Front Driver's Side Tire Too Far Forward?

[mustangpegasus51]

You can check with this as reference:

The slits should be pointed in the directions depicted in this image. Unlike the notch you can see the slits from the engine bay.

Sponsored

 

[Albertcado]

You can check with this as reference:

The slits should be pointed in the directions depicted in this image. Unlike the notch you can see the slits from the engine bay.

Thanks, I'll check on this. Still have no clue how this orientation changes or affects anything negatively.

 

[Albertcado]

Would need the first sheet to even begin to guess.



It doesn't look like they did anything to the front toe except either turn the steering wheel a bit or adjust both toes the same amount in the same direction. That would get rid of the out-of-spec "Steer ahead" reading once the toes match, but the total toe would remain unchanged. Yes, it's "within spec", but an equal amount of total toe in is a better place to be for most street driving.

But the 'current' total toe is still essentially the same as the 'before' total toe at about -0.1° (toe out because the minus sign means 'out'). What I think they needed to do (assuming that the steering wheel was centered) was first adjust the left front from -0.14° (toe out) all the way to +0.05° (toe in) to match the right front, and then adjust left and right toes to re-center the steering wheel if necessary.

Steering the front tires jacks the front ride heights up/down a little due to caster, which could affect the rear readings minutely.


Norm

Is this difference in camber and caster in the front within reason for stock specs? I'm assuming most factory cars have some variance in camber and caster in the front left and rears and rarely are they exactly the same on both sides...

My RF always had more camber than the driver side on every alignment I've done. Suspension is fully stock and factory. Ideally I would love if the LEFT FRONT camber was more negative and closer to the RF but it has never gone past -1.0 camber.

Is this CASTER and camber variance from LF to RF okay and nothing to worry about?

 

[mustangpegasus51]

@Albertcado the above is "within spec", see this thread for more info: https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/factory-alignment-specs-within.119034/

However, "in spec" for these cards is a super-wide range. The car should still drive straight, even if some things aren't as spot-on as we would like visually etc. On the other hand, I've also heard that even "in spec" alignments can cause performance issues too. YMMV.

Now, I'm of the opinion that a "sports car" should look good and well put together regardless, but maybe that's just me haha.

 

[Albertcado]

@Albertcado the above is "within spec", see this thread for more info: https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/factory-alignment-specs-within.119034/

However, "in spec" for these cards is a super-wide range. The car should still drive straight, even if some things aren't as spot-on as we would like visually etc. On the other hand, I've also heard that even "in spec" alignments can cause performance issues too. YMMV.

Now, I'm of the opinion that a "sports car" should look good and well put together regardless, but maybe that's just me haha.

The car drives fine since I only go to one performance alignment shop and he's the best around.
I was just curious why my front cambers were always 0.2 to 0.3 apart from each other and not closer. I guess that small variance wouldn't matter and not be an issue as long as the cars driving straight. I'm guessing the caster difference is also normal since I just saw some people's alignment numbers with much bigger differences in Left and Right casters, like 7.5 / 6.8 in some posts.

 

[mustangpegasus51]

@Albertcado yeah you should be fine; you could potentially get the cambers closer together, but since camber isn't adjustable by more conventional means, it's likely a call to a body shop, not an alignment shop to adjust the subframe. (I've heard of alignment shops that do adjust subframes, but I have yet to hear of one of these mythical places in SoCal. Then again, I haven't had much luck getting a body shop to look either.)

For what it's worth, most of the more wacked out caster readings I've seen come from those that lower their cars. I'd just double check whether or not those alignment sheets you've seen around the forums are for stock ride height before measuring against them, if you haven't already.

 

[mustangpegasus51]

Just a quick update on this. Went in for another alignment and took some photos under the car. It looks like I was correct about the front subframe. It is in fact hugging the passenger's side frame rail. (The outermost points touch the frame rail.)

Passenger's side:

Driver's side:

Here is the most recent alignment:

In summary it looks like there really isn't much play with the front; even when it's to one side there isn't that much of a difference.

What surprises me is how this small difference in subframe position can make such a huge one visually side to side when looking at the whole car. Here's what my wheels look like:

Driver's side front:

Passenger's side front:

Driver's side rear:

Passenger's side rear:

I'd almost think a strut is bent but feel that alignment would be way more off if that were the case.

@Albertcado knowing what I know now your alignment sheet may indicate your subframe is shifted to the driver's side. My left rear, like your right rear I believe, looks "higher" than the opposite side. Maybe those things are related? Anywho maybe this helps, maybe not but figured I'd share!

Hoping I can find a body shop or alignment shop to nudge this over, so it isn't sliding against the frame rails or whatever, which should probably center it well enough to handle a little better, look decent, and fit any larger wheels I'd like.

Sponsored