[200q20v] Re: DIY Alignment, was front suspension/replace

[Derek Pulvino]

Thanks for the response, but there's still some questions that didn't get 
answered (ie has anybody seen slightly off alignment to make a big 
difference, any idea if front end geometry is different between t44 and 
C4/V8, was S4 associated with big tramlining issues).  Does anybody have any 
input?    Getting kind of frustrating babysitting the car to go strait down 
the road-tramlining is killing me.  The responsiveness and grip of 50 series 
tires is nice though.

And yes Bernie, I agree, these car's do seem very strong in the high speed 
freeway machine arena.

Derek P

>From: Bernie Benz <b.m.benz at prodigy.net>
>To: Derek Pulvino <dbpulvino at hotmail.com>
>CC: 200q20V mailing list <200q20v at audifans.com>
>Subject: Re: [200q20v] Re: DIY Alignment, was  front suspension/replace
>Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 06:53:49 -0800
>
>Hi Derek,  My further critique interlaced below.
>
>Bernie
>
> > From: "Derek Pulvino" <dbpulvino at hotmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 09:51:08 -0700
> > To: 200q20v at audifans.com
> > Cc: b.m.benz at prodigy.net
> > Subject: [200q20v] Re: DIY Alignment, was  front suspension/replace
> >
> > Howdy all,
> >
> > What are you guys using for alignment specs?  Are you setting to the 
>factory
> > prescribed specs (ie .5 degree neg. camber, and .17 deg. toe in on 
>front,
> > etc.).  Have you found that being slightly off that mark makes a 
>difference
> > in the handling/tracking of the vehicle?
>My specs in general are within the broad factory spec range, depending upon
>the useage.  Example:  200-20V camber factory spec. -.5D +/- .5D.  For
>freeway cruising, what the 200 was built for and best at, I use 0.0D camber
>for max tire life.  For aggressive driving I would use -0.5D (with a
>prestressed Benz Strut Brace) at some sacrifice in tire wear.  For track 
>(no
>personal experience) I'd start with -1.0D, who cares about tire life?
>Winning is everything!
>But, IMO, the factory allowed camber side to side difference of 0.5D is
>grose!  Should be zero, or as close to zero as possible.  DYI is about the
>only to achieve this with certanity.
> >
> > As asked several months ago, still trying to sort out the front end 
>tracking
> > on my vehicle.  Have had several alignments on the vehicle, and still 
>not
> > there (only one of which I've had to pay for).  The funny thing is, 
>going
> > from one shop to the next, I found the alignment readings where not the
> > same.  Not much time between alignments, and don't think the car was 
>jolted
> > to terribly in that time; makes me wonder about machine calibration.
>As well as operator knowledge and care, or suspension parts problems.
> >
> > I'm guessing you're using the degree/bubble gauges for camber, but it 
>would
> > seem a good t-square, engineers scale, and some math would also get you
> > there.  What are you using to check toe?  String-box method?  I know the
> > garage floor in my abode is not flat, so I guess to using a bubble gauge
> > would require me to first find the angle of the garage floor, before 
>setting
> > camber.  Once you get a camber reading, how are you physically moving 
>the
> > strut housing-once you loosen the bolts on the camber plate, is hand
> > pressure enough to move the strut housing's position?
>Must unload the strut to tower interface by jacking the chassis, as the
>shops do.
> >
> > How also would you suggest checking/setting the thrust angle.  I'd seen 
>one
> > suggestion to use a plumb bob to check alignment of the front end
> > componentry, but I guess I would once again have to compensate for the
> > garage floor.  I'm pretty sure the subframe is not right in the middle.
>I don't use the term thrust angle, but I do align such that the chassis 
>goes
>down the road straight.  Will get into how in a forthcoming disclosure.
> >
> > Also, does anybody know if the 92-94 S4 had any issues with tracking 
>and/or
> > twitchiness running it's stock wheels (star fish wheels)?  I remember
> > discussion saying the strut housings, and control arms between the 200 
>and
> > the S4/V8 are not the same, but I'm wondering if anybody knows if this
> > changed the front end geometry at all, to make it more compatible with a
> > 40mm offset wheel?  My logic is following that if the geometry hasn't
> > changed between these vehicles, and the S4 didn't have problems with
> > tracking in stock guise, then my car when correctly set up shouldn't
> > either-I'm running the 16" star fish wheels on my car.  That's where the
> > lion's share of my tracking problems arise.
> >
> > All right, enough said.  I leave this one to the floor for discussion.
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Derek Pulvino.
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com