Hello,

On our Mazda MPV minivan, I was able to correct a negative camber angle / tire wear issue on one side by using a camber correction bolt made by the Ingalls company. It's basically a replacement offset bolt that allows you to alter the camber angle by up to 1 degree. Replacing both strut-to-steering knuckle bolts allows you to change the angle by 2 degrees.

The X-Type's strut suspension design is different in that there aren't any bolts that can be replaced on the strut base. Short of replacing the control arm (and I'm not sure a new arm would correct it), are there any other ways members have been able to correct for excessive inner tire wear? It only occurs on the right front and I've read elsewhere that others have had the same problem. Otherwise, the alignment on all four corners is within spec - it's only the camber setting on the right front.

Thanks for any advice.

Steve

 

Turned out when my TCase was replaced they didn't align the subframe correctly. After much arguing and independent analysis Jaguar corrected the problem.... bottom line moving the subframe is your only hope... Did you have your TCase or Transmission rebuilt or changed?

 

Hello,

Thanks. I bought my X-Type used. It was about 11 months old back in '05 - bought from an estate after the first owner died unexpectedly). I'm not aware that the TC or any other front end work was ever done. It's not been in an accident either.

Regards,

Steve

 

The dealer can check the history, and if the TC or Transmission or anything else that required dropping the subframe (maybe oil pan gasket, etc), then I would start there since there is no other way to correct the Camber... unfortunately it could be that work was done outside the dealership and you won't have the history. The dealership could measure the subframe alignment as detailed in the JTIS (old I know) and go from there.

 

Been meaning to post again. Was able to solve for a slight (1 degree) negative camber by elongating the holes in the front strut tower to allow the strut to tilt outward at the top. The alignment technician jacked up the right front, removed the nuts that hold the upper strut mount, used a pry bar to lower the strut slightly and then carefully used a die grinder to alter the holes. He elongated the holes by about 1/16"-1/8" and reassembled. He showed me the printout and camber was now within spec. He corrected for the toe-in change that resulted. I'm hopeful this will solve for the sever RF inner edge tire wear I was getting.

 

I like this solution. I had seen that possibility and loosened the nuts then pushed top of strut over as far as it would go (a neglible amount).

Please keep us updated on whether or not any issues arise from this. Some concerns I would have would be: Is the mount compromised from taking away metal? Do the nuts/bolts tend to slide back to where they were? And, will this put any other suspension parts in a bind and affect them later?

Mine is a very stiff Sport suspension, how about yours?

 

Hi,

The amount of material removed was only enough to get the strut mount to move laterally about 1/8" or so which corrected the camber by about one degree. I also removed each nut one at a time and painted the bare metal to keep it from rusting. The nuts were retorqued and they've stayed tight and in the same location for about 10,000 miles so far. The tire is wearing evenly so I think it's been solved. Sure beats having to move the subframe.

Good luck,

Steve

 

Wow, this is brilliant. I wish I had seen this a year ago. I just had my car in yesterday for a tire rotation an balance in a vain attempt to extend tire life. Both front tires were worn on the inside edge with the RF all the way through to the steel cords. In 20,000 miles no less! I've known there was a problem since we got the car 8 years ago but finding the solution has been a challenge to say the least. Now there is hope.

 

Sorry if I'm the only one who doesn't think this method of realignment is a good idea!

When the car was first built it, its whole system of suspension and chassis alignment was within acceptable limits. If something subsequently moved and altered part of that setup, then an apparent correction by moving bolt holes in another part of the system is most unlikely to achieve an overall correct alignment.

The fact that the standard front and rear Toe, Camber and Castor readings appear correct is not necessarily relevant if a main (supposedly) fixed point in the setup has been moved illicitly. The system now contains the original fault and another added fault in another place; two wrongs seldom make a right.

 

+1

Precision tools = pry bar + angle grinder.

With a little more experience this 'alignment technician' will be able to perfect his adjustment technique by simply whacking the suspension a few times with a 14lb hammer.

Graham

 

Sorry but I've been down this road before with a vehicle that lacked camber adjustment and trying to to compensate with various toe adjustments proved futile. My X Type was following the same path so I took it in this morning with new tires mounted and had it aligned and corrected the camber by slightly slotting the strut mount holes. Apparently this is not an unknown procedure as the tech has performed this on numerous BMWs. We went from -1.1 to -.05 and corrected the toed out conndition from -0.15 to 0.0.
I'll be watching it but I feel a lot better about my chances of not burning up another set of tires in no time at all.

By the way, blind allegiance to three holes punched in sheet metal with a built in error margin and no means of correction doesn't do it for me. And creating a 1/8" slot is hardly the onerous mutilation that astromorg describes. Pretty eloquent but not the least bit factual.

 

I really don't mind if you want to disagree with my conclusions, but I would like an explanation of what's not factual in my post please.

 

I would pick on paragraphs two and three.

 

Amen.

 

Other members will have to decide for themselves which side of this difference of opinions to take.
Based on a long and wide experience of machinery alignment problems and solutions, I will conclude by saying that I'm not sure whether I find the situation amusing or scary, but I stand by my view that if the front subframe is misaligned, then while repositioning the top mount of one strut can put the individual camber, castor and toe readings within apparent tolerance, the overall chassis alignments, plus the specified balance/equality of all readings between left and righthand sides must be questionable and are unlikely to meet Jaguar overall chassis alignment standards.

 

Die Grinder? Elongating Mounting holes? Moving Strut? I think I would of went to the Jag Dealer and wrote a check. Respect the Vehicle.

 

With all due respect neither one of you know what you're talking about and are just speculating based on what you don't understand. Way back when we used to have to pry on the upper control arms with a pry bar and then insert shims to keep things in place when adjusting camber and caster. This isn't much different and that's what alignment is. Moving stuff around until you get it where it needs to be.

 

That's what measurement is for. In the case of a passenger car, a wheel alignment machine fulfills that purpose.

If the alignment including thrust angle is good, then all is well. Anything else is speculation.

Moving mounting points by gross amounts is quite common in racing circles.

 

But not to compensate for an incorrectly fitted subframe because it's 'easier'!

 

Give up! Jacking the subframe is not a standard alignment procedure if camber is "within range". If one side is -1.3° and the other is -1.1° and you need to get to -.05 explain to us how moving the subframe gets you there.