E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > E46 BMW > General E46 Forum

General E46 Forum
This is the place to get answers, opinions and everything you need related to your E46 (sedan, coupe, convertible and wagon) BMW!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-05-2005, 04:52 PM   #1
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
Long Alignment Story Part 1

Painfully long alignment story follows -

Once upon a time, I thought an alignment was a go/no-go sort of thing. Either the car was aligned or it wasn’t. But I’ve since come to learn that that is only half true. While there is definitely something that can be called a “bad” alignment, there really isn’t one setting which could be called a “good alignment.” There is instead a wide range of technically acceptable alignment settings, with lots of variation possible based upon one’s personal preferences and desired handling characteristics. My particular adventure in to the world of alignment came about after one very bad pothole and one unsatisfactory trip to an alignment shop. During the course of the saga, this forum was an incredible wealth of good background info, technical info, and overall a great support. The best way I could think to express my gratitude was to post about my experience and try to add to the knowledge base.

This is going to be pretty long, so for those impatient people, here’s a short list of conclusions:
1) The Bentley “sport suspension” settings are not necessarily the same as the BMW sport suspension settings
2) The nominal alignment settings in the Bentley manual are probably not how the car was aligned at the factory, but I’m not really sure what the factory settings were.
3) If we can get a lot of people to post their before & after alignment readings in one spot, we should be able to figure out what the factory settings were.

And the real moral of the story:
There are a lot of ignorant alignment techs out there. On the plus side, they are cheap, but on the minus side you will have to be the one to supply the knowledge. Some places may be more expensive, but part of what you are paying for is knowledge and experience. Depending on your cash flow situation and technical acumen, the more expensive alignment might be a better deal than the cheaper one.

************
So here’s the story…..

For starters, the car is a '99 323i w/sport package and 73k miles. Other than the installation of two kid seats, it’s entirely stock.

My problems originated with a ludicrously evil pothole which bent the left rear wheel to where it no longer held air. It also smacked a bend into the left front wheel, and while it still held pressure, it did have a distinct hop. I got the one wheel straightened, switched the other to the spare, and since I was already mucking about with things, got new tires too. After all this, I went for an alignment.

I went to an alignment shop that despite being highly recommended (even called "legendary") turned out to be wholly inadequate and unfamiliar with the e46. They were not just low tech, they were flintstone tech. Instead of a computer print out listing the was/is readings and the spec range, I got a couple pencil scrawls in the bottom corner of the job order sheet with no units given. After I asked, they told me those were fractional degrees, but I’m entirely convinced that’s actually the case. Other things I should have taken as warning signs, were (1) They continued to assure me the front camber couldn't be adjusted even after I showed them the section in the Bentley Manual titles "Adjusting front camber". (2) All alignments were down without ballasting down the car with weights (3) they didn’t do a four wheel alignment, but rather aligned the front, then pulled the car out and back it in to align the rear. If I knew then what I know now, I would have fled the place.

** Digression #1 ** There seems to be a lot of general confusion about the units of the alignment settings. As I understand it, the proper units are degrees (deg) with fractions of degrees given in minutes of degree (notated by ' ), which is a universal measurement independent and regardless of tire size. Where the tire size enters in to it is that it is generally easier to measure the displacement of the wheel in inches or mm and back-calculate the angularity than it is to measure the angularity directly. While the “proper” unit for fractions of degrees is in minutes (60 per degree), expressing them as decimals seems a lot more intuitive. In the case of my flintstone alignment tech, they used fractions, which doesn’t inspire a lot of confindence in the precision and accuracy of their measurement. But since that’s what they used, that’s what I’ll use for the purpose of telling the story.

** Digression #2 ** Although I’m well aware of that the correct way to align the car is with it ballasted down with a defined load (150# each front seat, 150# center rear seat, 46# trunk, full tank of gas) I have to confess I don’t really understand why. On the one hand it seems to make sense to me, as all that adds up to about 20% of the cars empty weight, and that has to make a difference in how it sits. But on the other hand, I have a hard time seeing how that would significantly affect the toe setting, or even if it would at all. As for camber, I think I see where the more weight you have in the car the more negative camber you will see. However, I am also under the impression that because of the way the suspension is designed, the camber change was pretty minimal. Additionally, it seems like the range of “in spec” alignments is a few orders of magnitude greater than whatever inaccuracy you would get from aligning the car empty. While I will certainly agree that it is better to do it with ballast than without, unless you are trying to corner balance or align the car to a really precise setting, I’m not convinced it is worth stressing over the issue. To put it another way, if all other things are equal, I’m not sure if it is worth the extra $ to go to a shop that ballasts the car. If anybody out there knows exactly what sort of quantitative difference it makes aligning the car with and without ballast, I’d love to hear it.

The potholes not only did evil things to the wheels, they were also very unkind to my alignment. My original readings were:
Front Camber : L -1/2 R -1/2
Rear Camber : L -2 R -1 5/8
Total front Toe : in 3/8
Total rear Toe : 0
I don't recommend this setup - it pulled to the right and was real squirrelly in back. You may also note that the only toe measurement I got was total toe. The flintstones apparently don’t believe in any of that fancy-pants newfangled idea of getting measurements on the individual wheels.
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Ads by Google

Guests, get your FREE E46Fanatics.com membership to remove this ad.
Old 09-05-2005, 04:54 PM   #2
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
Long Alignment Story Part 2

What the alignment shop set the car to is this:
Front camber L & R : -1/2
Rear Camber L & R -1 1/8
Total toe Front & Rear : in 1/8
While this certainly felt better than when I drove it in, it still didn't feel right. And after scrounging about the forum and receiving the Bentley manual in the mail, it confirmed what I suspected - these alignment settings were largely unrelated to the specifications as given in the Bentley manual, which you can find here - http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthr...nment+settings

But here is where it really gets odd – I’m not entirely sure what the Bentley manual call “sport suspension” is necessarily what BMW calls the “sport suspension”, and I’m almost certain that what the Bentley manual cites as the nominal value of the setting is not how the car (at least my car) was set up at the factory.

I came to these conclusions based on the fact that my front camber settings were both at -1/2 and both have the original factory alignment pins still installed. So I’m reasonably sure that is the original setting and despite my distrust of the flintstones, I suspect the measurement is reasonably accurate, or at least closer to –1/2 than either –3/8 or –5/8. Similarly, I suspect the rear camber on my car was probably set at –1 5/8 based on that was where it was at on the non-pothole damaged right side.

The Bentley front camber settings is given as –1/3deg with a range of 0deg to -5/8deg for the “standard” suspension. The range given for the “sport suspension” front camber is roughly –3/8deg to –1 1/16deg, with a nominal setting of about –3/4deg. If my front camber was originally set at –1/2deg, that would put it towards the sporty of the “standard” suspension but on the weak side of the “sport” suspension. That seems odd to me.

** Digression #3 ** I believe there is a typo in the Bentley manual regarding the front camber settings. As you may have noticed in the link above, the setting was given without a +/- sign, so the standard assumption is +. But that doesn’t seem like a very sporty setting as it seems like all the auto-xr’s and track guys consistently say you want as much negative camber as you can get. So my guess is Bentley left off the – sign.

For the rear camber the “standard” setting is given as –1 ½deg with a range of -1 ¼ to –1 ¾. The “Sport” setting is roughly –2deg with a range of –1 ¾ to –2 ¼. If my original rear camber was actually –1 5/8, that would again put it at the sporty side of the “standard” settings but not just weaker but actually out of the range of the “sport settings”.

Looking at those two points together, it seems more reasonable the original sport package alignment settings were just an aggressive version of what Bentley cites for the “standard” suspension and not what they cite as the “sport” suspension.

** Digression #4 ** So to what exactly are Bentley’s “sport suspension” alignment settings applicable? I don’t really know, but my first guess is that it might be the ZHP package rather than the ZSP package. (BTW, back when I bought my car in ’99, there was no such as a ZHP package, just a “sport package” which presumably became the ZSP). My other theory of unknown validity is that the “sport” settings are for the coupe only, but that seems more unlikely than the ZHP/ZSP distinction.

This is also the part where I wished I had gotten toe measurements for each individual wheel. Because my guess is that one wheel was “normal” and one was “whacked”. If I had the measurement off of the normal wheel, I could use that as an approximation for what the factory setting was. But with only a total toe reading, I’ve got no way to guess.

So based on all of the above, I went back to the flintstones and them realign my car to settings I gave them, which were:
Front Camber : L -1/2 R -1/2 (unchanged)
Rear Camber : L –1 5/8 R -1 5/8 (based on my guess regarding the original setting)
Total front Toe : in ¼ (based on fractionalizing the Bentley setting of 0deg14’)
Total rear Toe : in 5/16 (based on fractionalizing the Bentley setting of 0deg16’)

This made the car feels better than how they originally had it set, but I wouldn’t actually recommend this either. The car seems to lack the steering response it used to have, and to do it again I’d take the total front toe to either –3/16 or even –1/8 (which I realize is where they had it before, but live and learn I guess…). I’m sure a lot of people will recommend less toe, zero toe, or even a little toe out, this is a daily driver car for me, so some daydream tolerance is beneficial.

Other than the front toe setting, I’m pretty satisfied with the way the car handles with this setup. Or at least satisfied with the alignment end of the handling puzzle. I think the car handles well enough to let me know it’s time to replace the shocks & struts, but that’s a saga for another day….

After all of this though, I’m still left wondering what exactly were the actual original alignment settings from the factory? Unless somebody out there had there alignment checked the day the picked up the car, I doubt that info is readily available. But we could probably reverse engineer it given enough data points. So if you managed to wade through all this blather to this point, I assume you might be interested enough to post your own before and after alignment settings, including body type, ZSP/ZHP package, model year, and any relevant pothole or other issues that might have affected the before reading.


http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthr...nment+settings
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2005, 06:55 PM   #3
Commander FAT
Network Analyst
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,484
My Ride: 2002 330Ci
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpr
.....
3) If we can get a lot of people to post their before & after alignment readings in one spot, we should be able to figure out what the factory settings were.

.....
Or you can just look in a spec book....
All specs in degrees.

Front
Caster 5.6 +- 0.5
Camber -0.72 +- 0.33
Toe 0.23 +- .13

Rear
Camber -2.07 +- .25
Toe 0.27 +- 0.1

Thrust 0.1
__________________
Because the B isn't for bling.

Last edited by Commander FAT; 09-05-2005 at 06:59 PM.
Commander FAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2005, 07:06 PM   #4
Commander FAT
Network Analyst
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,484
My Ride: 2002 330Ci
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpr
If anybody out there knows exactly what sort of quantitative difference it makes aligning the car with and without ballast, I’d love to hear it.

The potholes not only did evil things to the wheels, they were also very unkind to my alignment. My original readings were:
Front Camber : L -1/2 R -1/2
Rear Camber : L -2 R -1 5/8
Total front Toe : in 3/8
Total rear Toe : 0
I don't recommend this setup - it pulled to the right and was real squirrelly in back.
I compared my alignment settings with weight and without out. With the weight in the car rear camber increased nearly a full degree (a lot). Front camber increased about .5 on the left and .4 degress on the right. Still quite a bit.

The car MUST be weighed down to get accurate numbers. If the car isnt' weighed down you are wasting your time and money.

Looking at your numbers there is no reason why your car would pull unless you have toe in on one side and toe out on the other in which case that really isn't a pull. It's a crooked steering wheel.

Also, caster and camber DO affect toe.

Proper sequence of adjusting
Rear camber, Rear toe, Front Caster/camber, Front toe.

Weighing down the car isn't to compensate for passengers or cargo in the car. It's to compensate for the fact that the car squats down due to downforce while on the highway.
__________________
Because the B isn't for bling.

Last edited by Commander FAT; 09-05-2005 at 07:10 PM.
Commander FAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2005, 08:57 PM   #5
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander FAT
Or you can just look in a spec book....
All specs in degrees.

Front
Caster 5.6 +- 0.5
Camber -0.72 +- 0.33
Toe 0.23 +- .13

Rear
Camber -2.07 +- .25
Toe 0.27 +- 0.1

Thrust 0.1
But that's exactly the catch - at least based upon what I believe to be the original settings of my car, the nominal spec book values (by which I mean the value about which the tolerance ranges, 5.6 / -0.72 / -0.23 / -2.07 / -0.27) are almost certainly not the settings at which the car came from the factory. It's those settings about which I am curious....
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2005, 09:30 PM   #6
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander FAT
I compared my alignment settings with weight and without out. With the weight in the car rear camber increased nearly a full degree (a lot). Front camber increased about .5 on the left and .4 degress on the right. Still quite a bit.

The car MUST be weighed down to get accurate numbers. If the car isnt' weighed down you are wasting your time and money.

Looking at your numbers there is no reason why your car would pull unless you have toe in on one side and toe out on the other in which case that really isn't a pull. It's a crooked steering wheel.

Also, caster and camber DO affect toe.

Proper sequence of adjusting
Rear camber, Rear toe, Front Caster/camber, Front toe.

Weighing down the car isn't to compensate for passengers or cargo in the car. It's to compensate for the fact that the car squats down due to downforce while on the highway.
Wow - the ballasted/unballasted change is certainly much more than I would have guessed. I would have thought it'd be somewhere in the 10% to 20% range, not the 50% or more range - thanks for the info.

Likewise, thanks for the scoop on on why to ballast. That's the first time I've heard that explanation and it certainly makes more sense. But it also implies that the car is meant to be driven, "calibrated" if you will, at some specific speed. Which is a pretty cool idea, but I'm not sure if it would get one out of a speeding ticket ("but officer, the car HAS to go this fast to meet it's design criteria..)

Thinking about it more, I can also see how the toe would be affected by both load and camber. As the wheel swings through the compression arc, I'd guess it gets more negative as the load is increased.

My end of the day hunch is that since the alignment settings are load sensitive, it makes logical sense to specify them for a specific load. And unless you have that specific load, it is impossible to accurately set the alignment per specification. And as you wisely point out, if the alignment isn't accurate, what's the point?

But what if, as in my case, you decide to piss away your time and money at a lame alignment shop? Here's my guess, and please correct me if I go astray:
If you align the car unballasted, your actual camber (if you were to compare it to a ballasted alignment) will be significantly more negative, and your toe will be moderately more negative than intended. So if I think I've got a -1.5 rear camber, I might actually have a -2. Which could make the up the apparent discrepancy between the book alignment and the flintstone alignment I had done.

Finally, as to the car pulling right with the effed up alignment, my guess was it was do the the greater camber on the left rear giving it a nudge to the right. But whatever the cause was, I'm just happy not to have that problem anymore.
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2005, 10:02 PM   #7
Commander FAT
Network Analyst
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,484
My Ride: 2002 330Ci
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpr

Finally, as to the car pulling right with the effed up alignment, my guess was it was do the the greater camber on the left rear giving it a nudge to the right. But whatever the cause was, I'm just happy not to have that problem anymore.
Actually if the car were pulling to the right it would have been due to the higher camber on the right side not the more negative camber on the left. Well, I guess you could say it both ways but generally pulls are described by the side directly causing it.

Cars pull to the side with higher camber (generally if the difference between the two sides is greater than .5 degrees)

Cars pull to the side with lower caster (same condition as camber)

Camber and caster pulls can cancel each other out.
__________________
Because the B isn't for bling.

Last edited by Commander FAT; 09-05-2005 at 10:06 PM.
Commander FAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2005, 07:13 AM   #8
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander FAT
Actually if the car were pulling to the right it would have been due to the higher camber on the right side not the more negative camber on the left. Well, I guess you could say it both ways but generally pulls are described by the side directly causing it.

Cars pull to the side with higher camber (generally if the difference between the two sides is greater than .5 degrees)

Cars pull to the side with lower caster (same condition as camber)

Camber and caster pulls can cancel each other out.
I think we're talking about the same thing two different ways -( it's hard to discuss this without using ones hands...) Let me try this again -
* more negative camber means more thrust towards centerline
* with more negative camber on the left than the right, the left side was pushing more towards centerline than the right side
* the net imbalance in centerline thrust resulted in a net push to the right

The wild card in the whole scenario though is the toe - I don't really know what it was on each wheel. But assuming that any change to the toe occured on the left side, and that the total toe was greater than original, that would mean the left wheel had more toe in than the right wheel. Which would also explain the push/pull to the right.
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2005, 08:09 AM   #9
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
regarding ballasting

Now I can see where it makes sense to specify a load condition for alignment sense the settings do change based upon load. That seems like a fairly straight forward proposition, even almost a good "general principle" for aligning any car. But if that's the case, why is it such an uncommon practice? It seems like at least 9 out of 10 alignment stories one reads involve either having the alignment done unballasted or tell of the struggles people went through trying to make the shop use the weights.
Is the BMW ballast specification that odd / unique of a requirement?
Do other manufacturers provide alignment specifications for unloaded / unballasted cars?

** as an aside, here is a bit of trivia I ran across in my owner's manual. The curb weight is listed as 3153 pounds, but that INCLUDES the weight of the driver AND a full tank of gas.
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2005, 08:17 AM   #10
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
accuracy of alignment mnachine?

What's the typical accuracy of an alignment machine? I read somewhere that a typical accuracy was +/- 0.1deg (i.e. 6 minutes of a degree), but that seems HUGE to me. For example, the rear toe spec tolerance is +/- 6 minutes of a degree.
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2005, 10:59 AM   #11
rayxi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 499
My Ride: 2001 330xi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander FAT
Weighing down the car isn't to compensate for passengers or cargo in the car. It's to compensate for the fact that the car squats down due to downforce while on the highway.
I wish this was the case. Even with a properly designed aerodynmics kit (which none of us with streetable cars has) and big ugly wing on the back the best our cars can do is get closer to zero lift at highway speeds. There is no net downforce. There certainly isn't 350 lbs of downforce as required for ballasting during alignment.
rayxi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2005, 02:52 PM   #12
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpr
What's the typical accuracy of an alignment machine? I read somewhere that a typical accuracy was +/- 0.1deg (i.e. 6 minutes of a degree), but that seems HUGE to me. For example, the rear toe spec tolerance is +/- 6 minutes of a degree.
Looking at typical alignment reports and applying a little engineering sense, it appears that the accuracy of the camber measurements is +/- 0.05 degees (+/- 3 minutes of a degree) and the toe is accurate to +/- 0.05 degrees (+/- 0.3 minutes of a degree). This assumes of course that whomsever designed the machines and the printed out reports is applied proper measurement and signifcant number conventions....
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2005, 10:01 PM   #13
Commander FAT
Network Analyst
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,484
My Ride: 2002 330Ci
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpr
Looking at typical alignment reports and applying a little engineering sense, it appears that the accuracy of the camber measurements is +/- 0.05 degees (+/- 3 minutes of a degree) and the toe is accurate to +/- 0.05 degrees (+/- 0.3 minutes of a degree). This assumes of course that whomsever designed the machines and the printed out reports is applied proper measurement and signifcant number conventions....
Jesus christ man. Just get an alignment already.

Look up camber, caster and toe on Google. I'm sure you'll find more than enough info.
__________________
Because the B isn't for bling.
Commander FAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2005, 08:14 AM   #14
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander FAT
Jesus christ man. Just get an alignment already.
But I did already - twice - and both resulted in unhappy endings.
The third time I get my car aligned, I intend to leave nothing to chance and make sure it is done right. (Maybe it would help to explain that I am an engineer....)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander FAT
Look up camber, caster and toe on Google. I'm sure you'll find more than enough info.
Been up one side of Google and down the other.
Been to bimmerfest, bimmerforums, bimmer.roadfly, and Bentley's technical forum.
I've been to tirerack's tech info (good site BTW), hunter's product info, emailed BMWNA, and bought a copy of the Bentley manual.
But I have to find what I would consider to be definitive answers to some fundamental questions:
* Why does BMW require the car to be ballasted for alignment?
* What percentage error is introduced if the car is aligned without ballast?
* What percentage error does the alignment machine inherently have?
* Where in the tolerance range of the alignments were the cars typically set at the factory?
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2005, 06:23 PM   #15
Commander FAT
Network Analyst
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,484
My Ride: 2002 330Ci
Why does it matter what it was from the factory?
__________________
Because the B isn't for bling.
Commander FAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2005, 09:19 PM   #16
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
Because that would be a good baseline reference point for evaluating any furture changes. Alignments seem to me to be somewhat relative thing that ultimately comes down to how it feels to you as a driver. Looking at numbers can give a broad sense of what will happen, i.e. less toe in will give better turn in but sacrifice some stability. But there's really no way to really describe the difference in feel between 14 minutes and 12 minutes of front toe. It's doubly impossible to definitively say which is "better" other than by saying "better for me."
So far my car has four alignment settings - from the factory, from the pothole, and twice from the local alignment yokels. Only one of these has really felt right to me, and unfortunately its the one for which I don't know the settings.
I could probably get back to that, or probably even something I like better, but it would be mainly be trial and error. But if I knew what the factory settings were, I could use that as a baseline reference and adjust from there.

BTW, thank you CDR FAT for all your feedback and comments - you obviously know your stuff and it's a pleasure discussing this with you.
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2005, 09:50 PM   #17
4ngie
Registered User
 
4ngie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 4TL4NT4
Posts: 69,982
My Ride: Chrissspyy
I could've written this story myself. I took mine to be aligned in a couple of weeks ago after having new wheels, tires, and H&R spings installed to my local NTB. They've always done all of our cars & we've never had a problem. The car was pulling imediately to the left. After the alignment, the car was still pulling hard to the left. NTB tried to tell me it was my NEW tires, not their alignment skills.


We took the car & had the tires dismounted, inspected, remounted, & re balanced. No tire problems.

Then we took the car back for alignment #2 the next day at NTB. The alignment was done again, & again it was the same results. The tech told us the same thing- that you couldn't adjust the camber. We actually had to show him that it was possible. To make matters worse, they scratched all four of my three-week-old wheels in four places on each wheel! Notice the metal touching my wheel in the picture. They are now in the process of replacing all four wheels at their expense.





After that, we contacted BMW, who informed us about having to have a weighted alignment. Alignment #3 was done at BMW. It is still pulling to the left. Now we're having the tires replaced one at a time until we figure it out. Then I have to have alignment #4 at BMW again in a week or two.

Anyway, I feel your pain. Good luck.

Angie
__________________
4ngiefest VII - 10/5/2013

4ngie likes this.
4ngie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2005, 06:47 AM   #18
Commander FAT
Network Analyst
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,484
My Ride: 2002 330Ci
^ Unfortunately the metal clamps is the only way to attach the sensors although there are special clamp pegs for nicer alloy wheels. It has a smaller lip and it's a bit more like a hook. Looking at the scratch it looks like he dragged the pegs across the edge of your wheel when adjusting the size. I do alignments every day and I have never dragged the pegs across the wheel. That's just retarted.

Don't suppose you told the shop that they could probably just get your wheels resurfaced to fix the blemishes? Did it actually gouge the metal?
__________________
Because the B isn't for bling.
Commander FAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2005, 07:43 AM   #19
jpr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,005
My Ride: '99 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ngie
Anyway, I feel your pain. Good luck.
Thank you - but please allow me to extend my sympathies to you - you've sufferd much more than I. I got frustrated when I had to go back to the alignment shop a second time - I can only imagine how increasingly aggravating each trip you made has been....

I really doubt that the problem is your tires. Rather, I believe that is just standard alignment tech excuse #1 (the shop I was at even tried that one). Once upon time, perhaps when radial tires were new technology, the "bad tire causing a pull" may have been true often enough to that it was a sensible thing to consider. But although I've never been to a tire plant, I can't imagine that modern tire manufacturing is anything but a high volume, highly automated, mulitple-point quality controlled operation. Sure, it is theoretically possible that you won the tire quality lottery, but it has got to be very very unlikely. The odds of you having mulitiple bad tires I would figure to be essentially zero.

Similarly, while it is definiely better to align the car ballasted than unballasted, I doubt that is a signifcant contributing factor to your pull problem. My presumption (and I'm counting on CDR FAT to correct me if I am wrong) is that pull is the result of relative differences in alignment settings left to right and not the absolute values of the settings. Your car should drive straight no matter how much or how little weight is in it or how much load is on it.

If I had to put my money down, I'd bet the problem is related to your spring install. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that there is a difference between the springs for the front and rear, and unless it is a big and obvious difference it might be possible to mix them up. But I kind of doubt that is the case.

The next thing I'd consider is that judging from what I've read in various forums, new springs need a break in period to "settle". Consensus seems to be that about a week, 250 to 300 miles or so, is sufficient. Of course it sounds like you've probably racked up that mileage just back and forth to the wheel and alignment shops.

One easy way to check if your pull problem is spring related is to measure the ride height. This is done by measuring the distance from the bottom lip of you wheel to the edge of the fender well. Although there are official "specifications" for what that measurement should be, I don't think it really matters much in trying to diagnose your pull. What matters to you is that the measurements are the same from side to side.

If can determine if you have a spring related issue, or if alilgnment #4 doesn't do the trick, I recommend getting the car corner balanced as the next step. Even if your alignment settings are exactly the same side to side, you could still get a pull if the load on each wheel is not the same side to side. The opposing wheels might be pushing in pushing in exactly opposing directions, if one wheel is loaded more, it will be pushing harder than the other one.

Now please bear in mind that all of the above is not actually based on experience - you've already read my sum total of that. But with all the research I've done and the application of some engineering fundamentals, I'd wager that even if this is not the answer, it's still a pretty good question.

Finally, when you get a chance, could you please post your before and after alignment specs? I'm especially curious to compare how the unweighted "after" readings compare to the weighted "before" readings.
jpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2005, 01:32 PM   #20
4ngie
Registered User
 
4ngie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 4TL4NT4
Posts: 69,982
My Ride: Chrissspyy
OK, I hope you can read these. My scanner sux. Both are printouts from NTB. BMW never gave me one at all.


I also wonder if it matters that it says I had 18" wheels when mine are 19".

Alignment 1

Alignment 2


Measurements from the bottom wheel lip to fender edge (parked on a level surface):
LF 23 1/4"
RF 23 "
LR 23 1/2"
RR 23 1/2"
__________________
4ngiefest VII - 10/5/2013

4ngie likes this.

Last edited by 4ngie; 09-08-2005 at 01:39 PM.
4ngie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use