I need help with my front end alignment

[Dallarax19]

I am finalizing my suspension settings before I drive the car and I am finding the front suspension alignment is not going well. There is something wrong however I cannot yet identify what. I am hoping someone can help based on their experience. Specifically I cannot set the toe in the front wheels and almost all alignment adjustments are at the end of their range. A key point is I have the Spax/Eibach adjustable coilover set from Simon. Let me know your recommendations.





I would appreciate the help.

Brian

[Cunis]

Hello.

For the parallelism setting, you used the static adjustment tools?

Then the TOE your document is "in" or "out"? And what is the unit? (Degree, minute?).

Brest regards.

Pascal.

[Gerard.Bonnet]

Hello.
As written by Cunis, we need some information to help you. I suppose from your avatar, your A310 is a model after 1981. The table that I have gives me the following settings:

camber angle: -1 ° + - 10 ' (take care it's [u][b]minus[/b][/u] one +- 10°
caster angle: 8 °+ -15 '
angle of parallelism: 0 to 2mm opening.

All those specs are with the static adjustment tools.

[Dallarax19]

Thank you for the prompt response. I appreciate the comments, I had written the post after a long day of working on the front end of the car. This may help:

1) The year of the car is 1982
2) The camber is -1 (negative one - top of tire leans inward toward the centerline of the chassis)
3) The toe is in mm and measured toe out (wide at the front end of the car)
4) Most of the parts are new
- a) Upper control arms with ball joints
- b) Lower control arm ball joints
- c) Lower control arm bushing (inner pivot)
- d) All radius rod bushings
- e) Tie rods and ball joints
f) Shock absorbers and springs

From the start point the wheels were -3deg camber and by turning in the lower control arm bushing to the end of adjustment I got the wheels to just over the -1.0 target. The lower radius rod was adjusted to the caster setting, the upper was fixed and is not really adjustable. The tie rod ends were turned in all the way to the point of using up all the adjustment. As I understand it I am only 5mm lower than the standard chassis height.

Everything indicates to me I have an incorrect part and I am suspecting the upper control arm is too short. The height difference should not be enough to alter the geometry to the extent of the problems I see.

I am using these gauges to set the alignment - they are what I use on my track car
http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/prod ... ber_Gauges
http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/prod ... ser_Plates

I think to start, the best action is to compare the upper control arm length to a known good part. The next is to compare the length of the tie rod end relative to the steering rack clamp. There is something fundamentally wrong for this much of a mismatch. I should not have to adjust the lower control arm and tie rod bushing all the way to the end of the adjustment allowance and still not quite meet the spec. I would also like to know the chassis height other people are set at using the SPAX/Eibach adjustable shock absorbers.

I would appreciate the help,

Brian

[Dallarax19]

Looking at the reference diagrams can anyone confirm if I have the lower control arm assembled correctly? Is the ball joint on the right side of the arm?

[Gerard.Bonnet]

Well, it seems to be right, but i have a metal part on mine that you dont have. It dont really matter for your toe problem but i have to investigate a little more.

[Cunis]

Hello,

Looking at your photos, it lacks a triangular piece.

Look at the picture below I have circled in red.

Did you try to adjust, opening or closing your front end. right here ?

I still do not understand is if your "TOE" is a millimeter or degree?

To recap, I'll put the settings for your car with the "TOE" in Millimetre and degree.

A small table for the convertion Degree / millimeter.

And finally, you do not answer, if you'd do the settings with static tools? So I'll put a plan to make it.

Best Regards.

Pascal.

Pictures !

Triangle.jpg

DSC03583.jpg

Réglage Trains A310 Post 81..jpg

Tableau conversion Degre - Minute.jpg

Outils Statique Avant V6 & L4 310-02.pdf

[Dallarax19]

Thanks for the response. The car did not have that triangular plates so I will have to fabricate a set. I think everything else is there. The toe measurement is in millimeters (mm) and toed out:
3) The toe is in mm and measured toe out (wide at the front end of the car)
**I checked it again last night and it is 25-30mm toed out

I did not align with a static tool. I don't know what the tool in the photograph does - it is unfamiliar to me. I used standard racing alignment gauges and adjusted the tie rod ends all the way in the arrow describes in the picture. In the photo you can just see the ball joint is all the way in (close), no more adjustment is available. I can fabricate a static tool but I don't understand how it works. Maybe a brief explanation will help. I will post more photos and thanks for the help.

[Gerard.Bonnet]

Hello.
Something suprises me:

Your toe is about 25 - 30 mm and on your picture you write : Adjustement is maxed out-no more "toe in" possible.
But when you unscrew, you open the angle of toe, and when you screw, you close it.
Have you fully screwed the two sides (left and right) ?

[Dallarax19]

Hello Gerard,

Apologies if it all sounds jumbled. Hopefully this will be a better explanation. In my case the ball joints are fully seated to the end link end - fully screwed in (the photo looks like there are a few more mm of adjustment but there is not). If you see in the photo I cannot screw in the ball joint any further. (apologies if you already know this in detail) The attachment to the steering rack side is a ball joint that allows the rod to spin without in/out movement. Only the outer ball stud will go in and out to adjust toe.







On my car the steering control arm is in front of the upright so to fix "toe out" the ball joint would have to turn in more



I apologize for the slang, I reference "max out" for in and out adjustment. In this case I can no longer screw in the ball stud "maxing out" the minimum adjustment. I hope this helps.

[Cunis]

Hello,

Static tools Make settings.

the values in the Service Manual are those with static tools implemented.

tool in place.jpg

I'm trying to see if I can not have a translation of the part of the axle settings.

Regards.

Pascal.

[Gerard.Bonnet]

Cunis,

C'est pas celle que tu as cerclée de rouge qu'il lui manque, c'est celle d'en dessous...

[Cunis]

Salut Gérard

Cunis,

C'est pas celle que tu as cerclée de rouge qu'il lui manque, c'est celle d'en dessous...

Laquelle parles tu ?



Hello. I began to disassemble the piece triangle. Tomorrow you will have the ribs to make one.


Cd

Pascal.

[Dallarax19]

Hello Pascal,

I see what you are referring to. My question is the "gauge' or "jig" intended to be used on a lift? I appears to simulate a fixed ground clearance (fixes the suspension arm rotation) or is it intended to be used with the wheels on the ground. Because my spring height is adjustable I can fix the "jig" into place and adjust the spring height to match it. I will be studying the ground clearance tonight, it is the only attribute I have not looked at in detail. I will try to fabricate the "gauge" or "jig" later this afternoon to verify where I really am relative to the ideal control arm setting. Thanks again for the help!!!!!!

[Cunis]

Hi Brian,

The "gauge" or "jig" is set up, on a flat and level surface and wheels in place.

The coasts of the piece metallic triangle. will be done tomorrow.

Regards.

Pascal.

[Dallarax19]

OK I think I may have a lead on the base problem. If I understood the key dimension on the "jig" as 280mm and perform a simple kinematic swing study it shows my ride height is too high - I need to lower the car. See the following


I will contact the vendor of the parts and get their feedback.

[Cunis]

Hi Brian,

Sorry for the delay. That plan, part metallic triangle.

Ah thickness is 5mm. all coasts are in millimeters.

Triangle.fixation tirant chasse superieur.jpg

Regards.

Pascal.

[Dallarax19]

Hello Pascal

Excellent! Thank you for the sketch, I will fabricate a set immediately. Is there an upper triangle too? Very cool!

Regards,

Brian

[Cunis]

Salut, Hi,

Cunis,

C'est pas celle que tu as cerclée de rouge qu'il lui manque, c'est celle d'en dessous...

Gerard is right, it also lacks a piece triangle. See photos below and a copy of the spare part catalog (in green).

So, it lacks either side of your car, the triangular metallic parts.

A triangle top and bottom as shown in the pictures.

triangle inferieur.jpg

Triangle.jpg

Triabgle inférieur.jpg

Regards.

Pascal.

[Dallarax19]

Hello Pascal,

There is an interesting point!!! I do not have the triangle in red too!! That would have a significant input on the geometry and toe issue!! Is that standard on the 4 bolt 2nd series cars? Do you have dimensions for that one??? Please let me know.

Brian