Hello friends! What would you conclude when examining this tracking readout please? Thank You
C8963110-B9FE-4E36-ADA9-2F84F25701F6.jpeg
Negative camber on the back but as that's non adjustable there's probably 2 possibilities in my opinion.
1- whoever did it hasn't used equipment properly
2- rear springs are sagging slightly.
Slight neg camber on front but within parameters.
Personally I wouldn't worry too much about it
Have you got the other set of readings, ie, the corrected ones?
Thank you both, some very interesting thoughts.
The garage didn't actually make any adjustments so 'corrected' was the same as 'previous'. They said all they can adjust is the toe-in and that looks spot on. They said it's only the camber which is out but they can't change that.
However, I did see on their print-out that they used the settings for a MK1 Alhamb. Mine is a MK2! Would this explain the camber issue?
The same garage also said their computer said my tyres should be at 49psi on the back. I said it's not a London bus, what are they on about. So they checked the poster on the wall and that said 32psi. I said if I put them down to 32psi I'll have a blowout on the motorway. I then showed them the pressures on the fuel flap and said that 44psi is about right for me. So as you can tell, I'm not too confident this garage actually gets their data right. How can one maintain a vehicle to the correct standards when using faulty specifications data!
A lot of garage equipment does call a MK2 a Mk1, it's down to the chassis platform. Your 2006 is a facelifted Mk1, the chassis is the same from 1995 through to 2010 so they call it a Mk1.
As above, there isn't any adjustment on the rear axle so what you have it what you've got. You could replace the springs as it's likely to be those but there isn't a guarantee so unless its causing rear end issues I wouldn't throw money at it.
Interestingly, I had the rear springs replaced about 3 months ago. They forgot to change the rubber thing the spring sits on, so I took it back and they replaced that too. So the rear should be OK.
The front shock absorbers are about 5 years old I think.
I did wonder why the camber was the same on the left side and the same on the right side, maybe it was to compensate for the curvature of the road, but then figured that would automatically be built into their calibration specification so it can't be that. The man in the garage said that the toe settings are spot on and it's toe that causes the edge of a tyre to wear most. He said camber affects wear too but nowhere near as much so he didn't think it would be much of a problem. What a strange old problem, I would have thought camber was completely fixed - only one setting - so I wonder what's caused all that then.
You guys know so much about this, thank you!
readings in green means they are within specs. rear camber will be affected when you put weight in/out of the car--due to it not having a solid axle but independent trailing arms; as wheels go up/down in the wheel arch they droop outwards as they drop, but tuck in as they near the arch. If the operator had read the notes on the machine it would have stated to check it unladen or with a certain amount of weight in the back. When i worked for Rover in the late 90's, our alignment kit had huge dumb
bell weights that had to be counted out and put in certain cars. early 2000's my peugeot 405 td estate was another car that had to be weighted and distance from sill to surface of the 4 poster ramp had to be measured. Sadly, its all proof that even the fast fit places do not follow manufacturers instructions ?
Yeah, I think this has hit the mail on the head. These places can't even get the tyre pressure right so there's no way they'll be doing the tracking properly.
Quote from: SirDavidAlhambra on August 13, 2022, 09:23:22 AMYeah, I think this has hit the mail on the head. These places can't even get the tyre pressure right so there's no way they'll be doing the tracking properly.
but looking at the report, all 4 wheels are pointing forward & the correct amount. :azn: