Classic Impreza Geometry / Springs.

duncan · Post by **duncan** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:24 am

No offense but with those settings it would understeer like a pig from hell

What happened to the neg camber at the front?

It looks like they have aligned the wheels but there is an awful lot more to it than that.

jazzymonkey · Post by **jazzymonkey** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:39 am

dynamix wrote:No offense but with those settings it would understeer like a pig from hell

What happened to the neg camber at the front?

It looks like they have aligned the wheels but there is an awful lot more to it than that.

Yep it does! Looking forward to seeing the difference tomorrow. I have been unhappy with the car for a while now, and now i can see why from yours and Autotest's reaction to the settings.
Thanks for your input.
JM

duncan · Post by **duncan** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:49 am

You want to try and aim for 1.5 degree neg on the front (ish) and as much Caster as you can get. (i have around 5.5 degrees) rear neg camber of around 1 or over 1 would be good too.

Toe settings are a personal preference but I have mine set to Toe out slightly front and rear to give a good turn in. It does make it slightly succeptable to tramlining and a bit fidgety on bumpy roads, but I can live with that for the trade off on track

Prodrive settings are I believe a small amount of toe in at the front and parallel at the rear.

ESL · Post by **ESL** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:30 am

Looking at the pyrometer readings on mine, 1.5deg neg camber all round looks to be close.

duncan · Post by **duncan** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:34 am

ESL wrote:Looking at the pyrometer readings on mine, 1.5deg neg camber all round looks to be close.

I think that looked about right for mine - unfortunately I cant run any more rear camber until I fit adjustable lower arms and I cant see anyone that maakes them with the yaw sensor mount that I need for the DCCD, so will have to live with it. I may stick with more neg camber up front for the moment.

blacky · Post by **blacky** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:46 am

Dunc, are RR camber bolts not avialable to allow a wee bit more???

Gerry H · Post by **Gerry H** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:51 am

blacky wrote:Dunc, are RR camber bolts not avialable to allow a wee bit more???

Rear top mounts not give you a bit too?

duncan · Post by **duncan** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:52 am

Gerry H wrote:
blacky wrote:Dunc, are RR camber bolts not avialable to allow a wee bit more???
Rear top mounts not give you a bit too?

I was told the camber bolts wouldnt fit and the rear top mounts are non-adjustable

Gerry H · Post by **Gerry H** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:16 pm

dynamix wrote:
Gerry H wrote:
blacky wrote:Dunc, are RR camber bolts not avialable to allow a wee bit more???
Rear top mounts not give you a bit too?
I was told the camber bolts wouldnt fit and the rear top mounts are non-adjustable

Have you spoken to Zak about Noltec rear top mounts. I meant those rather than OE.

stockcar · Post by **stockcar** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:37 pm

why did it appear to lose so much cam,ber from the first sheet to the second??

the 'final' settings on the first sheet look somewhere near what i would expect although you can generally get them better matched, but the 2nd set are shocking
hass the right rear had a knock to lose its camber??