessing maybe the later car had poorer "base" DI and they had to set a more aggresive geometry ? Have to say I'd always take a Legacy over an Imprezza/Evo though. High SAI (low figuratively) = more castor Low camber= more castor Why would, say a 1.1 Fiesta need power steering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 "Tick-box" marketing ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 "Tick-box" marketing ? .... Nah... the castor adds steering feel so desirable for the lighter car, but it also makes the steering heavy so power is added, it's an odd balancing act really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.