|
0 camber front, -2 rear? Looks like even more understeery then stock. And as to me front pushing too much was one of biggest dislikes, it's front camber that i'd wish to up, not rear one.
As for some extra stability in rear, better get that with slight toe-in (which is there even in stock alignment, and is common for RWD cars), eg. +0.1 to +0.2 degrees total rear toe-in. Yes, toe extra wears tires most, but slight toe in rear imho is beneficial and at slight values extra wear is not that much to care.
Negative camber is more to get tire contact patch even to compensate for tire sidewall flex during higher speed/side-Gs cornering. Turning up rear negative camber will add a bit grip for fast corners .. but front that stayed at stock alignment 0 camber will plow same as before, so what the use in extra rear camber, if you won't use it due car understeering.
Many for twins up front camber, to even a bit more then rear. For only daily driven twin i'd probably go for -1.5dg front camber, and leave -1 (or was it -1.2?) rear camber as stock. More track oriented would be increasing overall negative camber, but still - more camber at front, as outer front tire gets most loaded. Eg. for track -3.2F, -2.5R, for something interim, -2.5F, -2R.
That won't answer to OP's heavier steering issue though. Often reason for it might be increased scrub radius from different offset or wheel spacers, but OP wrote - stock wheels. No front toe-in too as it looks from printout.
|