There are 1 time use bolts/nuts in the SS suspension that must be replaced when the car is aligned. Other owners have had multiple alignment issues shortly after alignment when these parts were not replaced.

 

I have read other threads here relating to alignments, and I have not seen evidence of non-replaced bolts falling out of spec.

I did discuss this with the shop I had my alignment done at and not only is it not mentioned in the software used to look up alignment specs and instructions, but its exceedingly rare to require complete replacement of said parts and even more rare for them to fail.

Said shop has also been in business for over 30 years and Ive had alignments done there for almost 15 years, so I trust them more that anyone here for sure.

Also, I worked at dealership for 5 years in the parts/service department and never saw bolts/nuts for any new or used cars getting alignments be replaced, unless of course they were damaged which was usually something more severe like a bent control arm or damaged shock from a customer hitting something.

Here are the correct specs:

Chevy SS Forum - View Single Post - Fully adjustable camber, caster and toe?

For normal usage excess negative camber will chew up your tires faster than the specs above which are pretty aggressive. This is what mine was from the factory and it has nothing the OP complained about necessitating "my own better than recommended specs":

http://www.ssforums.com/forum/attac...ew-ss-500-miles-car-had-2-alignments-still-pulls-right-15-03-18-align-sheet.jpg

What the OP posted as "factory alignment" is suspicious at best.

I cant tell from your second pic which are the before and which are the after numbers, but either you are running a large amount of toe and rear camber that will eat tires far faster than my "agressive" alignment, or you have Zero toe and camber all around which will save the tires but also handle quite poorly and eat sidewalls during hard cornering... So Im not sure what you are trying to say here.

IMO the factory rear specs are fine for normal/moderate driving, but the fronts need camber. I normally run -1 to -1.5 camber with zero toe up front on my previous cars with similar McPherson front strut setups with no negative effects to tire wear over years with said alignments. I went a little more agressive with the toe and camber up front as an experiment for Autox. As I mentioned, I personally (as well as the shop I worked with) recommend -1 degree front camber and eother zero toe for daily driving or some toe in for performance driving to help turn in.

 

Here are the correct specs:

Chevy SS Forum - View Single Post - Fully adjustable camber, caster and toe?

For normal usage excess negative camber will chew up your tires faster than the specs above which are pretty aggressive. This is what mine was from the factory and it has nothing the OP complained about necessitating "my own better than recommended specs":

http://www.ssforums.com/forum/attac...ew-ss-500-miles-car-had-2-alignments-still-pulls-right-15-03-18-align-sheet.jpg

What the OP posted as "factory alignment" is suspicious at best.

 

negative 1.5 degrees camber is too much negative for the street, according to me.
yes negative camber tilts the bottom outer edge of tires/wheels outwards.
it's going to eat the inner edge of tires for street driving.

other-car is 05 GTO and its rear suspension has sagged again, needs pedders/bushings/whatever refresh. it is stuck out of spec with too much negative camber, cannot be aligned in-spec. visible to eye! ew.

as for intentionally reusing/retorquing the one-time-use TTY bolts, that sounds very nonoptimal. why would anyone intentionally do that?

 

negative 1.5 degrees camber is too much negative for the street, according to me.
yes negative camber tilts the bottom outer edge of tires/wheels outwards.
it's going to eat the inner edge of tires for street driving.

Thats why my recommendation is -1.0 as opposed to what Im actually running. But I havent had wear issues as I mentioned with previous cars with -1.5.

My commute is also less than 50% driving in a straight line, and I am more concerned about the cars handling than tire wear.

 

why would a company go to the trouble of telling you you need to replace the one time bolts if you didn't have to...I would follow the manufacturer's engineering requirements but it's your car...

Bill

 

For reference, this is a direct quote from a TSB from Chevy about alignments:

"Note: These are new production vehicles, it is not necessary to replace the camber adjustment
bolts, nuts or washers when performing a front camber correction adjustment."

 

Curious why you went with toe-in in the front?

0 toe-in front and 1/16 total toe-in rear are my usual baseline settings for my AX cars (which I drive to and from events). I will probably start at an 1/8 total toe-in rear on the SS though.

 

SLA, Your specs look good. I wouldn't change anything if you AutoX.










Half asleep and didn't realize what I was doing before...omg. I need a cup o joe

 

They are indeed off from the factory, here is my alignment sheet three days after I got the car.

 

Okay, I stand corrected from my previous post. Now I just need to find a reputable alignment shop in the Phoenix Valley. I prefer not to take it to the dealership. I know the drill 'well we test drove it and it seemed fine'

 

I think that by now, meaning we are several years into the SS here in the States, that the SS benefits greatly with more grip up front. The "benefit" isn't for everyone (well, sort of-it can be) so we have to remember our audience here. I burned through the initial factory set of tires in 12k miles because I didn't get it aligned. Second set went roughly 32k miles or so with the fronts set to -.7* camber up front. There was even wear when I traded it in for my 2017.

Just to paint a picture, I bought my SS to drive it. that means no Sunday driving for me. More like a respectful 17 year old excited with his car (does that analogy work?). If I'm not driving it then I bought the wrong car. Anyway, The increase in negative camber up front made the steering feel more accurate in turns. It provided additional grip, no tire squeal, and for me no more frustration.

In my personal experience (I have tested various negative camber values on my last car) and it was clear to me that adverse wear began after the -1.1-1.2* mark. This is perfectly fine for the street as at this spec the additional wear was minor and could be an ok compromise (performance to wear) of for some. At -1.5* the tires lost 1/4th of their overall life and up to 1/2 relative to how I drove it.

I'd say that if you are curious then experiment with the initial set because you are probably wanting to burn through them anyway to get some better rubber on there.

All I know about toe-in/out is that the factory alignment specs of "toe" take in account their particular design so that when the car is in motion that the toe settles at or very close to zero.

I have the same question as SLA. Going from the factory slight toe-in to zero will help with the initial turn in which is good for AutoX. Toe-in would help best with straight line stability. Maybe Holden thinks the SS is more at home on a road course. In either case, if off of factory spec you will increase wear except for camber/caster and relative to the amount.

 

As you increase negative camber, you have to change your toe values as well. More negative camber = less toe in (and eventually 0 toe to toe-out) required to maintain even wear. Now, if you keep your tires for 30,000 miles, you might see a little camber wear given the right toe settings for the amount of negative camber, but it shouldn't be anything too crazy.

 

I plan to get mine aligned as soon as the shop I use is ready at their new location.

 

Just something to read up on.


https://www.enginebasics.com/Chassis Tuning/Understanding Toe.html

 

I've always wondered a bit about Toe. Knew more about Camber than Toe, so that article is appreciated.
Quick question:
On an alignment sheet that has Toe as 0.10 is that "Toe In" or "Toe Out"?

 

Kosta,

I think we are in the same area.

Where did you get your alignment?

I might want to take mine to its first autox next weekend too.

 

Clarkes Frame in Roseville.

Which event are you trying to go to?

 

From memory I am now at -1.3 camber front, 1/16" total toe in, the factory caster kit has me close to 7 degrees. Rear is at -.75 camber, 1/16" toe in per side. The turn in is excellent now, way more front end grip, the car drives like it lost a lot of weight. On three different on and off ramps that I took today I hit over 1.20G (1.24G was the highest), and both the front and rear were making some noise, rather than the front only when at the limit. I can enter corners about 5 MPH faster than I could previously, and unlike before no front tire squealing. With less rear camber I'm sure it would be even more lively, but on the street I'd rather keep it as is. I will only get approval from the wife on new rims/tires once I wear out these garbage factory tires, so if I lose tire life due to the front alignment so be it and I'll adjust my alignment when I get the new tires. I can say that the outer edges of my front tires were showing wear with the factory settings, so I may not be paying much of a price in the tire wear department. Time will tell.

My factory alignment had the rears toed out, thus it was out of spec. The front had less camber than the rears, as is spec out from the factory, and it wasn't very balanced side to side. The understeer was the default when approaching the limit, and the steering feel and response off center left something to be desired. Since I don't do tons of freeway driving, and get to take some nice twisty roads fairly often, I want better steering feel, turn in, and front grip over tire life. Stick to the manual settings if you prefer less tire wear and don't push the car when cornering.

 

From memory I am now at -1.3 camber front, 1/16" total toe in, the factory caster kit has me close to 7 degrees. Rear is at -.75 camber, 1/16" toe in per side. The turn in is excellent now, way more front end grip, the car drives like it lost a lot of weight. On three different on and off ramps that I took today I hit over 1.20G (1.24G was the highest), and both the front and rear were making some noise, rather than the front only when at the limit. I can enter corners about 5 MPH faster than I could previously, and unlike before no front tire squealing. With less rear camber I'm sure it would be even more lively, but on the street I'd rather keep it as is. I will only get approval from the wife on new rims/tires once I wear out these garbage factory tires, so if I lose tire life due to the front alignment so be it and I'll adjust my alignment when I get the new tires. I can say that the outer edges of my front tires were showing wear with the factory settings, so I may not be paying much of a price in the tire wear department. Time will tell.

I think it was one of your previous posts that I used for an aligmnent reference, but I did browse pretty much every alignment thread to see what people are running. Of course the lowered folks with wide wheels have very different specs, but you and I are on the same page here... It really did improve the car

 

:bangheadonwall:

 

99.9% of all Hunter printouts I've seen show max/min tolerance points left/right with the ACTUAL reading "centrally" located between the two. This documentation is shown and provided on the Hunter website.

I think people are confused because it doesn't contain detailed information like all the other ones posted in this thread, or elsewhere on the internet.

Regardless, if that is the BEFORE alignment, as your printout states, that may be why the actual alignment specs are not shown. It's not a misunderstanding, as you seem to think. Google "Hunter Printout" > Images and see what everyone is talking about. I've provided a sample printout below:

 

I had an alignment done right after I bought mine but it was because it was pulling to the left quite obviously. However I do not know the specs to which they aligned the car. Everything feels fine though and Im not noticing any unusual tire wear.

 

CB, they're all busy with the wrong Crown.

 

https://www.crownroyal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/maple-1.jpg


:hidesbehindsofa:

 

I, honestly, could give a rats ass.

 

Crown of road?

 

So if you fall asleep at the wheel, the car will automagically drift into the ditch, rather than into incoming traffic?

es

 

Here's a WAG, unlike NASCAR, most turns are made to the right.

 

When you cut thru all the baloney of who is smarter than whom, this is actually a pretty interesting thread. Unfortunately, it has been made way too complex for a host of reasons so it became just a mess in many respects helping almost no one. So to get it back on track I have a question, forgetting about AutoX and all that, what should the front and rear alignment specs actually be on this car? I am not interested in minimum and maximum values, just good old numbers for an SS that will be driven almost daily on the street. If someone actually has these values then it should make it a whole lot easier for an SS owner to go into an alignment shop and say they want an alignment to these values correct?

Rick

 

A simple basic alignment thats within GM specs and will maintain tire wear would probably be something like -.5 camber all around with 0 toe all around.

 

Factory alignment specs are listed in numerous threads on this forum and also in the 2nd post of this thread.

 

Might have to get my alignment checked. Haven't done that yet since I have had the car. Curious to know what the specs are.

 

This thread has also been interesting to me minus all the back and forth. For me I just drive my SS on street and some mountain driving, but enjoy higher speeds and hard corners. Saying all of that since trading my 15 and owning this 17 the new SS feels much more heavy and almost floaty to a point compared to my 15. I bought my 15 new but 181 test miles on it, so not sure what the alignment specs were on it, I never changed it but was much different feeling car and when traded with 13.5k miles on it plenty of even wear tred. Dont get me wrong the suspension feels decent on my 17 and ride is smooth but my 15 felt lighter weight hardly any float feeling.

I started a post on the difference in feel from my 15 to 17 and got back possible alignment issue, or just new tires, or different wheels between years, etc. I now have ~700 miles on my SS so going to check alignment after this post, make sure its in specs and or change a bit more aggressive. As for racing alignment specs:

Pg. 222 of 2017 owner's manual:
Caution
Using these wheel alignment
settings may cause excessive tire
wear. Only use these wheel
alignment settings for racing or
competitive driving. Excessive tire
wear is not covered under the
vehicle warranty.

Front Alignment Specification
. Caster: 6.0 +/- 1.25 degrees
. Camber: -0.9 +/- 0.1 degrees
. Total or Sum Toe: 0.17 +/-
0.17 degrees

Rear Alignment Specification
. Camber: -0.4 +/- 0.10 degrees
. Total or Sum Toe: 0.2 +/-
0.20 degrees

 

I can tell you that the alignment can make a huge difference in steering feel, front end grip, and making the car feel much lighter if you go on the aggressive side. Your 2015 might have been on the more aggressive end of the alignment chart, and your 2017 may be on the conservative side. Only one way to find out what your 2017 is set at, and that is to have it put on a rack. Probably 99% of people would be best served with the standard factory specs for pretty good handling and decent tire life. If you are looking for better steering and front end grip you should consider having the front set to the high end of the negative camber specs, and go 0 toe or slightly toe in. Have the rear set with less camber than the front if you want to reduce understeer.

I personally wanted sharper steering and handling, and less understeer, and I'm willing to sacrifice some tire life to have that. I'm not totally sure how my alignment will wear my tires yet at -1.3 degrees in the front. I have less toe in the front than the factory track specs call for, which should help to lessen the tire eating (I hope). At the factory alignment I was tearing up the outside shoulder of my front tires, so some more negative camber should help lessen that. If I went too far with the negative camber then the inside edge of the tire will wear out. Most of the alignment people I respect say that for aggressive street driving -1.0 of camber shouldn't cause excessive wear (1 suggested -1.4 or -1.5 is where he starts seeing the inside edges becoming a problem), but everybody drives differently and different cars react differently. I don't care for the factory tires at all, so if I wear them out quickly it doesn't bother me, I'll just go less aggressive with my next set of tires to avoid that wear. If you care about tire life over handling go conservative with the alignment with very little toe and you will probably be happy. If you really enjoy corner carving and better steering feel and can live with more tire wear go aggressive.

 

Thanks Gunmike, yeah the more I assess this situation my 15 probably did get a alignment from dealership I just never knew this, many 15's had issues with steering wheel not being straight and or alignment problems from my memory so seems highly probable. Suspect this occurred before I bought my 15 then I just reaped the rewards of a better handling and better feeling car (my opinion).

My 17 feels so different its shocking to me, as was mentioned in this thread more aggressive alignment the car felt not as heavy, sharper, etc (this is how my 15 felt driving it). Besides different wheels between the years more evidence is pointing to just not as aggressive and or off alignment I am dealing with on my 17.

 

I read your thread already and found your comparison interesting.

The alignment might help with steering feel, it did with mine. But the swaybars also supposedly changed from 15 to 16 which would most likely account for the difference in "floaty-ness".

Feel free to try an alignment first since its not expensive and can always be changed if you dont like how it turns out.

 

Back in 2010 when I purchased my Mazdaspeed 3, I assumed the alignment was accurate because the car was new. 20k miles later, the inner edge of my tires were worn through to the belts. I only noticed this because I was changing my oil, as there was plenty of tread left on the rest of the tire. I had a new set of tires installed and alignment done and it was significantly out of spec. The next set lasted about 50k and wore evenly. That being said, I am now weary of factory alignments.

So, can you go to the dealer and request an alignment check? Is there any reason they can deny the request? Will they want to charge for it? I know at my local dealer they throw some sensors on the wheels and do a quick alignment check right when you pull the car in to the garage, but they skipped it on my 2015 every time I took it in.

 

I had the same issue when I bought my '13 Speed 3. Bought rear camber arms, did a subframe adjustment and took it to a great alignment shop and told him my driving habits and he dialed in the alignment to the specs I was looking for.