When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
so through your own admission, anything less than GM specs cause tire wear.
WTF are you yapping about now?
Both 0.5* and 0.3* of rear camber (with the top of the wheel tilted in) are within the GM spec. Since when is -0.3* at the outer limit of -0.2* +/- 0.5*? It's 0.1* out of an allowed 0.5*. Even 0.5* is close to the middle. I recommended 0.4* which is 0.2*/0.5*, no where near the outer limit.
And why would less camber than GM recommends cause more tire wear? Closer to 0* will keep the uneven wear to a minimum.
40K miles on a PS2 tire. READ THAT AGAIN. It's AMAZING life for that tire. Most people expect 1/2 that life on that kind of tire.
I could care less what your "credentials" are. You talk circles here that make no sense. "Use the GM specifications" "The GM specifications have too wide a range." Bla bla bla....
The GM numbers you posted are the GM alignment specifications. With or without the range they are a specification. You posted them WITH the allowed range. If you wanted to recommend the initial number without the range then say so. Otherwise, your recommendation says it's OK to set the wheels with one side at -0.7* camber and the other side at 0.3* camber. Or with both rear wheels pointing left or right (hey the total toe is OK). Pretty crappy alignment using just that...
The alignment settings are what the alignment is actually set to. Simple difference, right?
And you posted specs, not settings....
Originally Posted by mrr23
Use the factory base c5 specs and be fine.
Last edited by lionelhutz; Jan 1, 2015 at 10:23 PM.
Both 0.5* and 0.3* of rear camber (with the top of the wheel tilted in) are within the GM spec. Since when is -0.3* at the outer limit of -0.2* +/- 0.5*? It's 0.1* out of an allowed 0.5*. Even 0.5* is close to the middle. I recommended 0.4* which is 0.2*/0.5*, no where near the outer limit.
And why would less camber than GM recommends cause more tire wear? Closer to 0* will keep the uneven wear to a minimum.
40K miles on a PS2 tire. READ THAT AGAIN. It's AMAZING life for that tire. Most people expect 1/2 that life on that kind of tire.
I could care less what your "credentials" are. You talk circles here that make no sense. "Use the GM specifications" "The GM specifications have too wide a range." Bla bla bla....
The GM numbers you posted are the GM alignment specifications. With or without the range they are a specification. You posted them WITH the allowed range. If you wanted to recommend the initial number without the range then say so. Otherwise, your recommendation says it's OK to set the wheels with one side at -0.7* camber and the other side at 0.3* camber. Or with both rear wheels pointing left or right (hey the total toe is OK). Pretty crappy alignment using just that...
The alignment settings are what the alignment is actually set to. Simple difference, right?
And you posted specs, not settings....
what you fail to understand is alignment wording. i'll try to help you out some more.
we'll use the one i posted
spec is -0.20 tolerance is the +/-0.50. i said to use the GM specs to get the best tire wear. you are telling him to use settings in the tolerance area. in doing so, through your admission said you got inner tire wear
Originally Posted by lionelhutz
My rear-end had 0.3* and 0.5* of camber and my 305/30/19 tires had slightly more inner wear on the 0.5* side compared to the 0.3* side. I ran those PS2's for about 40k miles though, so it doesn't make much difference or have much effect on tire life.
you also said, and i'll quote you again:
Originally Posted by lionelhutz
Keep the settings the same left and right.
yet you didn't. hmmm.....
i'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. point is he has inner tire wear, wanted to know if it's normal. now, i was the second person to recommend what specs to use so he would get great tire wear. (still can't believe you said i didn't give any advise)you decided to post what specs to use and admitted that you got inner tire wear when questioned about them. why would you do that? guy never asked hey what alignment spec will give me some tire wear? he's surprised he has tire wear. you tell people to use closer to 0*
now i have to wonder what you credentials are to give such bad recommendations.
i also said settings here which you quoted me as to saying and then i explained what i meant when i said to use settings. so again, my apologies for not being consistent in my word which in turn confused you.
overall we have a difference of opinion on what to use. you use what you want and get inner tire wear, and i'll recommend settings the customer wants based on what they are needing as i have for the last 14 years.
01-04 except Z06
front*
camber -0.20* +/- 0.50*
caster 7.40* +/- 0.50*
total toe 0.08* +/- 0.20*
rear
camber -0.18* +/- 0.50*
total toe -0.02* +/- 0.20*
Yes those are the GM specs wth tolerances for your car. Have you had the alignment checked since originally postng? If so, what were the actual numbers before and after?
Let me clarify what I meant in what to use. As lionelhutz brought to my attention, I may be confusing sometimes when I write. I forget I know the terminology and others may not. Have the alignment set to the first number called specifications. The +/- numbers are called tolerances. Those ranges are what GM considers as acceptable and not cause tire wear. As lionelhutz showed from his own car, anything other than the spec number will give you abnormal wear, albeit minimal depending on how far away from specs they are.
So, when deciding on what specs to use , consider what your trade off will be. Better handling may result in additional tire wear. Ths shortening the tire life. GM did a great job of giving a spec that gves great daily driving handling and tire wear.
That would be your own "special" definition of specification. This is how it works in the rest of the world when dealing with measurements.
-0.20* +/- 0.50* is the specification
-0.20* is the target
+/- 0.50* is the tolerance on the target
That would be your own "special" definition of specification. This is how it works in the rest of the world when dealing with measurements.
-0.20* +/- 0.50* is the specification
-0.20* is the target
+/- 0.50* is the tolerance on the target
now you're just making stuff up. you really need to stop while you are behind. not my "special" definition. maybe your world uses your "special terminology". let me further educate you. this is a screen shot right off a hunter alignment machine. you'll notice three words up top. SPEC and -TOL and +TOL. i don't see your special word of "TARGET".
What I gave was the definition and how a dimension specification is used in the engineering world. What you're claiming is just what your machine shows, which is wrong and not following any well accepted standard.
Am I going to have to post a picture of the alignment sheet I have in my hand with "specifications" over the column with the range allowed?
Last edited by lionelhutz; Jan 3, 2015 at 12:59 PM.
What I gave was the definition and how a dimension specification is used in the engineering world. What you're claiming is just what your machine shows, which is wrong and not following any well accepted standard.
Am I going to have to post a picture of the alignment sheet I have in my hand with "specifications" over the column with the range allowed?
that explains some stuff right there. engineering degree. unfortunately the laymen world doesn't use engineering terminology. what i showed is a well accepted standard as every alignment machine hunter makes uses that exact spec screen. i went to hunter engineering for training. i use what they taught me.
sure show the sheet. seems you are in canada and that might be the difference in terminology.
are you referring to this sheet? which can be a cause of confusion for you here.
The vehicle manufacturers' alignment specifications usually identify a "preferred" angle for camber, caster and toe (with preferred thrust angle always being zero). The manufacturers also provide the acceptable "minimum" and "maximum" angles for each specification.
The vehicle manufacturers' alignment specifications usually identify a "preferred" angle for camber, caster and toe (with preferred thrust angle always being zero). The manufacturers also provide the acceptable "minimum" and "maximum" angles for each specification.
just to help clarify a misconception about what specs are, when people talk about car alignments, they don't say what are the specifications and tolerances.they just say what are the specs. never has ANYONE come to me and ask what are my car alignment targets?
Way to completely misinterpret the Tire Rack quote you posted. Good job.
The quote is basically saying the specification has a preferred angle plus the minimum and maximum allowed angle.
This is right from the GM manual. See how GM calls this table the alignment specifications. The range is right there in this specifications table.
You will also find the target called the nominal value or the basic size. You could use preferred too even though that's more of a slang usage. Still, they are all the same thing.
Last edited by lionelhutz; Jan 3, 2015 at 01:43 PM.
Way to completely misinterpret the Tire Rack quote you posted. Good job.
The quote is basically saying the specification has a preferred angle plus the minimum and maximum allowed angle.
This is right from the GM manual. See how GM calls this table the alignment specifications. The range is right there in this specifications table.
You will also find the target called the nominal value or the basic size. You could use preferred too even though that's more of a slang usage. Still, they are all the same thing.
the only misinterpretation is you trying your best to make what you say correct. they use preferred and specification as the same word. both here in america and in your native country of canada. both places are extremely clear in their definition in the second sentence.
you still haven't shown ANY documentation to support your claim of a TARGET. you use something only GM technicians see. i use what every other person in the common world sees and is taught from actual alignment theory schools like hunter engineering.
i will concede you are way smarter than me as i do not have an engineering degree to get in the way of my everyday life of actually doing alignments.
after all, i only have actual training and education in alignments and alignment theory along with 14 years of in the field experience.
look we obviously have two different ways of saying the same thing. yours from a book, mine from actual everyday usage and education.
I can't argue with the stupidity statement always used about how the real world doesn't work according to the way things are done in the professional world. Same crap reason given about how physics or engineering calculations "don't apply to the real world". That's OK, the professional world still does lots of very complicated things to improve the real world....
Preferred and specification are not the same thing. Your inability to even understand and properly interpret 2 simple sentences proves you're unable to even understand the simplest of concepts. When the quote says the manufacturer provides a preferred value and a min and max value as part of the spec and you still argue it doesn't then it's pointless to bother with you further.
Still, I dare you to link to an actual accepted definition of specification that says the tolerance isn't part of the specification.Tire Rack and that other site you linked certainly don't count. Especially when you can't even properly interpret what Tire Rack posted, which completely backed-up what I have been saying. I'd accept a peer reviewed site like Wikipedia or an engineering site.
Your new argument is that "No-one sees the GM specification so it's not true." Too funny.
Here's an example for your from this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_tolerance
"An electrical specification might call for a resistor with a nominal value of 100 Ω (ohms), but will also state a tolerance such as "±1%". This means that any resistor with a value in the range 99 Ω to 101 Ω is acceptable. For critical components, one might specify that the actual resistance must remain within tolerance within a specified temperature range, over a specified lifetime, and so on."
"Specification (often abbreviated as spec) may refer to an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, design, product, or service."
The minimum C5 alignment specification is to meet the requirement as listed in the GM document I posted (and you listed in your thread). Those numbers are the requirements to be met with the alignment according to GM. If you want to tighten that specification then it's your own choice. But claiming that GM really meant the nominal or preferred or target values only in their specification is complete nonsense.
In the real world, you should just try specifying a dimension with no tolerance to a supplier and see how quickly they complain about it.
Last edited by lionelhutz; Jan 3, 2015 at 11:48 PM.
you're right, i'm wrong. you win, i lose. i can't compete with your engineering degree, i don't know how i've been doing this wrong for the last 14 years of my life and getting away with people having great tire wear, increasing their fuel mileage slightly, and for a few winning their events. oh well, guess i'll just go kill myself over a word.
nice you can't even link to an acceptable definition for alignment terminology, yet i can. twice even.
in the real world, go and ask for a wood board 8 x 10. take it home and it doesn't fit because oh you gave them a tolerance of +/- 2".
you're right, i'm wrong. you win, i lose. i can't compete with your engineering degree, i don't know how i've been doing this wrong for the last 14 years of my life and getting away with people having great tire wear, increasing their fuel mileage slightly, and for a few winning their events.
The car was done yesterday, and drives much better. Your spec's were given to the mechanic and were spot on with what his were. Thx!
What ticks me off is the last one was done at GM and was triple the price.
The car was done yesterday, and drives much better. Your spec's were given to the mechanic and were spot on with what his were. Thx!
What ticks me off is the last one was done at GM and was triple the price.
glad to hear it worked out. just curious as to what the before numbers were.
now dats sum funny stuff right there!!