4DRZ

iTrader: (7)

What was the front camber setting when it ruined the tires compared to the -1.3 and -1.4 that it is at now? Was the toe at zero before the alignment too? I think I may have the same issue as you and just trying to figure out the cause. Thanks!

Rochester

iTrader: (9)

Somehow -1.9 and -1.1 has morphed into -1.3 and -1.4, which is great, although I can't explain it. Since those were the numbers when it went on the rack a few weeks ago, we didn't actually change them. Yes, toe was zeroed before and now.

4DRZ

iTrader: (7)

So you got an alignment recently and purposely set the camber at -1.9 and -1.1, but it went out of those specs on it's own to -1.3 and -1.4 when you checked it more recently? What were the camber specs the car was set at when the tires got worn out on the insides?

Rochester

iTrader: (9)

No, I don't have adjustable front arms, so -1.9 and -1.1 were as good as the alignment tech could get things when focused on getting toe to zero.

Then, over time and on its own, it shifted to -1.3 and -1.4 to the point where you saw that picture I posted. Sure, it's odd, but there it is. Same alignment shop (Inifiniti dealership), and same technician.

However, they did just recently upgrade to new alignment equipment. Same rack, but different attachment technique at each corner.

4DRZ

iTrader: (7)

That's weird. I do not have adjustable front arms either and we got mine to -1.5 all around with zero toe. I do have adjustable rear camber arms though.

So the alignment that screwed up your tires was at -1.9 and -1.1, but it wore both tires inside evenly or was one worse than the other?

Rochester

iTrader: (9)

Same. Adjustable rears, but not in the front.


One was worse than the other. That being the front passenger side, which was originally -1.1 and ended up at -1.4. However, they were both pretty bad, just that the passenger side was wearing through faster than the driver side.

Lego_Maniac

iTrader: (3)

Is 0 toe desirable? I'm at 1/16 and am not experiencing the kind of inner tire wear as you guys, and Rochester and I both have swifts and 245/40s up front

2GoRNot2G

iTrader: (5)

Zero toe is tolerable, but slightly positive toe is ideal. What you really don't want it negative toe/toe out (or heavy positive toe).


My car is set up very close to yours except I run around -1.5 to -1.7 camber up front to closer match the rear camber.

4DRZ

iTrader: (7)

Rochester- What were the camber specs you had that screwed up your tires. I am trying to figure out if -1.5 is too much for me up front and will continue to cause cupping or if it should be ok and the toe is off.

Rochester

iTrader: (9)

I keep answering this same question. WTF, man? LOL

I personally think -1.5 is reasonable, and I should have ditched my fronts in the springtime when I thought they were suspect. I didn't, and 3000 miles later they got really bad. It's all on me, and I'm just happy they didn't blow... although it's not uncommon to see much worse tires on the road.

Have you considered perhaps your cupping issue was a balance problem, and not an alignment problem?

Just get ready to get new tires next year, 4DRZ. I know it's a tough pill to swallow when you expect more life out of them than you're getting. It's one of the reasons I went with Contis instead of the Michelins.

4DRZ

iTrader: (7)

Yeah I don't know what's going on here. I feel like we are speaking different languages. Let me recap and maybe you can help me see where the wheels fell off.

First you said the front changed to -1.3 and -1.4, but not what it was originally set at. Then you made it sound like -1.9 and -1.1 were what the alignment was originally set at so I clarified to make sure that was right, but then you made it sound like -1.9 and -1.1 were on a recent alignment. So I clarified again and you went back to the -1.1 that sounded like the recent alignment that somehow changed to -1.4.

So let's try this- how about a timeline. Was the -1.9 and -1.1 the first alignment you had on the tires that went bad? When did you notice they went to -1.3 and -1.4? Do you have new tires and new alignment specs?

I am asking all about front camber because I remember you sounded pretty convinced that your tire issue was due to the toe.

I am at -1.5 in the front. I fixed the cupping issue by swapping the front wheels to the back and laying a few stripes. The negative camber in the rear really just wore off the cupping. Score! Just wondering if I should dial it down to -1.0 in the front and keep the -1.5 in the back that seems to wear the rear tires very evenly for some reason. Maybe the design of the front suspension increases the negative camber under some situations?

Rochester

iTrader: (9)

Only for you, man. But this is the very last time we have this dance.

Looking only at the front end:


April of 2014, PSS and Vossens were put on the car. Within weeks, Swift lowering springs were added, and the car was aligned in June 2014. I don't have the specs for that alignment.

July of 2015, I had the car aligned again because I was experimenting with poly spring seat spacers in the rear. That project was a total failure. I don't have the specs for that alignment, except that my focus was on the rear, and the fronts weren't affected.

August of 2015, I had the car aligned again because of rear-only coilovers. At this point, the PSS had approximately 4000 miles on them. Here is a picture of the specs after alignment:



Spring of 2017, the tires had somewhere between 12-15K miles on them, and I had plenty of center and outside tread left, however the inner edges were wearing consistently, like they were being shaved. I rolled the dice and used them.

Fall of 2017, I went in for another alignment because the inner edge wear had gotten out of hand, and I suspected the alignment. The car went on the rack, BUT WASN'T ADJUSTED. Here is a picture of the specs with no adjustments made:



As you can see, specs have changed all on their own. Camber is actually more desirable than previously, so we didn't change things.

Some other differences:

• 2015 alignment was with Vossens, PSS and 3mm spacers.
• 2017 alignment was with Duckfeet, snowtires and 15mm spacers.
• Same shop, same technician, same rack, brand new wheel clamps.

Lastly, the tire with the worst problem was the passenger side, which isn't what you would expect looking at these specs, but there it is. And that's the whole brain dump. In so far as holes in this timeline, I can't tell you what the alignment specs were for the first 4000 miles give or take.

Anyway, I don't see how any of this really helps you figure out your wear problem.

4DRZ

iTrader: (7)

No wonder I was so confused- your alignments and wheels are all over the place. I really thought the solution to my slight front cupping issue would be in your records. Bummer. At least I know the fix is just a few spins on the rear axle.

I wonder if -1.5 is just a touch too much camber up front. Or maybe the double wishbone setup lends itself to more negative camber under certain situations when lowered on Tein Basis.

2GoRNot2G

iTrader: (5)

-1.5° camber should be fine front or rear. I've been running around -1.7° in the front of my car for many, many years and have yet to wear out a set of front tires. I actually have 2 sets of front tires in my warehouse that have around 7 or 8/32" of tread on them since I replaced them at the same time as the rears. The only time I can recall ever having any uneven wear on the front of my G was due to a slightly worn inner tierod end and that was caught early on so I didn't have to replace the tire. Also, it is very unlikely that negative camber created that kind of wear... that kind of wear is typically associated with the tires being toed out or possibly worn parts (i.e. bad tie-rod end).

2GoRNot2G

iTrader: (5)

Here's a good illustration that shows the visible difference between toe wear of a tire (thin edge wear on the inner or outer edge) compared to camber wear (edge wear that is more evenly spread across the tread of the tire from the center of the tire to the edge of the tire).