Am looking for suggestions on alignment for the front and rear on my C8 Z51 with mag ride. The car also has the front lift system, so doubt there will be any height change suggestions.

The car is primarily used for street driving and will probably be AX’ed 3 - 5 times a year.

Thanks much!

 

where did SCCA class the c8?

 

Super Street, I believe

 

From the
Motor Trend Track Alignment Article
Chevy's Specs
Front
Camber 3.0
Castor 8.0
toe 0.05 degree

Rear
Camber 2.5
toe 0.05 degree

This was with the stock tire (a 4S? I think)
Starting pressure 25psi !!?!

 

Jeff,

We just did an alignment on our C8 Z51 and ran a couple days at Thunder Hill with it. We modified the GM recommended settings a little to help with turn in and reduce the steady state push the C8 has mid corner. It seemed to help a little and we's likely go even a little more aggressive with toe changes for an auto cross only alignment. The issue with trying to get a "do it all" type alignment on these is that it will be hard to find something that will work well for auto cross and not wear the tires on the street. You certainly can't go as aggressive as the GM recommended settings and expect to not kill the tires on the street.

We had -3.5 in the front of our car and -2.3 in the back. On the road course the tires showed really good wear and we could've been even a little more aggressive to optimize tire temps and wear even further.

We'd be happy to do the alignment for you and try to come up with a medium aggressive setup that would work for you. The initial alignment on these does take a lot more time if you're removing washers to get fairly aggressive with it.

 

Thanks very much. I suspect the car's handling, with what you've provided, would be incredible vs. the stock alignment.

I slept on it and have come to the conclusion that I just need to go out and drive the car, and not worry about setup. It's been quite a while since I really devoted time to autocrossing. If the car handles well and I get the "bug", then I'll consider alignment.

Again, thanks very much!

 

I vividly recall you running at Crows. Very impressive. A well set up car and a driver who knew how to drive it! Great combination!

I was running a '15 Z06, probably with Hoosiers, when I saw you run. My driving skills were probably not up to the car, but having stepped out of a '13 Grand Sport, I always felt the Z06 just didn't communicate in a timely manner. It was kind of numb. The GS, on the other hand, talked to me and my times reflected that. Now, I say this with acknowledgement that the driver has a tremendous bearing on the car's ultimate performance, and I'll accept the blame. Even tho I tried many different setting in Track mode and Sport, just never found one that worked for me. Yes, even disconnected all of the nannies, too.

Since writing this thread, I've had time to further consider alignment and have come to the conclusion that I just need to go out and drive the car, and not worry about setup. It's been a while since I really devoted time to autocrossing. If the car handles well (and I know it will) and I get the "bug", then I'll consider aligning down the road.

I've heard a lot about your dealership and look forward to seeing it, if I decide to delve into setting up my car.

Thanks very much for responding with your offer to set the car up. Hope to see you at Thunderhill on the 20th.

 

I realize you have decided not to worry about alignment, but might I suggest something less aggressive than the GM 3*. I'm attaching Pfadt's C5/C6 alignment guide, which has good information for different generic levels of alignment. Although I designed for RR, should work fine for AX, less wear at the track of course. Something like this might fit the bill for your requirements:

 

Not sure what the C8 comes with from the factory but my C7 Z06 numbers were very close to those when I checked it after a 167 mile drive home after taking delivery.

Bill

 

An alignment for a front engine rear wheel drive is quite a bit different than a mid engine rear drive car...

 

Hmm interesting; a greater than average aggression alignment from the factory, nice..

Really, is this true ? You would think that either configuration benefits from Camber and Toe (not sure about Caster)..

Edit: Might assume it could have something to do with the weight balance/transfer...but still surprising

 

Jeff,

Thanks for the kind words. If you decide that you want to try something less aggressive, but better than stock, we can certainly make that work. The benefits of a full blown auto cross setup will make a big difference, but any changes to the stock alignment will also help.

I won't be at the track this weekend, but I hope to make it up to one of the events later in the summer. Have fun and be fast!

 

I recommend you leave it as is and see how the car handles. One can always increase grip w/ more camber but for 3-5 AXs per year I'd set it at the stock specs. The street driving will kill the inside of the tires at 2-3 deg camber. I am not sure what the minus sign in front of those toe specs actually means. There have been mentions here that it may mean toe in but for me it means toe out. In any case, toe out front or rear can be used to affect handling but it will also wear the inside of the tires and generally make the car less stable in a straight line.

 

According to the Pfadt document negative toe (-) references toe-in for them - I don't believe there's a standard convention..

Toe-in yes not the most best alignment setting in AX, but a nice general guideline for tracking/stability. As I understand it you want toe-out in front for an ideal AX setup, for better turn-in, but now we're talking about maximizing the setup, and the car/tracking will then wander some normally. I don't believe you EVER want toe-out in the rear..

This would presumably be identical for either powertrain configuration...toe and camber should always help performance handling for the most part, at the expense of normal-driving wear of course.

 

Pfadt is about the only place that I've ever seen use a - value for toe IN. Usually it's the opposite, but much of what they did was opposite of reality.

In terms of mid engine versus front engine settings, you can get a way with a much greater amount of negative camber in the rear of a mid engine car because of the rear weight bias and how well it will put power down.

 

Good to see one in capable hands! What did it put down for times and which layout?

Can you carry the same entry speeds as a C6Z or need to rely more on exit power and squaring things off?