Based on comments on this forum, I recently had the rear toe-in changed from 6 m to 4 mm on my new S2000. I had driven the car about 1,500 miles before I had the rear alignment changed, so I was familiar with the handling at the stock setting. At the new setting, the car definitely feels less firmly planted on the ground. Another way to describe the change in feel is that it feels like the car now has narrower tires on the back.

This may just be a way to describe how a greater amount of oversteer feels to me. The car still seems properly aligned, i.e., it goes straight down the highway if I let go of the wheel on a level stretch without a large crown. The dealership did the re-alignment for free as part of the car sale and I do not think I will pay to have it changed back at this time. I will see how it feels for awhile and then I may change the alignment back when I replace the rear tires. I take it this may happen at 12,000 miles if I have average luck, or maybe later if changing to a 4 mm rear toe-in really improves the rear tire wear.

I would be interested in hearing about the experience of anyone else who has changed to a 4 mm rear toe-in.

On another note, I previously owned a Honda VFR 750 and it is amazing how similar the S2000 is to the VFR as far as the power curve. Just like the VFR, the S2000 is very low key in the 3,000 RPM range, but it is great fun to drive, with unlimited usable RPM's and great engine braking, on twisty roads above 6,000 RPM.

 

Know the feeling exactly.

I don't know to what degree my alignment was changed but dealers here have been setting up the alignment to minimise tyre wear. Unfortunately this comes at the expense of handling (and IMO safety).

For the last 6 months or so I had been unhappy with my car's handling so upon replacing my rear tyres recently I had all alignment specs set back to factory recommended settings and the difference is dramatic. The car once again handles like it should. In fact the improvement is so noticeable I can't stop driving it now (fun factor).

Of course the alignment shop moaned that they wouldn't be able to cover me for wear unless they were set to their very own specs. This appears to be the trade-off with this car.

 

Yikes!! I know just what you mean.

I recently had a new set or tires put on the car and I immediately new that something was different. I hadn't wanted an alignment but my son took the new tires to be put on and automatically asked for an alignment (I should have said "no alignment please").

Anyway I am going to have ask them to reset to the factory settings.

I will probably have the information before you answer this post, but just for the record what are the factory settings? (yeah I know, dumb question).

 

I believe I've experienced both ends of the spectrum. Many knowledgeable people on this board(not me!) have stated that OEM alignment specs are too broad. Two stock S2000's could have different settings. I believe I remember the rears to be 6mm +/- 2.

My car handled rather well off the lot. Of course this is my first sports car, so what the hell would I know, right?! It felt good. Anyway, at 13k I put new meat on the back and asked for a more aggressive alignment. WOW! Talk about planted! I'd try to throw her around, but the damn thing felt crazy-secure! I ended up driving 4500 straightline miles and had significant tire wear- front and rear. Too much r@!n to do anything else.

Now I've gone to the suggested tire-saver alignment in an effort to get a few more miles out of the current set. Big difference! Not unmanageable, but definitely less confidence provoking. At high speeds(120+), the car has far less tendency to "wander" on normal everyday freeways. I like that. But I miss knowing that I can absolutely attack every single turn on back roads.

Looks like I'll be going back to somewhere in the middle. Whatever you do, always get the specs off the car before going to a new alignment. This will help you eventually get dialed into where you want to be.

 

While I, like skip, certainly am not a expert on this matter, I found that changing rear toe in to 4mm and changing negative camber on front from -.45 to -.36 made my car feel MORE planted. More of a "you go right where you point it" feel. I don't know whether the reduction of the front camber along with the reduction of the rear toe in makes the difference, or if it is merely a difference in driving styles. The mystery continues!

Thanks,
Richard

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dolebludger
[B]While I, like skip, certainly am not a expert on this matter, I found that changing rear toe in to 4mm and changing negative camber on front from -.45 to -.36 made my car feel MORE planted. More of a "you go right where you point it" feel.

 

Well, I would suspect that both the front and rears would have to be aligned to these specs to get the driving feel I now enjoy. And then, perhaps the uneven front wear on my tires, when combined with these specs, might have an effect. I would suggest that you contact Jim for specifics as to your car. The alingment specs for this car are very broad, and the wear pattern on your tires could be different than mine. But I will say this much. 6mm to 8mm toe in on the rear (IMO) is WAY too much, unless we are asking alignment to take up for suspension deficiencies. Same with a negative -.45 camber on the front. NOW if you are actively involved in racing, forget everything I've said. That's a different thing. But if you drive you S2k line most of us, they frankly come too far out of parallel and too far out of verticle for ordinary driving.

Thanks,
Richard

 

A 4mm toe at the rear will provoke sudden oversteer at the limit of adhesion, as those of us who autocross know well. Most of you probably do not drive to the limit and beyond, but it is better to keep the rear end planted. We've found that .22 to .25 inches toe in at the rear works really well. Too little toe at the rear can make the car prone to oversteer and spinning. And, once it lets go with this setup, its gone. The right toe makes for a very predictable slide, although this comes at a very high level of adhesion.

 

chipperman:

Your comments are noted and appreciated. Since I'm not good at going from metric to inches in my head, I got out a dual purpose ruler and, unless I read it wrong, there's very little difference between 4mm and .22". (4mm looks like .19" to .20".) But I know that when machines are stretched to their limits, just a bit can mean a lot. Next time, I may try your .22" to .25" on for size!

That brings me to one important point. My specs were given me based upon my statements that I don't do auto cross or any other true competitive driving. Were I to decide to do so, there are a whole raft of mods I'd first make, and alignment would be the cheapest of them! I just wanted settings for max tire wear and stability under normal "sporty" driving. And I recommended the settings I did only for non-competitive driving --- not for auto cross. And for my purposes, I like them better than what I had, and actually enjoy the little bit of what some might call "oversteer" and am pretty good at bring things back to as intended in a hurry. Before, on my "test hairpin ramp" 70 mph felt like the thing was going to break into understeer and run me off a culvert! Now, while 80 mph feels just fine, I know too that a try at 110mph might not allow me to write this response! So I certainly hope no one takes my recommended specs and goes right into true competition. And, I'm sure, neither does Jim @ Tirerack who gave me these specs based upon the fact that I told him I drove on streets and highways only. The last thing anybody in the S2k community wants is for anybody to get injured, or worse! Had I told Jim that I drove in competitive events at 11/10ths of the car's ability, I know his recommendations would have been different ----- including a new set of wider, stickier R compound tires front and rear, along with different alignment specs.

So please understand that my alignment recommendations were for street and highway drivers only, and surely not for competition drivers, where these specs might be dangerous.

Thanks,
Richard

 

F2skip:

If you like the way the front tires track with the "tire saving alignment" but feel uncomfortable with too little toe in on the rears, why not leave the front alone, and use chipperman's slightly greater suggested rear toe in? Any comments on this?

Thanks,
Richard