308 Alignment Issue

If that's camber you're referring to I'm going to modigy my suspension to get that much . Change you're driving style . . tires will wear even again . I thought factory spec was up to -1 deg. When he said adjust, for camber it's just shims so I'm assuming he took all the shims out . . . if it's toe in you need a new mechanic.

 

just for the record max negative in the manual looks to be .5 degree but only for the B . .. for the S it's -10' (.16 degree) . .. . we need to trade cars .

 

It's for the rear camber (-1.25 to -1.5 deg), but IME your tire man has the conclusion backward -- using -1 deg camber at the rear will give more even wear on the street so you should "readjust" the other one ; whereas, -1.5~-2 deg starts to wear the inboard shoulder prematurely (308QV have this problem in spades at the stock specs). The OM alignment specs are (intentionally) meant to induce oversteer at the limit (minimal, or even positive, front camber, and a boatload of negative camber). I wouldn't consider them gospel, and would run more front negative camber and less rear negative camber -- JMO.

 

From my experience, the factory specs make the car UNDERSTEER, intentionally.

I think -1.25 camber on all four corners, with minimal toe-in (1/16) is a good street setting.


J Morris

 

Sorry -- of course, I mistyped -- understeer at the limit

 

I just had my 400i aligned on a Hunter laser system..perfect..belive it or not, Hunter has your data in their system..get some Fiat spacers(same as Ferrari) or contact Ricambi..Take the previous suggestion and change mechanics and find a Hunter system in your area..I think that you'll quite happy with the results..my guy used to race Fiats and MG's, so he was thrilled to do mine..Jacques

 

if we're talking about the rear I think you're perfect . . . factory spec's call for way more camber in the rear

 

absolutely . .. I'm trying to figure out the path of least resistance to get ANY negative camber in my 308 . . max shims in front and I still think I'm a bit positive . . . it's so bad that I need to dismount the tires and switch them left to right (unidrectional Toyos) to get more miles out of 'em . . . the only wear is on the outside shoulder with aggressive driving.

 

You should hold your head in shame.....
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Looks absolutely stunning. You saved a great piece of art.

What part of Florida are you in?

Best of luck and enjoy.

 

Is there any chance the front lower fork (#6) is swapped from the rear, or is it upside down from this picture?

Also, you should have equal shims on each fork on the front control arm, not a different amount to change caster like an American car. On the Ferraris, the caster (and wheelbase.....) is adjusted with the shims (#9, #10) at the balljoints.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

No . . . the front forks were brand new on '96 . . . I put shim in until I ran out of thread . .. but kept the amount of shim the same on a given wheel. Before I lowered the car with the QA1's I had about -.5 degree . .. it really surprised me that the car lost camber lowering it. I have the control arm layouts from fellow Fchatter SteveM which I want to layout on CAD to see if that is in fact what happens during wheel travel . .. the different lengths of the arms intuatively makes me think they should gain camber but it's obviously the relative angle of the two that's effecting camber.

In another thread I started regarding getting more camber someone suggested using the rears in the front 'cause the bolt's longer so could use more shim.

Sean