Reducing negative camber with control arms after lowering
 

Hello everyone,

I've lowered my car 1.25" on tein s tech lowering springs, in order to reduce negative camber I've installed ultrapower control arms. They are basically SPC control arms and look like this https://images.app.goo.gl/gWiX4Eg4spQTSWas9.

The issue when I have the adjustment bolt set for the least amount of negative camber I'm still at at -2.8 degrees. I have double checked the eccentric bolt and it is in fact set to the most inboard position. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G991W using Tapatalk

you may have to invest in some proper adjustable control arms with more range.

Something does not sound right.

I am lowered quite a bit more than 1.25" and also running SPC rear lower control arms, but I can adjust for a lot less negative camber. I am running at -2.3 now, but I had -1.9 on the previous alignment. So you should definitely be able to get in that range with only a 1.25" drop.

Odd, I'm also at -2.8 degrees with factory control arms, also lowered 1.25".

IMO that's a liveable amount even for a street-only car if you rotate tires at least once in their life. And if you're going to track or autoX, it's about where you'd want to be anyway.

Yea it's quite a head scratcher.

Sent from my SM-G991W using Tapatalk

I've been driving around with -2.8 and tire wear does seem acceptable. But ideally I'd like less camber in the rear as I only have -2.5 in the front.

Sent from my SM-G991W using Tapatalk

People have told you that you have to have "more" camber in front. I kinda cringe every time I see that recommendation... I wouldn't worry about that, it's not a critical metric. Yeah, you would want more front camber than what you have for ultimate handling at the track. At -2.5 front, -2.8 rear IMO you're in a great place for street handling feel and for occasional track or autoX. My personal opinion but based on years and years of tracking several different FR cars with myriad different alignment setups. Honestly I wouldn't worry about having "more" camber in back than front. Front camber by itself is way more critical on this car anyway and again at -2.5 you're good there for street IMO.

Unless you're super-worried about tire wear, I wouldn't worry about it. And even on that point, reducing only rear camber to, say, -2 degrees, you'll probably only get about 5-10% more overall tire life, particularly if you're running minimal toe-in.

How did you determine you still have that much camber after adjustment? Was that confirmed at an alignment shop?

If you have the stock toe arms you will be limited on how much camber you can pull out. I was able to take 0.5° out of the rear evenly before maxing the toe arms. Lowered on RCE yellows 0.8"/20mm drop. Any more taken out the rear wheels toe out on the rack. A set of SPC toe arms would solve that.

More front camber than rear is more for grip balance than anything, the camber gain on the rear is much better so it'll shift the grip balance rearwards as the grip loads up the suspension.

Stock toe arms won't limit how much camber you can remove outright, it'll just limit how much you can remove and still hit the toe number you want.

OP, I'll bet you're turning the eccentric the wrong way, I'm about 1.25" lower on stock LCA's and only have about -2.2* in the rear.

Yeah, but my impression is that front camber is pretty critical as the fronts on this car are relatively overworked. I think having more front camber is the important thing. Much much more so than having "more front camber than rear". If you don't have, say, at least -2.5 and preferably -3 or more front camber, you're going to have some mid-corner push and overwork the outsides of the front tires, whether rear camber is greater than or less than front camber (within reason). I.e., I don't agree with the notion that someone with a lowered car and front camber limited to, say, -2 degrees should worry about LCAs to bring his rear camber down to -1.5. Fine leaving it at -2.5 IMO.

I think it’s also a matter of how stiff your suspension is, with soft springs probably less static camber is better while more camber is needed with a stiffer setup. Anyway as ZDan said rear camber isn’t critical, even if it’s a bit more than ideal, front camber is much more important and it’s not a secret that these cars need up to 3.5 or even 4 degrees of negative front camber to perform well with a decent tyre wear.

I'll double check the eccentric. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G991W using Tapatalk

I used an digital angle gauge. I'm just doing the alignment by myself in my garage. I have a set of aftermarket toe arms that I have yet to install. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G991W using Tapatalk

I thought it was the other way around? Stiffer suspension requires less static camber. Or am I wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991W using Tapatalk

I’m not an expert but I think that the more your suspension compresses (aka softer springs) the more your rear camber will increase as the rear multilink does a great job and it has a good camber curve; with a stiffer spring you have less compression and you probably want a bit more static camber but I might be wrong :)

Roll stiffness for the front is required in a macpherson strut because its camber curve causes it to stagnant or even gain camber during compression. That's why there is a large amount of static negative camber required to offset this. The rear is a different matter, and over all the suspension should be looked at with a holistic approach. It's really not going to matter until you start looking at fine tuning your suspension to iron out certain issues ie. mid corner grip, bump steer etc.

That's true for the rear, but the fronts gain no camber (and actually lose some at peak compression) through compression.

Compared to rears fronts gain a bit dynamic camber when turned from caster though, even if they don't gain from compression. Then again, no that much at small turn angles, which is more common in smoother track driving.

Yeah, people always seem to miss that point. Even for medium speed corners the camber gain from caster is minimal. Personally I prefer to keep caster minimized and if that means I need to add another 0.1 degrees static camber, fine...