travlee

iTrader: (8)

Most places wont touch the camber because it isnt adjustable from the factory

jhc

Easy call, I bought the Z1 FUCAs. Mistake, get SPLs. And check your local FB group for alignment recommendations. No, not kidding.

oldbutspry

Here's the sheet they gave me showing the current situation:






Those look pretty nice. If I understand correctly, installing those makes the camber adjustable?

ETA: Any other source for alignment specs? I don't have Facebook and have never really used it. This car will just be a fun daily driver - should I not just use recommended factory settings?

oldbutspry

Hmm. I think maybe I am starting to understand. The tire shop said I need new control arms because the camber is out of spec and can't be adjusted. But really, the camber is probably out of spec because the car is lowered with coilovers, eh?

Ordered the Z1 FUCAs.

Frostydc4

iTrader: (3)

If the toe is within spec and the bushings are in good shape excessive tire wear should not be an issue (especially if you drive the car hard). It’s usually excess toe-out/toe-in that kills the tires.

MicVelo

[Climbs on soapbox. You are warned. ]

Since you are having to replace the FUCAs, definitely go for adjustable, not OEM. With your car on wheels and coilovers, you definitely need to have the option of adjusting all three specs of CCT (caster, camber, toe).

S'far as brands of adjustable FUCAs, you have everything from the low price to the high: $200 - $1000. Do you need $1000 SPL or Nismo? IMO, no. Unless you race, they are overkill. There's a broad middle ground of FUCA at more sane price points and for street use, they're all you need. SPL, Cusco, Eibach. My SPLs have served me well through probably a dozen alignments and were originally recommended by Rob at Z Car Garage (who, as most know, I have a great respect for the work they do there.)

Let's clear up something here that you mentioned. There is NO such thing as 0 camber. Well, technically speaking, you could zero it I suppose, but you never should as all suspension systems have camber built into them for many good reasons, not the least of which is performance but also for steering response, tracking (avoid wandering, tramlining) and to keep the tires wearing evenly (and several other not as obvious reasons). In short, maintaining factory alignment specs help to prevent premature tire wear, help to control steering attitude (under/over/neutral), and how the car behaves on turn in, return to center, etc. etc.

Note that alignment specs are never static. They are a range of values known as minimum and maximum values in degrees of tilt fore/aft (caster), tilt side/side (camber), wheel angularity (toe). All of these, when changed, affect everything above.

What am I getting at? How you drive the car determines how it should be set. For example, I drive my cars simply for pleasure up in the mountains. And I'm from the Handling Over Horsepower school so every trick counts in my book. For that reason, I have my front alignment all set within spec to maximum camber, slight toe-out to extract the most steering response and to give the car the most rotational response I can without destroying my front tires and caster nearly maxed to spec range for best high speed stability and to get the tires to roll over onto the shoulders where needed. IOW, I've set the alignment (after much experimentation) to suit me and how I drive the car.

But if none of that matters to you, consider the one thing that should concern you: tire wear. Getting your tires back into proper alignment to avoid the premature wear that typically accompanies excess camber, toe, caster.

Your car is lowered and that's the main reason your camber values are out of whack. Any change in height changes all alignment values which is why its critical to get an alignment after lowering (and sadly, is often overlooked by many because its added cost and many like that camber kids look.... at the expense of performance and tires.)

Alignment is THE most critical step in suspension tuning. I don't care how fancy anyone's coilovers are. They could be running $2500/corner Penske DAs and they'd still be worth NOTHING without proper alignment. And sometimes that means investing in more hardware for a complete job.

[Off soapbox.]

jhc

The Facebook comment was for recommendations for a shop that can allign a lowered Z33 with adjustable upper arms. Some shops will bring your keys back in 2 minutes and say, "sorry". Your local group will know reputable shops who are friendly to your setup.

EDIT- yes, factory specs will work for your use.

bboypuertoroc

iTrader: (4)

Fantastic fcking post.

Also, if you fancy like me, you get your alignment done while you're sitting in the driver's seat.

oldbutspry

Hmm. Rereading this, I wonder if I misunderstood it. I read it as "buy the Z1's - it's a mistake to buy the SPL's".

jhc

No worries, the Z1 FUCAs will work (I run them), it's just that the upper bolts must be completely removed to make adjustments whereas the SPL design is so much simpler- loosen 1 bolt, adjust and retighten.
Last time I got lined up the shop charged me $80, showed me the printout and told me to do the extra work to get in spec, I'd need to pay for additional time-$20. I paid.
Gl!

EDIT-
Z1 is pretty good regarding returns if you've changed your mind.

jhc

Also we're a pretty friendly bunch, you can always send a private message to another user- click on their name, then select "send private message. "

travlee

iTrader: (8)

kinetix are easiest to adjust i feel

khnitz

If the factory BOSE amplifier is still in the vehicle, there likely isn't an input gain adjustment available on it. You may want to try a separate post in the Audio/Video section here:
https://my350z.com/forum/audio-and-video-52/

My first suggestion would be to understand how the Kenwood headunit is connected to the vehicle wiring - i.e. how was the install done? For example, are the speaker-level outputs of the headunit feeding the amplifier input, or is it from an Amplifier Pre-Out on the radio? If the radio speaker-level is feeding into the factory BOSE amp, that might be a reason for a higher noise floor.

MicVelo

This. ^^^

It's possible its an install with speaker level inputs although kinda doubt that as I'm not really sure the Bose can even accept high level inputs. I believe the signal in the OE setup is a low level direct wire, NOT RCA, as the Bose amp isn't set up to accept RCA-IN

If it is installed with the speaker outputs feeding the amp, this definitely would explain the noise ; as speaker level input amps are inherently more prone to noise. The old "garbage in-garbage out" scenario.) But another possible issue is that wires from the new (aftermarket) radio harness were cut and spliced straight into the corresponding input harness of the Bose amp. (Have seen a lot of self installs like that.)

The impedance levels of the Bose amp and speakers is NOT at all the same as most aftermarket HUs. They run at a low impedance level, something like 2-ohms and most other aftermarket units run higher impedance levels. So that's why it's a a no-no to hack the harness without some mitigation due to the mismatched load requirements. To do the install properly, an "interface" needs to be installed (if it wasn't done originally) to step down the impedance from the new unit and allow it to "talk to" the existing amp/speaker set in a language it understands.

This is the "interface" unit needed: PAC ROEM NIS-2.

Suggest you check to see exactly how the new HU was installed - with/without the interface or a straight hack wire job. Installing the ROEM unit might be a little messed up after the fact if the original wires had been hacked into as the ROEM unit is designed to plug straight into the Bose amp's molex connector/harness. If that's missing, a total rewire from the splice (presumed) back to the amp will probably be required. Of course, there's always going to be splicing required no matter what; but using the ROEM, one only needs to splice one side: the radio to the ROEM unit then that just plugs into the existing harness.

oldbutspry

I'll have to pull the stereo out and see how it's wired. I bet that little interface unit is what I need. Anyway, I will worry about this stuff after the control arms.

oldbutspry

Got my arms!

oldbutspry

So based on what jhc told me, these arms are a pain to change the settings so I need to try to install them at the proper alignment.

So here's my calculations based on that alignment sheet I posted:

Current camber is -1.9 degrees
Desired camber is -.55
This is a change of 1.35 degrees
1.35 / 360 degrees = .375% change

The height of the tire is 26.5 inches.
Circumference of the tire is 83.21 inches (26.5 x 3.14)

83.21 x .00375 = .31203 of an inch change at the height of the tire

The control arm is actually above the tire a bit so I just spitball and round up to a third of an inch.

So my control arm needs to be a third of an inch longer than the stock arm. Does that sound about right?

MicVelo

Current camber FRONT or REAR? Where is this "desired camber" figure coming from?? And honestly think that's overthink. Go with specs, disregard all the other stuff.

FTR, factory alignment specs:

CAMBER
Front: -1.3deg MIN 0.2 MAX
Rear: -2.1deg MIN 1.2 MAX

Front CASTER range: 7.4 MIN to 8.9 MAX

Front Toe: 0.00MIN to .10 deg MAX
Rear Toe: .05 MIN to 0.10 deg MAX

As mentioned here or another thread, I run close to MAX toe-out, caster close to max, and currently, both F&R camber close to the most negative camber in range.... ~ -1.2 deg F, 2.0 deg R. This setup gives me very quick response, turn-in/pivot, and matched to my F&R roll stiffness, set at biased to oversteer. For your purposes, I'd say just get the alignment close to center range for all around use.

oldbutspry

Sorry, I wasn't clear about that. The 'desired camber' is simply the middle of the factory range. I'm just aiming for the middle but not expecting to hit it exactly. When mounted, the arm is slightly angled so I expect to be a bit towards the more negative side of the camber range.

I'm not concerned with the rear camber. The car already has SPC rear camber arms so the alignment shop can adjust that.

My son did mention that I have to be careful not to reduce the negative camber too much. The oversize wheels might not fit. So I may need to rethink my 'desired camber' figure.

Here's a list my son provided of the modifications he made to the car:

Berk High Flow Catalytic Converters
HKS Hi-Power Exhaust
BC Racing BR Coilovers (Front and Rear)
Brembo Brake Calipers (Front and Rear)
Stainless Steel Brake Lines (Front and Rear)
Centric Premium High-Carbon Rotor Set (Front and Rear)
Tanabe Front Strut Bar
Torqen LED Rear Reverse & Turn Signal Lights (Smoked)
Torqen LED DRL + Side Indicator
Hotchkis Sway Bar Kit (Front and Rear)
SPC rear camber arms
Whiteline differential bushings
Kenwood DDX393 Entertainment System
Uprev Software + Tune
ROSSO REACTIV Bronze Front and Rear Rims (20x8.5 Front, 20x10 Rear)
Michelin Pilotsport 4S 245/35ZR20 Front Tires
Michelin Pilotsport A/S 3+ 285/30ZR20 Rear Tires
Z Speed Performance ZSP Aluminum Engine Cover Under Panel V2
Front Dash Camera
Backup Camera
Stillen 1035079 Rear Wing Spoiler Type 1

oldbutspry

So I've decided to make the arms 6mm longer than stock. If my math is right (we'll see) then that should put my camber at about -.85. That's a bit on the negative end of the acceptable range.

Here's how I'm measuring the arms. I am using the kitchen countertop because I can use the tile lines to make sure my measurements are perpendicular to the welding rods I put through the arms. I lined the tie rods ends up by sighting down them. Wish I had a better way but I think that's close enough.