Alfa Romeo Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
656 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thank you, everything is fine.
I want to make new sleeves with smaller length. Uneven tread wear wheels (inside). 12 000km
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,782 Posts
Yea, I thought that after I posted. I plan on elongating the upper strut holes in the red car to adjust camber. I tried adding shims there and it didn't seem to help much (enough).
In addition to the wear, if the car is pulling, to the side, it may help, but in my case it didn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
656 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
This is a consequence of the camber, not the toe. On my car, all new suspension. Only 20-25 000 km. Car dont pulling in different sides. I certainly will check the suspension on a wheel alignment system. In memory of the system there is recent evidence of my car, I was making the adjustment 2 years ago. But if everything - not good, maybe something with the body, then put a short sleeve. I will do a dozen steps of 0.5 mm.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,861 Posts
"This is a consequence of the camber, not the toe"

More a function of the toe I think. You should have zero front toe to start off with, and adjust slightly to positive from there if inside wear still occurs. I have maybe 25k miles on the front tires of my 91S, and the wear across the tread is completely even, as of yesterday when I checked. The camber has not been changed.

Of course you can reduce the camber, that helps, maybe allows one to have slight negative toe, but the big wear factor is the toe.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,861 Posts
Yup.

"Additionally the vehicle's toe is one of the most critical alignment settings relative to tire wear. A toe setting that is just a little off its appropriate setting can make a huge difference in their wear"

That's my experience. I don't even know what the exact front toe settings are in my two 164s. I had them adjusted to zero to start off with, and watched the wear pattern. When just a little inside wear started to appear, I gave the toe a tweak toward more positive. Not much at all, but just a bare tweak, making the wear pattern drift toward even wear. I now feel it is correct for optimizing front tire wear (that plus rotating them front to rear once in a while). The rear toe is also slightly reduced as well, as they scrub with any toe, positive in these cars.

Yes, I know I have most likely reduced front end handling response slightly, but that is a trade off I'm willing to readily accept, given the price of good tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,000 Posts
This is a consequence of the camber, not the toe. On my car, all new suspension. Only 20-25 000 km. Car dont pulling in different sides. I certainly will check the suspension on a wheel alignment system. In memory of the system there is recent evidence of my car, I was making the adjustment 2 years ago. But if everything - not good, maybe something with the body, then put a short sleeve. I will do a dozen steps of 0.5 mm.
You might think so but the camber is fixed and intentionally negative.

To minimize unusual wear front toe settings are critical. What you try to do is compensate for camber wear by setting toe at zero. This toes in the front wheels under drive which then evens out the camber wear. Front tire wear is VERY aggressive on these cars but worth it for the sharp handling.

Alfa designed sharp front end grip into this car. The cost is rapid front tire wear. If you set toe out at the front then camber wear will be very aggressive.

Zero toe actually helps initial turn in reinforcing the camber thrust effect.

Set front toe as close to zero as you can without going positive.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,861 Posts
"Set front toe as close to zero as you can without going positive"

I found that doing just that will still cause slight inside tread wear, but for many, that is a trade off they may accept. I was always curious as to what toe setting would give even wear, regardless of the effect on handling, and I found that really, I couldn't tell the difference in aggressive but legal driving if the toe went slightly positive. I do have to admit that I really don't know what the toe is, except that I started at zero, and went slightly positive.

Now, at very high speeds, say above 90 mph on winding roads, there may be a difference, but for 99% of my driving, the difference was nonexistent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,000 Posts
Living where I do I change tires twice per year.

The rear tires run much less camber and some toe in.

By rotating tires front to rear every year I find I get even tread wear.

My car came with negative 2.4 degrees front camber from new.

Steering rack is behind the hubs so dynamic toe is always more negative than static toe except under hard braking. The harder you accelerate the more negative toe you get.

Toe out helps turn in but toe in induces stability in turns. Negative camber gives excellent front grip but at the expense of tire wear. McPherson struts go negative in roll initially but run out of room to maintain that quite soon in the travel so large static negative camber tends to work well. As the suspension compresses the wheel goes into positive camber quite rapidly. Also, in a straight line hard acceleration induces a reduction in negative camber initially.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,861 Posts
Since most driving miles are done at steady state, the setup tends to return/relax close to a static alignment, the actual hp required to cruise at freeway speeds being maybe less than 40, not a lot compared to acceleration. If one spends hours just cruising on the freeway, the close to static alignment is the predominate one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
656 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Thank you all for the information. It remains only to wait for spring.
By car winter tires already installed, and they are a different size.
Winter - 205x60x16
Summer - 215x55x16
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,000 Posts
Since most driving miles are done at steady state, the setup tends to return/relax close to a static alignment, the actual hp required to cruise at freeway speeds being maybe less than 40, not a lot compared to acceleration. If one spends hours just cruising on the freeway, the close to static alignment is the predominate one.
Which is why setting zero front toe works in our environment. The toe compensates a little for the camber. The front tires still wear much more quickly than they should (I can compare my 164 to the very similar SAAB 9000) but the wear is more even across the tread. My 164 wears tires out approximately 3 times faster than the 9000.

My theory is the 164 alignment is optimized for fast cornering. Over here we waste tire wear driving this setup in straight lines!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,861 Posts
True, which is why I get maybe not much more than 30k miles on the164S tires. The tires on the LS seem to last a bit longer, maybe less neg camber on the front? In comparison, the same tires on the Milano just seem to go on and on for many more miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,000 Posts
True, which is why I get maybe not much more than 30k miles on the164S tires. The tires on the LS seem to last a bit longer, maybe less neg camber on the front? In comparison, the same tires on the Milano just seem to go on and on for many more miles.
Ah yes, the Milano. I had the GTV 6 version. What a sweet chassis those cars have.

The tire wear difference is due to three factors: chassis balance, vehicle weight and fwd versus rwd.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,861 Posts
Exactly. All the difference in the world.

I owned two GTV6's, and the 86, last of the bunch, was a sweet car, with a very good engine. Actually, although the Milano is an 89, somehow it always felt like that engine just didn't quite have the verve of the 86 GTV6. Don't know why, except maybe a difference in gearing. Haven't looked it up, but suppose I should. Maybe if there is a difference, I should look for a used GTV6 tranny/diff box.

As much as I liked that GTV6, we like the 4 door version more. Also, seems just a little better balanced when tossing it around. Of course better than the 164S, but that's a different car, with that more than sweet engine. Soon as I drove the 164S for the first time, the GTV6 seemed tame, well, somewhat anyway. The GTV6, though, was such a nice car the dealer bought it from me for his son. Still has it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,000 Posts
Wouldn't your Milano be a 3.0? Those bigger pistons made a difference in the free revving nature of the engine. The 2.5 was a better size though less powerful. Hard to believe it eventually reached 3.2 litres.

Alfa did play around with final drive ratios in the GTV6 and probably the Milano as well. The first GTV 6 cars coming to North America had short final drives. Mine was a later 82 which had the benefit of the taller final drive. The internal ratios may have been different though, as well, which made direct comparison tricky. I thought my 82 drove better than the 80 I test drove.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top