What Does Good Geo Look Like for Fast Road Driving? - Page 3 - 911/Carrera GT - PistonHeads UK

991.2 C2S. Have recently had the alignment checked. How much of an issue are the red readings here?

Thanks for coming back. Will take a look through that page. Are the factory geo settings available online? Can find plenty of threads and discussion but not the actual specs. There's also some chat about the Porsche alignment settings prematurely wearing the inner tread.

Have they not used the factory settings for your car on that geo set up? I am not familiar with that model but normally the red and green would compare to factory settings.

Yeah they will have loaded up whatever the Hunter system settings are for the car and I'm assuming they are the Porsche factory settings, but... it's an assumption. Possible that their system could be incorrect / out-of-date or some other issue. Also, you mentioned the toe is out, which as someone who's unfamiliar with all this is an interesting observation. I was working on the basis that the toe settings are fine as the values here are all green and within tolerance. Zero degrees at the front and .20 / .25 degrees at the rear. But quite likely I'm missing something? The way I read the report... the front and rear camber needs attention (and maybe the thrust angle too?).

Was the geo set up checked, or checked and adjusted ? The rear camber seems high relative to the front. There’s a geo sheet from a similar car car, set up by Center Gravity here : https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... It’s much more what I’d expect to see. If you want a sharper set up, you’d remove some toe-in on the front (but I wouldn’t go any further than parallel, and would advise against toe out) then add some additional negative camber to the front, along with some additional (though less than the front) rear camber.

Checked and they made some minor adjustments to the toe settings but didn't touch anything else. Thanks for sharing this thread. Can't believe I didn't come across that in the search I did. Exactly what I'm looking for. Will be taking the car to Charles Ivey as I think they're the highest quality garage for this kind of thing that's nearby (central London). Unless any other suggestions? Know CG is probably the benchmark. Unfortunately too far at the moment.

Well your camber settings are out This explains what effect that will have (scroll down). https://suspensionsecrets.co.uk/camber/ PS best settings for Porsches on the road are typically factory geo. Edited to correct brain fail Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 7th April 21:12

DangerDoom said: Yeah they will have loaded up whatever the Hunter system settings are for the car and I'm assuming they are the Porsche factory settings, but... it's an assumption. Possible that their system could be incorrect / out-of-date or some other issue. Also, you mentioned the toe is out, which as someone who's unfamiliar with all this is an interesting observation. I was working on the basis that the toe settings are fine as the values here are all green and within tolerance. Zero degrees at the front and .20 / .25 degrees at the rear. But quite likely I'm missing something? The way I read the report... the front and rear camber needs attention (and maybe the thrust angle too?). Ignore me. Complete brain fail. Camber not toe. Post edited to correct. I must stop drinking in the day.....

If a "Hunter" alignment machine took it, they should have dialled in factory settings. If they've left it at that, something could be off. Is it a crash-damaged car? If not, take it to a shop with a Hunter machine, or Porsche, to get it dialled in properly.

Crash damaged car ? What are you talking about ?

maz8062 said: If a "Hunter" alignment machine took it, they should have dialled in factory settings. If they've left it at that, something could be off. Is it a crash-damaged car? If not, take it to a shop with a Hunter machine, or Porsche, to get it dialled in properly. Correction, take it to any decent Porsche independent (especially those involved with racing, racing prep or race support, or better still an Indy whose staff race/track their own cars) Failing that take it to Center Gravity, String Theory, Suspension Secrets or a similar outfit. Do not take it to Porsche. Not sure why you’d suggest the car has been crash damaged ? (other than you appear all too often to be a trigger-happy keyboard jockey on an internet forum)

I have been experimenting with suspension and settings on pretty much every car since I was 20, so a long time. I think there is some personal choices and preferences but for me I like a bit of negative camber it helps the feeling and level of turn in plenty written about what is happening with this the contact patch and so on. For me under 2 degrees is fine, over can be a little more camber sensitive and feel becomes a little more 'tramline' and 'pull' when you might not want it. Toe at the front is another interesting one toe in can be blunt and dull and less 'sharp' dead straight or a small amount of toe out will sharpen the steering and provide a more responsible front end Ofcourse there are loads written about this and lots of very technical points With bump steer, rake, etc etc For me I will usually go for 0-2/3 mins toe out F if the suspension is good enough (good ball joints, mounts etc) Camber front 1-2 degrees much over 2 can be a tad too much on the road usually Rear camber I like nearer 2 degrees on the later 911's again fine I'm no expert but this is the best so far with settings and I am about to go for a little more front and rear camber. Look at factory GT3 settings and you will see differences between road set ups and sportier set ups Edited by Adrian-9iafn on Tuesday 8th April 17:33

Slippydiff said: Correction, take it to any decent Porsche independent (especially those involved with racing, racing prep or race support, or better still an Indy whose staff race/track their own cars) Failing that take it to Center Gravity, String Theory, Suspension Secrets or a similar outfit. Do not take it to Porsche. Not sure why you’d suggest the car has been crash damaged ? (other than you appear all too often to be a trigger-happy keyboard jockey on an internet forum) I’d add West Tuning to the above list, they’ve setup my cars for 20 years, always feel much sharper after they have worked their magic

Slippydiff said: Correction, take it to any decent Porsche independent (especially those involved with racing, racing prep or race support, or better still an Indy whose staff race/track their own cars) Failing that take it to Center Gravity, String Theory, Suspension Secrets or a similar outfit. Do not take it to Porsche. Not sure why you’d suggest the car has been crash damaged ? (other than you appear all too often to be a trigger-happy keyboard jockey on an internet forum) If one takes a car to an alignment company that uses a Hunter alignment machine, they'll have access to the alignment settings for the particular car and dial them in. Crash-damaged cars, especially CAT S, are sometimes not repaired property leaving the chassis out of whack. I know because this has happened to me before - no matter how hard Tony Bones (RIP) tried to dial in the numbers, he couldn't because the chassis wasn't straight. If a company has the alignment specs for a car but can't dial them in, more often than not, something is not right. Each car comes with alignment specs - it is not a dark art unless one is looking for "fast road" track specs, etc. I don't waste time with fancy alignment specs for the road. I stick with stock all day, every day. And no, I'm not a keyboard jockey; I opine based on my personal experience. Furthermore, I don't take potshots at other posters - it's a waste of time to hate on shadows. Edited by maz8062 on Tuesday 8th April 20:00

For a road car I like the opposite to Adrian. I like around 0.03 toe in on the front and around 0.7 of negative camber. Then around 1.8-2.1 on the rear and 0.14 toe in. I do like cars that are set up with loads of negative camber and no toe or a smidge of toe out, however, and this is important, only if the car is quite low with stiff roll bars. And once you start putting toe out it really does need the camber to be dialled in to make sure the car doesn't become tail happy, which is really hard on stock dampers and springs. But for me, on a stock car, I would go with I like around 0.03 toe in on the front and around 0.7 of negative camber, then around 1.8-2.1 on the rear and 0.14 toe in. This will give you steering that doesn't feel too light, sort of goes where you point it, will have massive amounts of rear end grip, it will not feel twitchy in the slightest and would need to be seriously provoked to get the rear end to let go and would be a bit pants for the track, but on the road that is what I want. Oh, and I want it balanced, so the right and left are 100% matched, so turn in etc. is the same whether going left of right. Nearly the same is not good enough my brain can't cope with that and makes me feel unsure. Looking at your geo, I would imagine the excessive rear camber and toe in balances out the steering with 0 toe up front from being too twitchy, but I bet it eats the inside edge of your rear tyres. Edited by Ed.Neumann on Tuesday 8th April 20:28

Slippydiff said: Do not take it to Porsche. ? Too expensive or some other reason? If they can’t reset to stock settings then surely no one can.

My car has KW V3 with wider rims and tyres, it is around 30mm lower than stock, so GT3 settings are probably more appropriate for me. My 991.1 GT3 runs -2.2 degrees front and -2.1 rear with 0 toe front and it's great for me but a tad camber sensitive on poor roads at speed

maz8062 said: Slippydiff said: Correction, take it to any decent Porsche independent (especially those involved with racing, racing prep or race support, or better still an Indy whose staff race/track their own cars) Failing that take it to Center Gravity, String Theory, Suspension Secrets or a similar outfit. Do not take it to Porsche. Not sure why you’d suggest the car has been crash damaged ? (other than you appear all too often to be a trigger-happy keyboard jockey on an internet forum) If one takes a car to an alignment company that uses a Hunter alignment machine, they'll have access to the alignment settings for the particular car and dial them in. Crash-damaged cars, especially CAT S, are sometimes not repaired property leaving the chassis out of whack. I know because this has happened to me before - no matter how hard Tony Bones (RIP) tried to dial in the numbers, he couldn't because the chassis wasn't straight. If a company has the alignment specs for a car but can't dial them in, more often than not, something is not right. Each car comes with alignment specs - it is not a dark art unless one is looking for "fast road" track specs, etc. I don't waste time with fancy alignment specs for the road. I stick with stock all day, every day. And no, I'm not a keyboard jockey; I opine based on my personal experience. Furthermore, I don't take potshots at other posters - it's a waste of time to hate in the shadows. No sh*t Sherlock. You’re not a keyboard warrior, you are however a keyboard jockey, and there’s a subtle difference, hence why I used the word jockey rather than be offensive/take a potshot and use the word “warrior”. However, you have posted stuff that’s not factually correct over the last 12 months, and I’m not the only one who’s commented in response to your posts. It’s a public forum, if you post misinformation, you will get challenged. If you don’t like it, check your facts before posting, or don’t post. It is that simple. You do like a bun fight, your recently posted comments suggesting the Gen 1 M97 engibe is equal to the Gen 2 DFi engines aren’t overly helpful, or indeed accurate, irrespective of whether or not you’ve managed to take a Gen 1 car to moon mileage, the bottom line is a shocking percentage of M96/M97 engines have failed due to bore scoring issues, and to pretend otherwise is not helpful to someone thinking of making their first foray into Porsche ownership. The fact of the matter is, the DFi engines may not be 100% reliable, no engine is, but if someone can afford a DFi engined car, it would be a safER bet over an M96/97 engined variant that hasn’t been subject to a rebuild. As for hating from the shadows, I’ve been on this forum a good few years, and have a lot more Porsche experience than you, I’ve also rattled spanners for a living, and still keep my hand in. I post on very few topics on here these days, and when I do post, I do so for one of two reasons, for fun or to help others. Period. If you consider that hating from the shadows, more fool you.

Johnson897210 said: Slippydiff said: Do not take it to Porsche. ? Too expensive or some other reason? If they can’t reset to stock settings then surely no one can. I took the OP’s title to mean he was looking for something a bit sharper than the factory settings. Most OPC’s these days are manned by corporate drones, who are forced to operate on a “Computer says yes, or computer says no” basis. Unless you know what you want (and fair play to the OP for taking the trouble to ask on here) AND you have a service adviser receptive to your request, AND a technician willing to set the car up in a manner which may possibly end up showing a lot of red boxes, rather green ones, you’re wasting your time and money. If however you want a car set up to factory settings, you’d be fine using on OPC. But if I genuinely wanted a car set up how the factory intended it to be, I’d be heading over to Center Gravity. Edited by Slippydiff on Tuesday 8th April 23:34

Here’s mine: £40

I had this done at the OPC. Was quite reasonable if I recall correctly, I didn't ask for "fast road" or anything exciting. Ideally what I wanted is something that minimizes tyre wear...

DangerDoom said: 991.2 C2S. Have recently had the alignment checked. How much of an issue are the red readings here? The front looks fine (other than wanting to equalise the camber from side to side, but there's nothing wrong with neg camber of 1.1 degrees on your car) but the rear is too much - reduce the rear camber to about 1.5ish and also the toe-in. That is going from an old discussion here about 997 GT3 settings. The stock GT3 settings appear to be around: Front Camber -1.5/-1.4 Front toe-in 0.15 Rear camber -1.6/-1.6 Rear toe-in 0.20 https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

20250411_125044 by Scott Osborne , on Flickr Thats mine, drives very well on the road.

scottos said: 20250411_125044 by Scott Osborne , on Flickr Thats mine, drives very well on the road.

20250315_170549 by Scott Osborne , on Flickr Yep, almost identical...

scottos said: 20250411_125044 by Scott Osborne , on Flickr Thats mine, drives very well on the road. Can confirm the above sticks to the tarmac like snot to a blanket (albeit the suspension isn’t exactly standard…) But running high quality dampers does allow you to run more radical geo numbers in my experience.

scottos said: 20250411_125044 by Scott Osborne , on Flickr Thats mine, drives very well on the road. My old 996 I ran with toe in at the rear of 0.22 and over 2.1 of negative camber, that was on H&R springs. The back end needed to be seriously provoked which made it great for the road as the grip was amazing. This allowed the front to have less toe in without the back end getting twitchy.

Thanks for all the responses and the lively (in some places) discussion. Very useful. The CG fast road setup posted by FriedMarsBar and the minimal tyre wear setup posted by jimbo761 are particularly interesting for being remarkably similar (some minor differences but some measures almost identical). What are you guys paying for this work to be done? Looks like CG is about £600.

I pay around £120 when I take it somewhere, but I know what settings I want and know my control arms, dampers, top mounts etc. are all OK. The problem you have is if they reach the limit of say camber on the front, what do you do next? That is why the settings I said I would go with are not what I would use, because I have a lowered car and can get more front camber. If it is a stock car I would seriously go for these sort of settings.... Front Camber Negative 0.7, you might only get to 0.5 with the standard top mounts/arms/springs etc. But aim for 0.7. Then have around 0.04 toe in. This will allow the car to feel stable, without losing too much steering feel, it won't feel too dead off centre. Rear Negative camber 1.7. Again you might only get to 1.3 or so. That is fine. I would then go with at least 0.14 of toe in, this will stop the rear end coming out on fast corners. If you can get to 1.7 on the rear up that to around 0.20 toe in. if you do get to 0,20 you could then reduce the toe in slightly and go 0.03 or 0.02. This will give you a very planted car, that never really feels any thing other than confidence inspiring. If you go to somewhere that specialises in geo they will get what you are wanting. Other opinions will vary of course, so you may get a load more settings coming again.

Ed.Neumann said: I pay around £120 when I take it somewhere, but I know what settings I want and know my control arms, dampers, top mounts etc. are all OK. Where are you taking the car and paying £120? Everywhere I've checked is at least three times that.

Mine wasn't much more, definitely below 200. People seem happy to pay a fortune for the instapopular companies to do this work so it only seems to be going up and up!

scottos said: Mine wasn't much more, definitely below 200. People seem happy to pay a fortune for the instapopular companies to do this work so it only seems to be going up and up! Where are you going and paying less than £200? Taking CG out of the frame for a second the 5 other places I've spoken to are all at least £300 something (and up).

DangerDoom said: The CG fast road setup posted by FriedMarsBar and the minimal tyre wear setup posted by jimbo761 are particularly interesting for being remarkably similar (some minor differences but some measures almost identical). . That's because it's hard to better factory geo for road use. For most drivers anyway.

DangerDoom said: scottos said: Mine wasn't much more, definitely below 200. People seem happy to pay a fortune for the instapopular companies to do this work so it only seems to be going up and up! Where are you going and paying less than £200? Taking CG out of the frame for a second the 5 other places I've spoken to are all at least £300 something (and up). I happen to live nearby, but I use a guy on the South Coast. He sets up race cars for his main income. Travels the world to do it. Circa 200 to do my older 911 with kinematic toe.. Edited by Orangecurry on Saturday 12th April 08:50

DangerDoom said: Thanks for all the responses and the lively (in some places) discussion. Very useful. The CG fast road setup posted by FriedMarsBar and the minimal tyre wear setup posted by jimbo761 are particularly interesting for being remarkably similar (some minor differences but some measures almost identical). What are you guys paying for this work to be done? Looks like CG is about £600. I paid £216 at the OPC (180+VAT).

DangerDoom said: Where are you going and paying less than £200? Taking CG out of the frame for a second the 5 other places I've spoken to are all at least £300 something (and up). Quicksale Sports & Performance in the North East, he can offer full cornerweight if required, which would be a lot more but a geo is 200ish or so on a 996. Geo isn't the rocket science a lot of the companies make it out to be, I've even heard of companies refusing to give a print out as if it's some closely regarded secret haha the mind boggles.

jimbo761 said: I paid £216 at the OPC (180+VAT). Which OPC did you go to? Brooklands quoted £550 inc VAT

https://www.tyrepros.co.uk/wheel-alignment It was £120 plus vat, but I use them so often they do it for £120 all in. But, and it is a big but, I do it with them, and I know exactly what I am wanting from the car I am doing. Not sure every branch will allow you to go in with them, but you can ask, and you can take the settings you want and get them to do those. I would presume the company policy is you are not meant to be there helping, health and safety and all that, but, you could ask. My issue is the manager at my place has just left, so don't know if I will be able to still go in. But, they use Hunter Hawkeye machines so should be able to dial in any settings you give them. What you are getting from Center Gravity is not just an alignment, they will go over your suspension and tell you how well everything is working and what needs replacing. They don't just say replace all the arms, top mounts, dampers, they test them. This means you end up getting geo done on a car that is sound, no point doing all the geo if your front dampers are not performing as they should be. Replacing all these bits will cost around £2500-4000 using oem kit depending if you do it yourself of get someone else to do it all. Going to CG and being told everything other than your front diagonal arms and top mounts are sound, they will be £350 to change, can save you a fortune compared to places that can tell there is an issue and just say replace everything. That is what you are paying for with CG. Can't comment on companies others are saying to use. I can align my car myself, using string, but, I can't do what CG do testing dampers. And it is such a ball ache removing dampers from a 911 as they get a few years old due to seized pinch bolts in the carrier. That driving onto the test bed and them saying "they're good" or They're bad" is worth paying them. Alignment is not some dark art, but knowing these cars inside out really helps getting it done properly, not saying "Sorry, that is as good as we could get it." due to them not wanting to cut a fused camber bolt out and order another one that they don't have in stock. That is what you are paying for. Edited by Ed.Neumann on Saturday 12th April 12:41

DangerDoom said: Looks like CG is about £600. Where have you got the £600 figure from? From memory the are around half of that. Depends what you need replacing of course, but many go in and just need their geo. They tend to do the geo, road test it, come back and see what has moved, adjust again and then come back and when everything is where they want it after a drive it is done. Most others will simply get it right on the ramp, give you a print out and send you on your way.

CG £525 last October. Still a comprehensive service and (IMHO) good value. Like everything costs have gone up in recent years.

Ed.Neumann said: Where have you got the £600 figure from? Was also surprised. From their website.

Ed.Neumann said: https://www.tyrepros.co.uk/wheel-alignment It was £120 plus vat, but I use them so often they do it for £120 all in. But, and it is a big but, I do it with them, and I know exactly what I am wanting from the car I am doing. Interesting as I checked tyrepros and found this on their site. Is the particular tyrepros place you go able to do the full job? If so... where's that as I'll take the car there if I can. If we complete the check and further work is required, including adjustments to the caster, camber angles or the rear wheels , we may not be able to complete this at our centre.

Center Gravity at £575 is fair enough, £610 with damper test, but I think this is more for someone who doesn't know suspension now. Speak to your local Tyrepro centre and ask them. Caster they can't do on a Porsche. Camber is no problem at all. However, like most alignment places, if your camber or toe bolts are seized, which often they are, you will have to take them to a garage who can cut them out and put new ones in and take it back to get the alignment finished. That is the beauty of someone like CG, they will have everything there, and the know how, to get round issues like that on the day.

Ed.Neumann said: Center Gravity at £575 is fair enough, £610 with damper test, but I think this is more for someone who doesn't know suspension now. Speak to your local Tyrepro centre and ask them. Caster they can't do on a Porsche. Camber is no problem at all. However, like most alignment places, if your camber or toe bolts are seized, which often they are, you will have to take them to a garage who can cut them out and put new ones in and take it back to get the alignment finished. That is the beauty of someone like CG, they will have everything there, and the know how, to get round issues like that on the day. £575 for something that costs £50 - bargain!

maz8062 said: Ed.Neumann said: Center Gravity at £575 is fair enough, £610 with damper test, but I think this is more for someone who doesn't know suspension now. Speak to your local Tyrepro centre and ask them. Caster they can't do on a Porsche. Camber is no problem at all. However, like most alignment places, if your camber or toe bolts are seized, which often they are, you will have to take them to a garage who can cut them out and put new ones in and take it back to get the alignment finished. That is the beauty of someone like CG, they will have everything there, and the know how, to get round issues like that on the day. £575 for something that costs £50 - bargain! That does seem rather expensive. I think I’d phone around a couple of non Porsche owned OPCs outside the M25 or perhaps SE entirely. Wheel alignment even at main dealer prices surely can’t be as much as that?

maz8062 said: £575 for something that costs £50 - bargain! No it is not something that costs £50 though is it. It is extremely thorough 4-6 hour going through your car, adjusting, taking you out and seeing if you think it is the sort of set up you are looking for in regards to understeer and oversteer, going back out again with more understeer/oversteer to see if you prefer it, and then finalising the set up. Like I said, I can do geo at home, so I wouldn't pay it, but for someone who doesn't know how a slightly worn rear arm feels when driving, or the difference between 0.05 front and 0.08 rear vs 0.01 front and 0.20 rear and the difference -0.5 vs -1.5 camber, it can be worth every penny. At £350 I would have still considered it myself, but at £575 I would just replace the bits I know could need replacing soon with the money. People's time and knowledge seem to be very undervalued in the UK. It is a strange thing.

Johnson897210 said: That does seem rather expensive. I think I’d phone around a couple of non Porsche owned OPCs outside the M25 or perhaps SE entirely. Wheel alignment even at main dealer prices surely can’t be as much as that? But they just adjust and get it in the green, and the green on Porsches on the toe alone goes from -0.05 to +0.05, which would give you a completely different handling car. I think 99% of owners would think a 911 is absolute crap with 0.05 toe out if they got in it.

Ed.Neumann said: maz8062 said: £575 for something that costs £50 - bargain! No it is not something that costs £50 though is it. It is extremely thorough 4-6 hour going through your car, adjusting, taking you out and seeing if you think it is the sort of set up you are looking for in regards to understeer and oversteer, going back out again with more understeer/oversteer to see if you prefer it, and then finalising the set up. Like I said, I can do geo at home, so I wouldn't pay it, but for someone who doesn't know how a slightly worn rear arm feels when driving, or the difference between 0.05 front and 0.08 rear vs 0.01 front and 0.20 rear and the difference -0.5 vs -1.5 camber, it can be worth every penny. At £350 I would have still considered it myself, but at £575 I would just replace the bits I know could need replacing soon with the money. People's time and knowledge seem to be very undervalued in the UK. It is a strange thing. I've posted my alignment numbers above; It cost £50. Compare the numbers to the CofG alignment and show me where the £510 difference comes from. Alignment for the track, where CofG are a powerhouse and experts, is very specialised. Dialling in stock numbers is not. If you have a slip that shows green, it is being calibrated against stock alignment numbers. Period. The target should always be stock for the street. If one is paying £££ for stock alignment, it's because one can afford it and have bought into the hype. I've been studying alignment for "fast road" for 20 years or so. Yes, certain adjustments can be made to sharpen up certain characteristics of the car, but they'll always compromise against stock numbers. Before I'm accused of being a keyboard jockey, this is just my experience in this field.

To contradict that, I wouldn’t go back to stock Porsche geo, the “fast road” set up that my garage uses for my cars is a night and day improvement, particularly turn in and steering feel.

maz8062 said: I've posted my alignment numbers above; It cost £50. I know inflation is rampant but it was £40 yesterday and £50 today. Either way... where are you taking the car to have this done?

Ed.Neumann said: No it is not something that costs £50 though is it. It is extremely thorough 4-6 hour going through your car, adjusting, taking you out and seeing if you think it is the sort of set up you are looking for in regards to understeer and oversteer, going back out again with more understeer/oversteer to see if you prefer it, and then finalising the set up. Like I said, I can do geo at home, so I wouldn't pay it, but for someone who doesn't know how a slightly worn rear arm feels when driving, or the difference between 0.05 front and 0.08 rear vs 0.01 front and 0.20 rear and the difference -0.5 vs -1.5 camber, it can be worth every penny. At £350 I would have still considered it myself, but at £575 I would just replace the bits I know could need replacing soon with the money. People's time and knowledge seem to be very undervalued in the UK. It is a strange thing. It’s a PH “disease”, look at any thread and the accompanying comments regarding the likes of Singer, Theon, Alfaholics, Tuthill, RPM Technik’s CSR conversions, etc etc, and all too often the comments will centre on the cost, and there will always be some clown who says they could build the same thing cheaper.

maz8062 said: I've posted my alignment numbers above; It cost £50. Compare the numbers to the CofG alignment and show me where the £510 difference comes from. Alignment for the track, where CofG are a powerhouse and experts, is very specialised. Dialling in stock numbers is not. If you have a slip that shows green, it is being calibrated against stock alignment numbers. Period. The target should always be stock for the street. If one is paying £££ for stock alignment, it's because one can afford it and have bought into the hype. I've been studying alignment for "fast road" for 20 years or so. Yes, certain adjustments can be made to sharpen up certain characteristics of the car, but they'll always compromise against stock numbers. Before I'm accused of being a keyboard jockey, this is just my experience in this field. Of course you have, an SLK 55 with KW’s and a Quaife LSD along with a couple of 997’s are the benchmark for suspension adjustability. Not. You most likely think your cars handle well because “everything is green”, perhaps if you were to actually try CG’s services rather than making assumptions as to what you think they can and can’t do/what they’re experts at, you might actually learn something AND end up with a better handling car into the bargain. They have hundreds, if not thousands of very satisfied customers, all who say their service is peerless and that their cars have been transformed as a result of CG’s attention to detail. Granted, the service they offer its not cheap, but neither is the cost of a set of tyres worn out prematurely because of a poor set up or other issues which a “quick and dirty” £50 check/adjustment won’t reveal. You pays your money and takes your choice, but effectively telling others they’re wasting their money by using an outfit such as CG only serves to confirm what a parochial individual you are. As I said to you previously, I’ve been in the Porsche game a lot longer than you, and my back catalogue of 911’s runs to more than a couple of 997’s. I’ve learnt that setting up a 911 chassis isn’t some kind of black magic, but it does take a methodical, knowledgeable and patient individual with time on their hands if it’s to be done correctly and accurately. Here’s what I wrote of my experience with CG on this very forum some 18 years ago (this wasn’t my first rodeo, I’d previously taken an errant 996 GT3 to JZ Machtech to sort the handling out) “I arrived at Centre Gravity at 10.40 yesterday morning and then watched as Chris immediately got stuck in. Talk about methodical ! the guy's quite superb to watch working. He took the wheels of the car and analysed the tyres and then checked the suspension components over thoroughly. He checked the ride heights (out on the front) the rears were within tolerance just, but at the very mimimum ride height, but the spring seat collars were seized on the rear dampers (so even if we had wanted to adjust them we couldn't) Unfortunately the rear dampers are somewhat "tired" too (but more on that another time !) To muddy the waters further I took the car to my usual OPC for its big annual service the day before I took it over to Centre Gravity. On driving it away from the dealership, it was clear that the tyre pressures had been “adjusted” as the car now displayed all the usual traits I’d witnessed previously when the pressures were not spot on, ie poor ride quality, tramlining, a propensity to follow cambers and poor mid corner bump absorption. Chris checked the pressures once they were stone cold and found them to be 4psi too high all around, so much for my thousand pound service by Porsche trained technicians ... . The corner weights were out (and that was before we started on the geometry settings themselves ...) The camber settings were also out (both front and rear) as indeed were the toe settings. Chris spent nearly eight hours checking, adjusting, then re-checking and re-adjusting everything until he was satisfied that all was where it should be (and having to work all his settings around the un-adjustable rear spring platforms) At 8pm last night we went out on Chris's "test route" It was clear (even from the passenger seat) this wasn't the same car that I'd driven into Chris's workshop some 9 hours previously. For a start, and with the tyre pressures adjusted correctly, the cars ride was back to it's compliant self. But it was also clear the car was now capable of carrying previously unbelieveable amounts of speed through the corners. Cue my turn in the drivers seat … this is the car that I always hoped it would be, so much closer to my old GT3 that I can't believe it's the same car I've struggled so desperately with for the past 10 tortuous months. Finally I have a GT2 with brakes that work as well as (if not better) than the way it's manufacturers intended, ditto the suspension and handling characteristics. Just phenomenal !!!! Where previously there'd been arm aching (literally) understeer and thus no clue as to what was going on between the tyre and the tarmac beneath it, there's now steering that is light, communicative (the steering wheel now writhes very gently in your hands at speed as all the well set up 911s I’ve driven have tended to do) and so feelsome that you can accurately feel the onset of the front tyres just starting to lose grip (we tried several hilarious circuits of Chris's favorite testing roundabout to establish this !!) If you ever need the geometry checked or adjusted on your car, do yourself a massive favour and take it over to Chris. He's a smashing (and funny) bloke that really knows his onions when it comes to suspension set up. So there you have it, after ten months of frustration (and not inconsiderable expense) I now finally have the car I dreamed of owning from the moment I first set eyes on one back in 2000/2001. It now handles as close to (if not better than) my MK1 GT3, but with the added bonus of massive amounts of torque to catapult it out of the corners ! I make no bones about the fact I’m less than happy with the supplier of the steel disc conversion (and the adjustments they carried out to the cars suspension geometry) The experience with the GT2 was made all the more galling as they’d previously set up the geometry on my MK1 GT3 and did a superb job of it (and in the process transformed it from a car waiting to throw itself off the road at the first opportunity into a precision weapon that all those of you who have driven a well set up MK1 will be familiar with) The two attempts they had at setting up the geometry on the GT2 were laughable (and expensive) My thanks to Andy, Dom (not so much you Dom, your coffee is truly atrocious !!) and the lads at FearnSport who wrought a massive improvement to the car. Unfortunately, and for whatever reason, they never managed to find the handling sweet spot I so desperately craved (and hoped existed having driven my MK1 GT3) My thanks also go to Mike at Sports and Classic for the improvements he wrought on the car (and for his positive, have a go attitude and last ditch attempt at getting to the bottom of the problem) Finally a big thank you to Chris Franklin at Centre Gravity. As you said to me yesterday Chris “what I do isn’t a black art or any kind of magic, it’s purely reading the data and setting the car up accurately to that data” Nuff said” The above from this thread : https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... Edited by Slippydiff on Sunday 13th April 10:12

maz8062 said: I've posted my alignment numbers above; It cost £50. Compare the numbers to the CofG alignment and show me where the £510 difference comes from. Yes you have, and I didn't comment, but for me that would be no where near planted enough at the back. And the fact there is slightly less back end grip and different turn in left to right would also annoy the hell out of me. Also a negative camber up front any less than around 0.35, especially combined with 0,03 of toe in, would just make the steering feel pretty wishy washy coming off centre. Just upping that camber to 0.4 and bringing the rear toe in to at least 0.14 or even 0.20, would transform how planted it feels. It took me 3 days of playing around with my 996 adjusting with string to get me to truly understand how much difference, so little adjustment changed the way the car felt. I didn't even know what settings I had ended up with, it was only when we put it on a Hunter machine to check, as I wanted to know for any future reference that I realised I had 0.22 of rear toe in and just 2.1 degrees of negative camber. The front had 0.7 degrees of negative camber and only 0.01 of toe in. In fact the front left had 0.7 and right had 0.6, or maybe the other way round. Now I would have never pushed the rear toe, or camber for that matter, so far if I had been taking it to somewhere to do it for me, but as I increased at more and more at home it got better and better. As I say, it took me 3 days to get it to where it felt perfect for me. It was the single biggest change to any of my Porsches that I have ever made, it was suddenly perfect for me. I had been through different dampers, different springs, different roll bars, flipped between Bridgestone and Michelins, put on Cup 2's, and although they all changed the car, it was only when I truly understood how much you can change these cars with aggressive geo that I felt my 996 journey was complete. Looking back I really, really wish I had gone to see the the guys at Center Gravity when I got the car 5 years earlier. It would have saved me an absolute fortune. But, if you have truly found your perfect set up for £40, or £50, or whatever, then well done. But if you haven't tried all the geo extremes on your car, then maybe, just maybe, you are seriously missing out?

DangerDoom said: Thanks for all the responses and the lively (in some places) discussion. Very useful. The CG fast road setup posted by FriedMarsBar and the minimal tyre wear setup posted by jimbo761 are particularly interesting for being remarkably similar (some minor differences but some measures almost identical). What are you guys paying for this work to be done? Looks like CG is about £600. I forget what I paid at CG but I'll have a look for the receipt. The cost is comprises an assessment and the work to set the geo. CG take you, and the car, on a road test, which allows you time to discuss what you want from the car and for them to see how the car drives. I explained, in a non tech way, the type driving I do and how many trackdays a year etc. If you know what you're talking about (and I don't) you could discuss the pro/cons of tailoring specific settings. Their test drive is designed primarily for them to establish how the car drives before they do a physical inspection, on the ramp. They also resolve anything that need resolving, e.g. seized eccentric bolts etc. Edited by FriedMarsBar on Sunday 13th April 14:08

Ed.Neumann said: Yes you have, and I didn't comment, but for me that would be no where near planted enough at the back. And the fact there is slightly less back end grip and different turn in left to right would also annoy the hell out of me. Also a negative camber up front any less than around 0.35, especially combined with 0,03 of toe in, would just make the steering feel pretty wishy washy coming off centre. Just upping that camber to 0.4 and bringing the rear toe in to at least 0.14 or even 0.20, would transform how planted it feels. It took me 3 days of playing around with my 996 adjusting with string to get me to truly understand how much difference, so little adjustment changed the way the car felt. I didn't even know what settings I had ended up with, it was only when we put it on a Hunter machine to check, as I wanted to know for any future reference that I realised I had 0.22 of rear toe in and just 2.1 degrees of negative camber. The front had 0.7 degrees of negative camber and only 0.01 of toe in. In fact the front left had 0.7 and right had 0.6, or maybe the other way round. Now I would have never pushed the rear toe, or camber for that matter, so far if I had been taking it to somewhere to do it for me, but as I increased at more and more at home it got better and better. As I say, it took me 3 days to get it to where it felt perfect for me. It was the single biggest change to any of my Porsches that I have ever made, it was suddenly perfect for me. I had been through different dampers, different springs, different roll bars, flipped between Bridgestone and Michelins, put on Cup 2's, and although they all changed the car, it was only when I truly understood how much you can change these cars with aggressive geo that I felt my 996 journey was complete. Looking back I really, really wish I had gone to see the the guys at Center Gravity when I got the car 5 years earlier. It would have saved me an absolute fortune. But, if you have truly found your perfect set up for £40, or £50, or whatever, then well done. But if you haven't tried all the geo extremes on your car, then maybe, just maybe, you are seriously missing out? Ed, if you’re tracking the car I agree that the minutiae is important, but for the street it’s overkill, a waste of effort, time and money. I run Cup 2’s - 235/35 and 305/30 R19 for the summer months but never track the car, just “fast road” around London, which sees my average speed of 17 mph when I last checked. I’ll never in a million years get anywhere near the capability of this car so why am I going to “waste” £600 on alignment when I can get there or thereabouts for £50? If an alignment shop takes you down a road that’s not the road that you frequent, how will it apply to your driving? It won’t of course but folk buy into all of that stuff and love it. Not me. Every car I’ve owned from my NA MX5 20 years ago to my current 997.1 I’ll always dialled in the alignment. I used to specify “fast road” which to me meant sharp turn-in and a loose rear that can be controlled on the throttle. With my current alignment and new engine mounts, I get sharp turn-in without any drama at the rear. Just how I like it.

maz8062 said: Ed, if you’re tracking the car I agree that the minutiae is important, but for the street it’s overkill, a waste of effort, time and money. Sorry, I totally disagree. I didn't realise just how planted the 911 can be, the disadvantage of having all the weight over the rear can just about be dialled out completely. maz8062 said: Ed, if you’re tracking the car I agree that the minutiae is important, but for the street it’s overkill, a waste of effort, time and money. I run Cup 2’s - 235/35 and 305/30 R19 for the summer months but never track the car, just “fast road” around London, which sees my average speed of 17 mph when I last checked. I’ll never in a million years get anywhere near the capability of this car so why am I going to “waste” £600 on alignment when I can get there or thereabouts for £50? If you don't get out of the city then buying a 911 is pretty pointless to be fair. So agree, but must of us are not trying to get a car to feel exactly how we want it to feel when pressing on to drive round town. maz8062 said: Every car I’ve owned from my NA MX5 20 years ago to my current 997.1 I’ll always dialled in the alignment. I used to specify “fast road” which to me meant sharp turn-in and a loose rear that can be controlled on the throttle. With my current alignment and new engine mounts, I get sharp turn-in without any drama at the rear. Just how I like it. Which is great, and how I like it too. I still think your rear toe in of only 0.08 will be a limiting factor as the speed picks up though, for the road anyway. But you know what you are looking for, so can go in an ask them to do that for you. You are not really their customer, and that is the point. That doesn't mean that anything above £50 is a total waste of money. I think people will judge for themselves. I have yet to hear of anyone come back from a day with CG sorting their car and say "Not a massive fan." They only let you leave when you love it. That would be worth every penny to most.

maz8062 said: Ed, if you’re tracking the car I agree that the minutiae is important, but for the street it’s overkill, a waste of effort, time and money. I run Cup 2’s - 235/35 and 305/30 R19 for the summer months but never track the car, just “fast road” around London, which sees my average speed of 17 mph when I last checked. I’ll never in a million years get anywhere near the capability of this car so why am I going to “waste” £600 on alignment when I can get there or thereabouts for £50? If an alignment shop takes you down a road that’s not the road that you frequent, how will it apply to your driving? It won’t of course but folk buy into all of that stuff and love it. Not me. Every car I’ve owned from my NA MX5 20 years ago to my current 997.1 I’ll always dialled in the alignment. I used to specify “fast road” which to me meant sharp turn-in and a loose rear that can be controlled on the throttle. With my current alignment and new engine mounts, I get sharp turn-in without any drama at the rear. Just how I like it. You’re right, for you, there’s no point wasting money on a geometry set up if you’re going to drive around London at an average speed of 17mph, though if that’s what you’ are doing, there’s even less point doing it in a 997, let alone one shod with Cup 2’s and a fast road set up… But there’s no real point debating the finer points of suspension adjustment with you either, because you’re clearly so parochial you wouldn’t “get” it. But then neither do you need to.

maz8062 said: Ed, if you’re tracking the car I agree that the minutiae is important, but for the street it’s overkill, a waste of effort, time and money. I run Cup 2’s - 235/35 and 305/30 R19 for the summer months but never track the car, just “fast road” around London, which sees my average speed of 17 mph when I last checked. I’ll never in a million years get anywhere near the capability of this car so why am I going to “waste” £600 on alignment when I can get there or thereabouts for £50? If an alignment shop takes you down a road that’s not the road that you frequent, how will it apply to your driving? It won’t of course but folk buy into all of that stuff and love it. Not me. Every car I’ve owned from my NA MX5 20 years ago to my current 997.1 I’ll always dialled in the alignment. I used to specify “fast road” which to me meant sharp turn-in and a loose rear that can be controlled on the throttle. With my current alignment and new engine mounts, I get sharp turn-in without any drama at the rear. Just how I like it. Not having a go, just intrigued. Can you not see the paradox? On the one hand you question "wasting" £600 on an alignment you will never appreciate because of where you drive, yet in the same paragraph you say you run Cup 2 tyres.

Discombobulate said: maz8062 said: Ed, if you’re tracking the car I agree that the minutiae is important, but for the street it’s overkill, a waste of effort, time and money. I run Cup 2’s - 235/35 and 305/30 R19 for the summer months but never track the car, just “fast road” around London, which sees my average speed of 17 mph when I last checked. I’ll never in a million years get anywhere near the capability of this car so why am I going to “waste” £600 on alignment when I can get there or thereabouts for £50? If an alignment shop takes you down a road that’s not the road that you frequent, how will it apply to your driving? It won’t of course but folk buy into all of that stuff and love it. Not me. Every car I’ve owned from my NA MX5 20 years ago to my current 997.1 I’ll always dialled in the alignment. I used to specify “fast road” which to me meant sharp turn-in and a loose rear that can be controlled on the throttle. With my current alignment and new engine mounts, I get sharp turn-in without any drama at the rear. Just how I like it. Not having a go, just intrigued. Can you not see the paradox? On the one hand you question "wasting" £600 on an alignment you will never appreciate because of where you drive, yet in the same paragraph you say you run Cup 2 tyres. There is no paradox, no. The CUP 2’s are overkill - I know that, but they're not a harsh riding, noisy, high deg tyre, they’re comfortable and give good grip. Would I buy them again? Absolutely - they’re the best summer tyre for these cars by some margin. They even come as standard equipment for the GT cars. When it comes to alignment however, I don't buy into specialised alignment for the street. My view on all on these topics is that folk should look at their trip computer and note their average speed since it was last reset. Mine is 17 mph over 3k miles. Stock alignment is fine for me, so I look for a shop that has a Hunter alignment machine and i book it in. £50. Done! I'm confident that if one drove my car compared to an expensive, specialised alignment, they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. Perhaps it might be a bit sharper, more grippy but that’s it. Whichever route the OP takes, be it OPC, specialised alignment or £50 Hunter alignment - you can't go far wrong. Perhaps spending cash on HPDE would yield better results.

I asked for a fast road setup at Center Gravity and got this. Edited by FriedMarsBar on Wednesday 16th April 16:43

To be fair Maz, the advice you have given has not been great and a little contradicting and confusing. I have held back and tried to be polite, but you keep saying the same thing and trying to make out everyone is pushing for a track set up style geo or something with very little rear toe in so the back end moves around loads as you press on, which simply isn't the case at all. In fact, looking at your geo, that is what you have, most of us are saying more toe in, so more planted, more balance, arguably more boring. You have admitted that you just bumble around London and for that your geo looks like great for comfort, but like I already said not the most planted you can get from these cars. And then you say stick on some Cup 2's? Not sure why when people don't agree with you your reply is things like "Another fool that can't help himself but take pot shots at strangers on the internet."? No one is trying to talk anyone into setting up their daily to be a GT track weapon, we are trying to advise on what makes for a very balanced, road friendly car that won't bite you when you press on a bit.

twotierkier said: Ed.Neumann said: To be honest Maz, the advice you have given has been a crock of s t. Fixed that for you. A tad harsh methinks … but ultimately, fair.

maz8062 said: braddo said: maz8062 said: I'm out for now. It would do you good. Less typing, more reading. Geo can change how a car feels more than tyres. Your use of Cup2 changes grips levels in the warm and dry, but they dont fundamentally change how the car gets down a fun driving road in the way that geo can (e.g. tuning rear toe for the level of passive rear steer that you might want). The stock GT3 geo is mild. A classic ‘fast road’ set up. The camber goes up above 2 degrees for track focussed stuff. Another fool that can't help himself but take pot shots at strangers on the internet. I don't own a GT3, the op doesn't own a GT3 yet the most vociferous and apparently knowledgeable contributors in this thread are GT3 owners. Some don't even own a 997 yet have the biggest voice, the biggest balls and the ones that always want to be right on the internet. Knock yourself out, mate. I don't care one iota how you drive your car. I drive mine with my alignment and I'm super happy, thanks. I don't waste money on trick alignment because i've been there, done that, and see it as snake oil for the street. My opinion, my car, my choice. The op can follow the advice of the GT3 crew or just do what they want and enjoy their car. All i've done is give my opinion - some of you don't like others having an opinion. Sorry about that, but I don't care what you think because your opinion is irrelevant to me and like you, I too am right. I thought you were out?

Thanks for all the helpful responses on this - particularly from Slippydiff, Adrian-9iafn, Ed.Neumann, jimbo761, FriedMarsBar, Discombobulate, wax lyrical, and twotierkier. Had the work done, paid £366, wasn’t the lowest, wasn’t the highest. Happy with the work, it needed to be done as the tyres were wearing prematurely, particularly the rears. Should pay for itself in the additional mileage from the tyres. Haven’t had a chance to assess how it feels yet. Will be interesting to gauge the difference and whether it’s preferable.

Thats about as good as it gets on standard arms/ top mounts etc. Hows the drive?

See how it feels, if the rear is not planted enough put a bit more toe in on it. I would go between 0.12 - 0.20 personally, I don't like the back end to come round to easily when on the road.

DangerDoom said: Thanks for all the helpful responses on this - particularly from Slippydiff, Adrian-9iafn, Ed.Neumann, jimbo761, FriedMarsBar, Discombobulate, wax lyrical, and twotierkier. Had the work done, paid £366, wasn’t the lowest, wasn’t the highest. Happy with the work, it needed to be done as the tyres were wearing prematurely, particularly the rears. Should pay for itself in the additional mileage from the tyres. Haven’t had a chance to assess how it feels yet. Will be interesting to gauge the difference and whether it’s preferable. Good news you're sorted. I'd be keen to get your first impressions on the differences and feel. My car, a 997.2 C2S, needed some work before I felt I could really push it, including a geo and 4 new tyres. The way it worked for me though was I had to the geo done in Dec 23 and leave the old tyres on as I was doing a driver training at North Weald, which is know to shred tyres. The car 8 year old PZero and the inside of the rears were completely bald and once the geo was sorted it made the grip at the read even worse. i had some interesting "moments" that winter until I had 4 new MP4Ss fitted in April 24. Pete at CG said my car had the geo it left the factory with but it had gone out of whack over the years. The car was 14 years old at that point.

Here is mine done in 2021 9k miles ago. 997.2 GT3 Drives VERY well, albeit now I have got used to the car I thought it a bit understeery. Adjusted the front ARB to the softest position and that has certainly improved it. As I have No interest in tracking/competing in this 911 [been there done that] IMO it’s a perfect set up for our roads. Such a wonderful motor car

FriedMarsBar said: Good news you're sorted. I'd be keen to get your first impressions on the differences and feel. My car, a 997.2 C2S, needed some work before I felt I could really push it, including a geo and 4 new tyres. The way it worked for me though was I had to the geo done in Dec 23 and leave the old tyres on as I was doing a driver training at North Weald, which is know to shred tyres. The car 8 year old PZero and the inside of the rears were completely bald and once the geo was sorted it made the grip at the read even worse. i had some interesting "moments" that winter until I had 4 new MP4Ss fitted in April 24. Pete at CG said my car had the geo it left the factory with but it had gone out of whack over the years. The car was 14 years old at that point. Similar to you, I took my then 12 year old 997.2 C2S to CG last year and the geo was all over the place. Fronts were both toe out to different amounts, rears were toe in one side, toe out the other side, cambers were all different. I know nothing about suspension and told Chris that the car felt unstable at motorway speeds, and like I was battling against being thrown into a hedge in corners. I had nothing to compare it too as it's my first, and probably only, 911 - I had pretty much assumed they just drove like this. Front tyres were also 6 years old and while nowhere near worn down, needed replacing. Coming out of there the drive home was like a different car. During the post geo test drive Pete told me to watch my speed because it would feel like I was driving slower than I was because I wasn't battling against it, and he was right. Feels much more stable now and a lot less effort. I didn't go for any sort of 'fast road', just pretty much stock, I had told Chris I drive it to work daily (35m round trip along A and B roads) but would also like to do some track days. Having taken it around Thruxton since then it feels as happy on a track as it does on the road and this is one of the prime reasons I bought it in the first place (and, presumably, exactly what Porsche intends). Some have said £500-600 is a lot to pay (I paid £474 when I went) but I also thought of it as a good and fairly educational day out (my experience was much like Slippydiff's account of, I think, 18 years ago further upthread). I hung around the work shop and watched and listened to Chris from around 8am until 6pm while he carried out the work, including replacing some arms and other bits and pieces that were worn after 70k miles of use. I learned a lot about suspension and handling and given the change in how it drives, I have no regrets paying 'over the odds' for the service. My figures: Before Front Toe -0.07/-0.10, Front Camber -0.21/-0.16, Rear Toe +0.13/-0.06, Rear Camber -1.57/-1.49, Caster +8.21/+8.08 After Front Toe +0.01/+0.02, Front Camber -0.23/-0.24, Rear Toe +0.10/+0.10, Rear Camber -1.21/-1.22, Caster +8.17/+8.05

DangerDoom said: Had the work done I suspect the car will feel great. It would seem the 991 has a bit more scope for front camber than the 996/997 Carreras? The settings are a couple of whiskers away from a stock 997 GT3 - funny that - a great fast road geo

JagYouAre said: Similar to you, I took my then 12 year old 997.2 C2S to CG last year and the geo was all over the place. Fronts were both toe out to different amounts, rears were toe in one side, toe out the other side, cambers were all different. I know nothing about suspension and told Chris that the car felt unstable at motorway speeds, and like I was battling against being thrown into a hedge in corners. I had nothing to compare it too as it's my first, and probably only, 911 - I had pretty much assumed they just drove like this. Front tyres were also 6 years old and while nowhere near worn down, needed replacing. Coming out of there the drive home was like a different car. During the post geo test drive Pete told me to watch my speed because it would feel like I was driving slower than I was because I wasn't battling against it, and he was right. Feels much more stable now and a lot less effort. I didn't go for any sort of 'fast road', just pretty much stock, I had told Chris I drive it to work daily (35m round trip along A and B roads) but would also like to do some track days. Having taken it around Thruxton since then it feels as happy on a track as it does on the road and this is one of the prime reasons I bought it in the first place (and, presumably, exactly what Porsche intends). Some have said £500-600 is a lot to pay (I paid £474 when I went) but I also thought of it as a good and fairly educational day out (my experience was much like Slippydiff's account of, I think, 18 years ago further upthread). I hung around the work shop and watched and listened to Chris from around 8am until 6pm while he carried out the work, including replacing some arms and other bits and pieces that were worn after 70k miles of use. I learned a lot about suspension and handling and given the change in how it drives, I have no regrets paying 'over the odds' for the service. My figures: Before Front Toe -0.07/-0.10, Front Camber -0.21/-0.16, Rear Toe +0.13/-0.06, Rear Camber -1.57/-1.49, Caster +8.21/+8.08 After Front Toe +0.01/+0.02, Front Camber -0.23/-0.24, Rear Toe +0.10/+0.10, Rear Camber -1.21/-1.22, Caster +8.17/+8.05 That's actually a good write up about what they do. I had a really similar overall experience, I learnt a lot and enjoyed it.

scottos said: Hows the drive? Will report back. Maybe this weekend if I can.

Back from a weekend drive and after evaluating the car over 1557 miles it's definitely feeling much better than it did. The MPS4S were fitted in the second half of March and needed breaking in .

I have read and appreciate the pearls cast before me... Thanks The control arms determine how the toe and camber change as the wheel moves up and down throughout its travel. Plotting toe and camber against vertical wheel position (full compression to full droop), results in curves (toe vs. ride height and camber vs ride height), which determine bump-steer and how/whether the car feels planted or squirrely on compression. Porsche recommends different alignment for each suspension package (Std., M030, X74). These packages sit at different ride heights. My question is: Do the different recommended alignments for different packages correspond to different points on the same arcs, or is the recommended alignment spec different for each suspension package (ROW, M030, X74)? Put another way: If the standard suspension sits 10mm higher than M030, then if you took a car with the standard suspension package at its spec alignment and loaded it up with weights until it sat at the same ride height as the M030, would the toe and camber at the new ride height now measure the same as the M030 spec?

No.

Sorry, a bit more info. For a start, the suspension is sort of reversed front to rear, as in, the front will give more toe in as it compresses/lowers and the rear will toe out more. Hence why if you lower the car you can run out of toe in on the rear.

A quick google brought this up, they discuss elasto-kinematic toe change on Porsche suspension. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4xL0I5Kkt8

It's all good... `No' is informative and concise And the video is useful (but I need to digest). Clearly the condition of the rubber bushes will have a dramatic impact on the elasto part of the equation and I need to learn more about PSM (have 2001 C2 so not PASM), and what impact that has and subsequent to every alignment the recalibration of the sensor... Thx Edited by ShortBeardy on Thursday 22 May 05:07 Edited by ShortBeardy on Thursday 22 May 05:24

ShortBeardy said: It's all good... `No' is informative and concise And the video is useful (but I need to digest). Clearly the condition of the rubber bushes will have a dramatic impact on the elasto part of the equation and I need to learn more about PSM (have 2001 C2 so not PASM), and what impact that has and subsequent to every alignment the recalibration of the sensor... Thx Edited by ShortBeardy on Thursday 22 May 05:07 Edited by ShortBeardy on Thursday 22 May 05:24 Learning how to drive the thing will have more of an impact than specialist geo, and it’ll be a lot cheaper.

ShortBeardy said: It's all good... `No' is informative and concise And the video is useful (but I need to digest). Clearly the condition of the rubber bushes will have a dramatic impact on the elasto part of the equation and I need to learn more about PSM (have 2001 C2 so not PASM), and what impact that has and subsequent to every alignment the recalibration of the sensor... Thx Not really, it is the angle the arms are all attached that changes whether compression, turning etc. increases/decreases toe and camber etc. Obviously worn bushes or softer bushes will mean there is more variation, but I think you're over thinking this a bit much.

To a first approximation I'd agree. However, according to your video the bushes on the toe control arm and the LCA are of different stiffness, and in high loading situations there is intentional toe change as the result. It's quite nifty.

Yeah, but are you talking about "the condition of the bushes.." or the bushes used by design? There is play in the bushes by design, which does have a positive effect on the geo changing. But, many still feel that moving to solid bushes is even better. I'm not a massive fan myself, but many feel that solid is better and you will still get kinematic changes just by the layout, it is not all in the bush. I think they changed the layout on the 991 on to have toe arms short and in front of the axle rather than long and behind, this would give even more change to toe angles under load and feel more planted while allowing less toe for every day driving so your inner edges are not scrubbed as much,I would guess anyway? I'm sure someone who knows suspension far better than I would be able to comment.

I was ruminating that the carefully considered compliance of bushes and resultant steering effect is likely to be compromised by older fatigued rubber and that the good intentions of designers are likely to be more fulfilled by bushes in good condition. However, as has been said by an incredibly assumptive if perhaps well meaning poster, I ought to learn to drive first. Figured I get the rear suspension rebuilt, a four wheel alignment and then learn to drive. Although massively inexperienced and ignorant, I'm still reasonably spritely at 61 so I should be able to knock that lot out by next Thursday. cheers for the enlightenment Ed.

ShortBeardy said: I was ruminating that the carefully considered compliance of bushes and resultant steering effect is likely to be compromised by older fatigued rubber and that the good intentions of designers are likely to be more fulfilled by bushes in good condition. However, as has been said by an incredibly assumptive if perhaps well meaning poster, I ought to learn to drive first. Figured I get the rear suspension rebuilt, a four wheel alignment and then learn to drive. Although massively inexperienced and ignorant, I'm still reasonably spritely at 61 so I should be able to knock that lot out by next Thursday. cheers for the enlightenment Ed. That "well-meaning poster" my his own admittance drives in London at an average speed of 17mph, and does so on Cup 2 tyres, so I hardly think he's well placed to make such assumptions about others driving abilities ... You don't need to be Max Verstappen to appreciate a car with suspension in good condition that's set up well. Drive a dog of a 996 with worn/tired suspension bushings, ball joints, dampers, springs and top mounts with a poor geo set up, and it will be distinctly unpleasant to drive (and obviously so) Drive a recently well fettled car with all the above addressed (especially after having been set up by the likes of Center Gravity or String Theory) and the difference will be all too clear. Personally I'd avoid poly bushing the 996 suspension, rather I'd stick to replacing every suspension component with the best original type parts I could find (if you're not looking to drastically lower the car or run large amounts of camber) this however will need careful investigation unless you're prepared to undergo open-wallet surgery at your local OPC ... Don't buy the cheapest "package deal" you can find on the interweb, rather do your due diligence and source the parts from the likes of Design 911, Center Gravity, String Theory The latter are fitting suspension components every day, and they've worked out what's good, what's bad, and what's complete rubbish ... The 911UK forum, whilst less busy than PH, has some excellent contributors in the 997 & 996 sections (and regrettably the occasional idiot too) ...

ShortBeardy said: I was ruminating that the carefully considered compliance of bushes and resultant steering effect is likely to be compromised by older fatigued rubber and that the good intentions of designers are likely to be more fulfilled by bushes in good condition. However, as has been said by an incredibly assumptive if perhaps well meaning poster, I ought to learn to drive first. Figured I get the rear suspension rebuilt, a four wheel alignment and then learn to drive. Although massively inexperienced and ignorant, I'm still reasonably spritely at 61 so I should be able to knock that lot out by next Thursday. cheers for the enlightenment Ed. I'd agree with you on the poster being "incredibly assumptive" and "well meaning" however everyone can improve their skills, I guess, is the point. Where I'd disagree with the "well meaning poster" is that you'd be better to improve your driving skills in a well setup car, rather than a badly setup car. Edited by FriedMarsBar on Friday 23 May 12:01

I know two people who have had 911's and then gone back to an M3 or similar, because "I never felt that confident in the 911 when pressing on." I have discussed geo and suspension and they have just said it was set up to Porsche specs. The variation is massive. Got them them to jump in my car, which is not quite to Porsche spec. and they have been blown away not just by how much more planted the car feels but also how much more compliant it is too. I have had my current 997 S for a year now, and still not quite got it how I really like it. I need to increase the rear camber a little, but also need to get the rear toe pointing in a smidge more. But the difference between the the extremes of 'official' settings is massive and will completely change the way these cars feel, to the point you may never feel confident enough to 'just learn how to drive' the car if they are not how you like a car to feel and give up on it. Edited by Ed.Neumann on Friday 23 May 12:04

Ed, If you're running standard ride height I'd be curious on your preferred alignment specs.? I'm grateful for and appreciate all information that is posted. As a general point, people who respond to a post that poses a very specific question despite being not able to address that question are not contributing. They are noise and frankly, they can f**k off. Well meaning or not, the world is full of people who revel in the sound of their own voice/typing and to quote Spinal Tap, they fill a much needed void. Best Regards All,

I apologise if the tone of my last post caused offence. Upon re-reading I realise that I have become overly sensitised by Google and the increasingly approximate responses to any internet search. I suppose my ultimate fear is that humans will descend to this now accepted mediocrity and that as a species we will lose sight of the detail. Pedantry matters. Peace.

^ No need to apologise, this is an internet forum with different views and opinions. This particular subject tends to trigger some and I tend to get a tongue (keyboard) lashing for daring to have a different view when it comes to specialised alignment and the whys and wherefores of spending ££££ when stock settings using a laser alignment machine like Hunter can be had for £50. All that being said, assuming a car is roadworthy and is dialed in correctly alignment wise, the limiting factor in terms of speed and confidence driving the car will be the driver, especially with a 911 - 996/997, air-cooled etc. They're tricky to drive as the weight shifts, light front end and the directness of the steering. I've recently bought a 986 Boxster - totally different to the 911 - you can jump in and drive it fast and it is much easier to drive. So, in my view, if you really want to get to grips with this car - the 911 that is, best to invest in HPDE, skid pan training or something like that. Investing in fancy alignment, coilovers and trick suspension components is good to chat about on forums and down at the pub, but to get to know the car invest in training and education.

And I'd agree with all that. The 911 used to offend my sensibilities (physics background), and I felt it is/was an example of iterative engineering prowess over a poor original design decision, so after years of hearing people go on about it I bought a 996 to find out what the fuss was all about. On a dry road where you can lean on the power and the brakes and feel the impact of changing weight bias it really is quite amusing. And I appreciate that the light front ends enables a less assisted and therefore more tactile steering experience. However, I wouldn't argue: Having spent some time in the 986, it is a better design. Although... ( as Pam might say), although having access to the space inside the car (versus the small boot on the 986), is a convenience and the Boxster gets the mediocre motor. PPBB re engined 986 is a very alluring proposition (readers cars thread) Having changed all the rear control arms (with OEM rubber bushed replacements), I have an original set with shagged bushes. If anyone wants them so as to have something to press new bushes into, they're available for the postage. They would ship from near Portland USA.

cheers Ed. To avoid any ambiguity can you confirm units and that toe is for an individual wheel? Edited by ShortBeardy on Tuesday 27th May 16:35

ShortBeardy said: To avoid any ambiguity can you confirm units and that toe is for an individual wheel? I don't think anyone discusses toe per wheel. It is always a measurement of the angle between the wheels. Imagine a V where each wheel is one side of the V. Toe is the angle between the 2 lines of the V.

ShortBeardy said: cheers Ed. To avoid any ambiguity can you confirm units and that toe is for an individual wheel? I agree with ATM, however, everyone these days seems to give figures for each side. I always used to use Total Toe values, as it is very unusual to want different toe angles for each side. But it seems everyone now discusses it for each side, probably because they are thinking about Hunter print outs.

ShortBeardy said: Ed, If you're running standard ride height I'd be curious on your preferred alignment specs.? Front camber -0.7 (if you can get that much, it may only be -0.5) Front Toe in 0.02 Total toe 0.04 Rear camber -1.4 Rear toe in 0.14 Total toe in 0.28 Edit: I have added total toe to avoid confusion. Edited by Ed.Neumann on Sunday 1st June 12:23

Ed.Neumann said: I agree with ATM, however, everyone these days seems to give figures for each side. I always used to use Total Toe values, as it is very unusual to want different toe angles for each side. But it seems everyone now discusses it for each side, probably because they are thinking about Hunter print outs. I'm not sure it's possible to have different toe each side because they would just even it out although I do have experience of a car which crabbed. Basically damaged and repaired and the rear didn't line up properly with the front. So in effect it had rear wheel steering set up for one way only. It handled amazingly going round right handers but fell apart trying to go left. So ... if you measure toe per wheel than maybe that makes sense if your reference point is the rears pointing towards the front but without that how do you define the centre point which each toe would be measured from. I also believe those American race cars which just go round in circles or an oval are set up in a similar fixed rear wheel steer type mode. So they feel more stable going round the turns of the oval than going straight.

ATM said: I'm not sure it's possible to have different toe each side...... Have you not seen some of the alignments that have been posted on here from Kwikfit and the like? Front toe in right 0.01 Front toe in left 0.07 Total toe 0.08 Front toe in right 0.04 Front toe in left 0.04 Total toe 0.08 I know the first one is an extreme, but so many come away with toe at 0.02 and 0.04 and because it is green think it is OK. It is not.

Ed.Neumann said: Have you not seen some of the alignments that have been posted on here from Kwikfit and the like? Front toe in right 0.01 Front toe in left 0.07 Total toe 0.08 Front toe in right 0.04 Front toe in left 0.04 Total toe 0.08 I know the first one is an extreme, but so many come away with toe at 0.02 and 0.04 and because it is green think it is OK. It is not. But surely as the steering moves or centres then the toe would move from one side to the other?

ATM said: But surely as the steering moves or centres then the toe would move from one side to the other? Toe will adjust as you steer regardless, Porsches are designed to give you increased toe as the camber increases, on the front anyway rear is opposite, and the camber changes as you turn. At the end of the day how quick the car turns in is really down to toe, you want the setting to be the same on each side, otherwise you can be understeering turning left and oversteering turning right. You want balance. The whole geo changes completely as soon as you turn the wheel, compress the suspension etc. Edited by Ed.Neumann on Sunday 1st June 16:07

Ed.Neumann said: Toe will adjust as you steer regardless, Porsches are designed to give you increased toe as the camber increases, on the front anyway rear is opposite, and the camber changes as you turn. At the end of the day how quick the car turns in is really down to toe, you want the setting to be the same on each side, otherwise you can be understeering turning left and oversteering turning right. You want balance. The whole geo changes completely as soon as you turn the wheel, compress the suspension etc. Ok I thought if you just turn the steering wheel a small amount around centre while stationary, so nothing else moving really, then effectively you are moving toe from one side to the other As one side adds toe then the other lowers Does that make sense?

I have a basic bias toward exact factory settings for everything like this because I am not knowledgeable enough to second-guess the designers. Of course, there are many who have the knowledge and skill to change them, but I do not. I must say that the adjustable settings on my 992 RS are a challenge, but I simply had a chat with some factory drivers and got a set of suggested settings for track use, leaving every thing at neutral for road use.

I am not sure it is practically possible to design a suspension using fixed length control arms, that will not also change toe and camber with compression and droop and steering input. I believe that the best one can do is design something that provides a minimal amount of change and ensure it occurs in the desirable direction. Noting that the control arm lengths for a double wishbone suspension would ideally be half the width of the car... That said my car is running new B4 dampers and original standard US spec springs, all new control arms and with a minimal post alignment test drive it appears fine! The alignment is now 1/4 degrees negative camber on each front wheel (I couldn't get much more than this) 1 3/8 degrees negative camber on each rear wheel a combined front toe (total) of 0.03 degrees Drivers side rear toe 0.14 degrees Passenger side rear toe 0.17 degrees Error bars are defined by a camber gauge that measures in increments of 1/8 degree and a toe measurement accuracy of +/-0.5mm over 914.4mm which comes out to 0.06 degrees

ShortBeardy said: I am not sure it is practically possible to design a suspension using fixed length control arms, that will not also change toe and camber with compression and droop and steering input. McPherson vs Double Wishbone. Double wishbone front end does not have the problem of camber and thus toe changing as much as the McPherson system. However, on a road car being more neutral, when going in a straight line with the settings getting more aggressive when you press on turn harder can be a real benefit. The new GT3 moved to a double wishbone set up, which is great on track, and make the steering super positive and precise, and also linear, it does the same no matter what, but that does mean that if you are not going 9/10ths then it can get a bit tiring, it can be more than a little fidgety going down the motorway, not the most relaxing road car, certainly not on UK's crappy roads. It is all a compromise, and I think Porsche get it pretty good for each car and what it's intended usage is for to be fair.

ShortBeardy said: I am not sure it is practically possible to design a suspension using fixed length control arms, that will not also change toe and camber with compression and droop and steering input. I believe that the best one can do is design something that provides a minimal amount of change and ensure it occurs in the desirable direction. Anything is doable (though as you've said, it's not always particularly practical) if you have the know-how and deep pockets.The current R1 WRC cars utilise McPherson struts and have 270mm (10.5") of suspension travel, they used to have 300mm (12") with minimal toe/caster and camber change. Sure, at full droop there'll be come camber change ... : But with clever positioning of the rack, the uprights, the steering arms etc, geometry changes can and are minimised in the all important range of travel. As you alluded to, the control arms on the rear suspension of the WRC Polo are somewhat long : And the effective king pin inclination of the front strut on the same car : This is the front suspension of the first Subaru Impreza WRC car (a Tarmac spec car which utilised differing steering arms (or clevis as they were referred to) to a Gravel spec car (raised ride height) and Tarmac (much reduced ride height) : Gravel spec car in flight :

The commitment displayed by the crew of that WRC car is impressive!. I've a much cherished picture of my Tr7V8 and it must have been all of 4 inches off the ground, but I recall at the time it seemed like a foot. Apologies for going off topic, but looking again at the picture of the rally car up in the air and the wheels drooped. I wonder if the gyroscopic nature of the rotating wheel assembly would slow it's droop on take off. It would be mildly interesting to compare pictures of car on a lift at full droop and one flying with wheels spinning.

Oh for just a day with that WRC car, it looks amazing!!! I thought we had posted this video earlier in the thread, but couldn't see it, but well worth a watch, starting at 13 minutes it is quite interesting and relevant to our discussions. https://youtu.be/s4xL0I5Kkt8?si=jHMyGxbJWLAuruol&a...

jimbo761 said: I paid £216 at the OPC (180+VAT). My opc ( Brooklands ) wanted £680!

Just had a set of Eibach adjustable lower arms and strong theory rear toe arms and eibacjh front adjustable trailing arms, I went for 2 degrees F&R and 8.75-9.0 castor F and -1 to -3 toe out F, -10 to -12 toe in rear Drives very well. Over the previous set up I'd say : More weight and feel at low speeds, sharper turn in and increased precision as you load up. More stability and confidence in corners and more accuracy, a marginal increase in camber sensitivity but still far from too sensitive. Interestingly the steering feels a tad less sensitive at speed, turn in has a small amount of bluntness as you move from dead ahead. A slight increase in hardness to the road imperfections but with more feel. I really like the way the car feels at the front, much more solid, confident and precise. the car also feels generally more agile. Overall much better I wonder if I should have gone for 8.5 degrees of castor and -3 degrees to out F ? I also wonder if the tyres need a bit of time to settle with more camber ? Before After Edited by Adrian-9iafn on Tuesday 10th June 13:46