Snowmax3

I seem to have igven myself some bad camber or something when I installed my ball joint spacers.. The bottoms of the tires are closer together than the tops if that makes any sense.. I guess if you look at the front of the runner this is what they would look like \ / .. Anybody else have that problem, and what would fix it? I was thinking some kind of camber kit.. Any help would be greatly appreciated..

seaflea

Have you had the front aligned by a sop yet? I know when I put mine on it looked the same until it was aligned.

Snowmax3

I will try that.. thanx
jake

86toyota

Same here. Had to get it aligned.

Flamedx4

Also note that when properly aligned there will still be a slight "V" in the front.

Snowmax3

Will the \ / shape still be there because the camber can not be adjusted properly? I never noticed the camber being that far off until the BJ spacers were on and now it's really bad. Horrible for tread wear on a set of MTs...

seaflea

It should look like it did before you added the spacers.( If it is aligned correctly)

-MaTTi-

Your toe is about +1" if you haven´t get alignment, tires wear very quickly and it´s horrible to drive. Hurry up!

Flamedx4

No, it isn't because they can't align it to spec - the V is proper when the alignment is correct. This is true for most vehicles. It's not a lot, but you can see it if you look for it.

The combination of caster, camber and steering axis inclination makes it track straight, return to center after turning, reduce understeer or oversteer tendencies through corners - stuff like that. Camber is rarely 'zero' in anything. Zero camber and zero caster would be perfect for max tire wear and reduced rolling resistance if on a perfect level surface going perfectly straight (but that will never happen in your lifetime,) but it would be terrible trying to keep it going straight, you could never relax.

ANY time you change something on your front suspension you should have it aligned.

AxleIke

He speaks truth.

jimbo74

as t ostop confusion, as flamed says there is no zero.. this is true, no true zero... however for the sake of alignment, you want it as close to the 0 spec as possible... the specs are setup for differnt vehicles and differnt conditions, so there is no TRUE 0 but there is a 0 spec wise....

Flamedx4

Actually the Yota spec calls for quite a bit of camber (at least on the 4wd - don't know don't care about 2wd) It's pretty noticeable if you stand in front of it and look at it. You don't want 'as close to zero as possible' - you want it as close to SPEC as possible, whatever spec happens to be.

Snowmax3

I gotcha on that one Flamed. I know how race cars use camber and the same goes for other vehicles. I just want to make sure that I get this right. Wearing down one set of expensive tires unevenly is enough of a waste of money. I appreciate all of the feedback and once again you guys rip!

To those who wonder, my user name is used by my brother and I so my name is in the Signature and he puts his name after a post he makes. Sorry for the confusion but I turned him on to this board to fix his issues and meet fellow Toyota fans.

Flamedx4

When I bought the '90 the front end looked like / \ (really badly) and the tires were shot. They were literally worn smooth on the inside and had nearly full tread depth on the outside. In the glove box were receipts for 2 sets of tires in One Year, with less than 60k total miles driven. They had obviously never had it aligned after the lift. The alignment was horribly off, the toe was out 3/4 of an INCH! And the steering arm joint and idler arm joint were both shot. And of course it drove like a 1980 Bronco...

Two arms and an alignment and HOLY COW what a difference! And my new tires aren't showing any signs of a pattern, at all, the little nubs wore off dead evenly across the tread face.