I have been trying to use up my OEM Dunlops on the front but have noticed unusual wear in the inside of my RH tire. I had the car 4 wheel aligned last Nov and only put around 500 miles on it. So I went back to my alignment sheet from the dealer and low an behold I see the RH front camber is -1.3* and looking at the spec. it should be -0.75 . First can someone verify the spec for a 2012 XKR Conv. Next if I just put a rough measurement (used a 3' level) you can see a large difference from the LF to the RF . By the way my LF camber is -0.4* with a spec of -0.25* but I think it is in the +/- tolerance.
Now because I have the car on my lift I can look at the lower control arm and see the camber eccentric adjustment bolt. The RF looks like it is adjusted to the lowest side of the eccentric which to me means I can't get any more adjustment out of the camber. So how would this need to be adjusted because the bushings do not look worn . Does it mean you need to shim the upper A frame to move the wheel to center and then fine tune with the eccentric. I have a call in to the dealer and am not happy because they gave me the car back and unless I see a different spec they did not get the alignment correct. Comments please.

 

Do you have the Dynamic Pack?

 

Here are alignment specifications for both NA and SC X150 models sold in North America and elsewhere.

 

NB thanks and I do not have the dynamic pack . That is the same spec's I have s we are in sync. I guess what I don't understand is the tolerance range. Based on the +/- 0.75* you can actually have -1.5* and still be in spec. This being the case I would be in spec but you can actually see the difference in camber by just looking at the wheels. I can't buy it as I would like to see it closer to spec of -0.75* with tolerance as close to 0* as possible or at least see it under -1.0*. I assume the difference from LF to RF spec. is due to the weight of the driver.

 

Quick question. If anyone has had their cars aligned can you please post what your final results were. Caster , camber and toe. Thanks

 

Another question that comes to mind is the tolerance . Somehow I don't see how the engineers would allow a tolerance equal to or greater then the base (nominal) setting. Next is the expected tire wear if you max out the setting. Unfortunately the tech's doing the alignment are on the clock so all they are trying to do is get it into the tolerance range and then lock it up. When you look at the eccentric on the lower control arm there is a stamped dot which is either 0 or 0.75*. IMHO that should be the goal.

 

When the Technician is aligning the vehicle, most use a computer-controlled system with laser sensors, which is highly accurate.

The reason for the variance, or tolerance, is due to the fact that not all vehicles are identical. Bear in mind that the design of the tyres, suspension wear, wheel damage and road surfaces all contribute to wear, so having a tolerance range allows the Technician to compensate for those factors.

When you have your vehicle aligned next time, request the Technician to set the specifications to what you want.

 

Yep I can buy the usual wear issues as being the results of road wear but would have expected the alignment to be almost dead on with the laser measurement systems. I guess I would expect the tech to hit the 0 target without having to tell him what I want. I assumed again and will need to press now to get it corrected. As I mentioned I have less then maybe 300 miles since the alignment and you can see excessive inner tire wear. Is there a camber adjustment with the upper A frame by an eccentric pair of bolts or do you need shims. I am at max adjustment on the lower control arm. Mind you car has 15,500 miles on it.

 

When getting an alignment at a dealer, step 1, prioritize what is important to spend the time on. For me, Toe > Camber > Castor.

If you rarely ever corner hard, make it known you want to less or no camber. If you want a car that is more dead and calm feeling, slightly more toe in and less castor.

I am *very* unhappy with the result of my last alignment at Hendrick Porsche, its like the guy wasn't even trying. It probably had a better alignment with a bent tie rod than after it was replaced. I have found at that place, the only way to get a semi-decent alignment is to take several hours out of my day to wait for my car to get worked on, then stand in the bay. That was the *only* time I've ever been happy with my alignment there. I will be going elseware in future, or use string and measures and do it myself.

The alignment I was happy with, LF castor was 3.5, RF was 2.1, I told the tech leave his time on it alone, focus on correct Toe. Front camber was within .2 of what I wanted, rear was within .2 of what I wanted. Toe was nailed. Camber is more noticeable when you walk around a car, but Toe drastically effects the feel of the car down the road.

Personally, I have setup my cars to be a bit more squirrly, neutral front toe, high front castor, and barely enough rear toe in to account for the suspension geometry and bushing movement under braking. I set my camber by the feel of the car under hard cornering. The street tires on my 944 performed best with about 1.5-1.7 degrees of front camber. More than 1.7 and performance started to fall off, less, than 1.1, and performance dropped drastically. Factory spec was almost neutral. Tires changed in 30+ years. I'm only mentioned thing, as even though our Xk's are "modern", as tire technology evolves, ideal alignments will change.

 

I always check my alignment values when I purchase a car. I have found on every one of my Jaguars that they set the LF camber to be less than the RF camber. I had also found lots of inconsistencies in the range of adjustment. Since I live in an area of tight winding roads, I always wish to have about -1.3 degree camber front and back. On my wife's '12 XF the max adjustment that a shop could give me on the left front was -0.3, which is ridiculously low in a sport sedan. Then, you have the zero adjustability at the rears. At least, on my cars the rears seem to have a solid -1.0+ camber but, no excuse for the lack of adjustment.

 

There is no adjustment provided by the upper control arms; all camber adjustments are via the lower arm eccentric.

Castor does not affect tyre wear, only camber and toe angles can cause wear.

 

ax I am a cruiser type and am just looking for a nice but almost firm driving convert. That being said I am ready to replace my OEM Dunlops with the same size Conti DWS similar to the rears I replaced last year after getting a flat in the Dunlops. So I want to get the alignment figures close to the spec numbers but with a tighter tolerance. My caster and toe hit the numbers but the camber's were off (LF= .4* with spec of .25 , RF=1.3* with spec of .75*) so I want to see how close I can get to spec. I see looking at the LF I should be able to get to .25* because I have adjustment room on the eccentric cam. On the RF I have a problem as the eccentric is at it's lowest point so any adjustment will increase the neg. camber. I understand there are eccentric cams on the upper A frame which hopefully can be adjusted to give me more adjustment on the lower control arm. I'll need to discuss with the jag tech if the A frame can be adjusted. If it can I have a alignment guy in town who is good and can work with him to sort this out. I am waiting for the dealer to call me and tell me to bring it in and they will fix it. We'll see what happens next week.

 

As said previously, there is no camber adjustment available on the upper control arm. All camber adjustments to the factory suspension are accomplished via the lower eccentric.

Remember that castor angle cannot affect tyre wear.

 

Yep got it and I don't have a caster issue but a camber problem. So my question now turns to what needs to be done to pull in the lower control arm to get 0 camber.

 

Just got a note from my dealer asking me to bring the car in next week and they will bring it into spec . They asked to keep the car for a few days in case they need to order any parts. I will discuss this when I get there next week as I don't want the car held up more then a week. Will have to see what the loaner will be.

 

I just took 2 pictures of my present camber adjustments. It will give you a representation of how the adjustment eccentric cams are positioned. You can see the RF (pass. side) is maxed out and can't be adjusted any lower then the 1.3* that it is now so it can't get to 0.75* which is spec. The LF (driver side) is at 0.4* and may be able to get to 0.25*. We'll see what needs to be done to get there. Just and FYI for those interested.

 

Just curious as to what you mean by squirrly? I ask because I am going to get mine (2011 xkr175) with Dunlap aligned next week and my complaint is that is is a bit squirrly while cruising and the car tends to grip too much over the highway tire wear grooves in the concrete or asphalt. I have to spend to much time keeping it between the lines evenly. should I ask for less sqirrly?

 

It might depend on the shop's knowledge and expertise how they might interpret your wishes.

First, make sure the bushings are within spec on play/wear.

The primary reason for my 944 being squirly, is the lack of front toe in, which creates a constant willingness to change direction as the front tires are pointed outside the car's direction of travel. (Neutral front toe at rest can result in toe out when driving, as the friction from rolling resistance will pry the flex in the suspension in a backwards direction.)

In essence, you want to make sure that the force of hitting a bump, does not result in a situation where the play in your suspensions bushings and mounts result in going from toe in, to toe out. The more play you have in your bushings, the more the suspension leaves its natural toe-in setting from rest.


Castor strongly effects the centering force of the wheel. The higher the castor, the stronger the force it takes for the driver to turn the wheel off of the direction of travel. The power steering is incredibly strong on the X-150, allowing for a much higher castor value than a race car without power steering. Castor will contribute to the car driving straighter over a smooth road, but contribute to the steering wheel getting pulled "off center" in the new direction of travel as it hits bumps of a poor road surface. Castor also naturally causes an increase in camber as the steering angle increases. High castor allows for lower front camber values to be used for a flatter riding tire when driving in a straight line.

To minimize the car's ability to attempt to track its own path, running castor at its lower tolerance, and toe-in at its higher tolerance, will yield the desired direction of result. Unfortunately, changing to 15" wheels that allow for a more compliant tire design is not an option.

If you do not like the result, keep your print outs and change the values for the next one. Observe the difference to suit your style.

 

The front eccentrics are mostly caster and the rear eccentric
is mostly camber with some interaction between the two.

The right eccentric seems to be set for min +ve caster, but also
min +ve camber.

My $0.02, and of course as related to the X308. Your X150
may operate differently. But that front eccentric is set to
maximise -ve camber.

 

I get the car back tomorrow and will see what the results of the re-alignment are. Also had front tires replaced.