holy crap - rolling toe adjustment
#1
The following 3 users liked this post by plums:
#3
#4
#5
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,263 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
#6
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Crossroads of America
Posts: 19,573
Received 13,186 Likes
on
6,548 Posts
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Love that photo, plums!
I don't know about the X300 or X308, but for the XJ40 the Jaguar procedure for setting the front end alignment required the car to be sitting with the front crossbeam exactly 150.8mm above the floor. Since the cars had a natural unloaded stance higher than that, the use of a special "camber tie down link" (JD133) was specified. Back in the '90s there were reports of some shops using chains or such to tie the cars to the floor. Others just had a couple of men sit in the front seats while the alignment was carried out. Owners who took their XJ40s to shops that ignored this part of the process often complained about uneven tire wear, tramlining, etc.
I wonder if that Corvette system was meant to compensate for the differences in suspension geometry under static and dynamic conditions? You have to wonder if all that precision was even effective given the old-style steering gear boxes used on 'vettes of that era.
The photo also reminds me of a friend in college who found a '67 Corvette coupe with only 20,000 miles and bought it for $10,000, an astronomical sum to a poor working student like me. The interior of that car was like new. He only put a few thousand miles on it before he sold it, which he regrets to this day. I wanted to buy it from him, but all I could afford was a '68 Triumph Spitfire for $495. But on the fun-per-dollar scale, I think I was the clear winner. And yes, my wife claims to have fallen for me because of that little red roadster.
I don't know about the X300 or X308, but for the XJ40 the Jaguar procedure for setting the front end alignment required the car to be sitting with the front crossbeam exactly 150.8mm above the floor. Since the cars had a natural unloaded stance higher than that, the use of a special "camber tie down link" (JD133) was specified. Back in the '90s there were reports of some shops using chains or such to tie the cars to the floor. Others just had a couple of men sit in the front seats while the alignment was carried out. Owners who took their XJ40s to shops that ignored this part of the process often complained about uneven tire wear, tramlining, etc.
I wonder if that Corvette system was meant to compensate for the differences in suspension geometry under static and dynamic conditions? You have to wonder if all that precision was even effective given the old-style steering gear boxes used on 'vettes of that era.
The photo also reminds me of a friend in college who found a '67 Corvette coupe with only 20,000 miles and bought it for $10,000, an astronomical sum to a poor working student like me. The interior of that car was like new. He only put a few thousand miles on it before he sold it, which he regrets to this day. I wanted to buy it from him, but all I could afford was a '68 Triumph Spitfire for $495. But on the fun-per-dollar scale, I think I was the clear winner. And yes, my wife claims to have fallen for me because of that little red roadster.
![Smile](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Last edited by Don B; 07-16-2015 at 12:13 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by Don B:
test point (07-16-2015),
XJRay (07-16-2015)
Trending Topics
#8
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The photo was posted on a Corvette forum in response to various
claims as to accuracy/inaccuracy of laser equipment versus predecessor
techniques. The second photo was of the caster/camber being set
on a jig with the frame upside down.
Yes, it was the production line ... take a look at the operator's
haircut![Big Grin](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
The beauty of the system is that there is no transfer of static
settings to dynamic operation. It is done dynamically, so its
either right or wrong.
This is the same argument that is used today by proponents
of roadforce balancing.
++
claims as to accuracy/inaccuracy of laser equipment versus predecessor
techniques. The second photo was of the caster/camber being set
on a jig with the frame upside down.
Yes, it was the production line ... take a look at the operator's
haircut
![Big Grin](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
The beauty of the system is that there is no transfer of static
settings to dynamic operation. It is done dynamically, so its
either right or wrong.
This is the same argument that is used today by proponents
of roadforce balancing.
++
The following 3 users liked this post by plums:
#9
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Love that photo, plums!
I don't know about the X300 or X308, but for the XJ40 the Jaguar procedure for setting the front end alignment required the car to be sitting with the front crossbeam exactly 150.8mm above the floor. Since the cars had a natural unloaded stance higher than that, the use of a special "camber tie down link" (JD133) was specified. Back in the '90s there were reports of some shops using chains or such to tie the cars to the floor. Others just had a couple of men sit in the front seats while the alignment was carried out. Owners who took their XJ40s to shops that ignored this part of the process often complained about uneven tire wear, tramlining, etc.
I don't know about the X300 or X308, but for the XJ40 the Jaguar procedure for setting the front end alignment required the car to be sitting with the front crossbeam exactly 150.8mm above the floor. Since the cars had a natural unloaded stance higher than that, the use of a special "camber tie down link" (JD133) was specified. Back in the '90s there were reports of some shops using chains or such to tie the cars to the floor. Others just had a couple of men sit in the front seats while the alignment was carried out. Owners who took their XJ40s to shops that ignored this part of the process often complained about uneven tire wear, tramlining, etc.
The factory trained BMW dealer wheel alignment trainer said that the
purpose was not to "simulate load" as many thought, but rather to
set the suspension at a known state. 700 or so pounds of weight,
distributed in a particular manner.
People report that when this is done properly, the result is sublime.
The photo also reminds me of a friend in college who found a '67 Corvette coupe with only 20,000 miles and bought it for $10,000, an astronomical sum to a poor working student like me. The interior of that car was like new. He only put a few thousand miles on it before he sold it, which he regrets to this day. I wanted to buy it from him, but all I could afford was a '68 Triumph Spitfire for $495. But on the fun-per-dollar scale, I think I was the clear winner. And yes, my wife claims to have fallen for me because of that little red roadster.
![Smile](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Two Sunbeam Alpines. One with no engine, one with crunched front end.
They became one car which started and ran exactly once.
![Frown](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/frown.gif)
#10
#11
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,263 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
#12
#13
#14
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Crossroads of America
Posts: 19,573
Received 13,186 Likes
on
6,548 Posts
#15
The following users liked this post:
Don B (07-17-2015)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)