5 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHAnalyze my alignment please
Leading reported evidence
Set alignment specs
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
i would also never trust someone to blindly set the alignment specs.
Leading evidence: 'Set alignment specs' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Set alignment specs' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
5 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T191851Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
After installing the RoW M030, I had it aligned at the dealer. Will these specs be cause abnormal tire wear?
Front Left
Camber: -0.3
Caster: 7.7
Toe: 0.04
Front Right
Camber: -0.3
Caster: 7.5
Toe: 0.05
Rear Left
Camber: -1.4
Toe: 0.16
Rear Right
Camber: -1.4
Toe: 0.15
Cross Camber: 0.00
Total Toe: 0.31
Thrust Angle: 0.00
I've put about 1,300 miles since the alignment and it looks like the inside of the rears are wearing quicker than the outside. Everything is within spec for the RoW M030 suspension it appears from the sheet.
I also feel that the front end wants to wander and doesn't want to stay on center.
Thanks for the feedback.
James - I had my ROW M030 aligned to GT3 specs, so yours is more modest than mine, and mine is not that radical anyway. I don't see significant tire wear coming from your alignment - sure the rears may experience some with a touch more negative camber than stock, but it shouldn't be significant. Toe looks reasonable, but I'm puzzled why you say the front is tramlining (wandering). A little toe angle in usually makes it track nice and straight. Do you notice it on particular roads, rain grooved interstate lanes, etc.?
When I look at the specs for our cars I do not understand the front and rear toe specs.
IE: 0.00 to 0.05 not 0.00 to
-0.05
When I had my 03 cab aligned the before reading was -0.02 on both fronts. After alignment it read plus on corrected spec, like James' printout above
I was always told that one wanted a small amount of toe-in on the front. That is front wheels pointed in towards each other at the leading edge or neutral, never out.
This is to keep from having toe-out which = wander.
I look forward to learning how toe is measured on our cars. Is it the back of the wheels that is spec'ed 0.00 - +0.05?
you should comment on your alignment intent for your car. DE stability? autox agility? DD tire wear?
it appears you have toe out both front and rear since your toe values are positive.
most people would run toe in (a negative toe value) both front and rear.
in the front, toe in reduces wander
in the rear, toe in reduces acceleration instability
to reduce rear tire wear, you can reduce camber in the rear, but that would be at the expense of high speed cornering (e.g DE event) stability. toe in would also reduce rear tire wear.
i would also never trust someone to blindly set the alignment specs. it is easy for someone to put in in the "green" zone on their hunter alignment machines.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
