Re: Why do I need a wheel alignment after each tire rotation?

[email]condor_222@yahoo.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
> I have a 97 V6 Camry with 135K miles on it.
>
> I just had four new tires put on in February and a wheel
> alignment then too. At 125K approx.
>
> About a month ago, I went in for the free tire rotation.
> And then the steering wheel was pulling to one side again.
>
> I've had a lot of problems with the alignment on the Camry.
>
> It's not like my old Ford. The Ford I had aligned, and it
> stayed aligned for years. I changed tires. No alignment
> required.[/color]

Unlike my old Ford, which would always wear out the tires prematurely
on the outer edges.

Don't rule out a problem with the rear wheel alignment. There's
usually just a single adjustment for it, for toe, and only for 1 of the
rear wheels. Your car may need an adjustment link installed for the
other rear wheel, or it may even need at least 1 camber kit installed,
which involves more work (bolt holes enlarged and cam bolts installed).

> Don't rule out a problem with the rear wheel alignment.

Yes, you should get a 4 wheel alignment on your Camry.
[color=blue]
> There's usually just a single adjustment for it, for toe,
> and only for 1 of the rear wheels. Your car may need an
> adjustment link installed for the other rear wheel, or it
> may even need at least 1 camber kit installed,
> which involves more work (bolt holes enlarged
> and cam bolts installed).[/color]

??usually??

Toe is adjustable on both sides in the rear, otherwise individual toe
and thrust angle couldn't be set. Simple reduced diameter camber bolts
can be used through the strut ears to adjust camber if the +/- .4
degree of movement allowed in the stock bolts is insufficient (HINT:
something is bent).

Toyota MDT in MO

Comboverfish wrote:
Do_not_spam_me wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Don't rule out a problem with the rear wheel alignment.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Yes, you should get a 4 wheel alignment on your Camry.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > There's usually just a single adjustment for it, for toe,
> > and only for 1 of the rear wheels.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> ??usually??
>
> Toe is adjustable on both sides in the rear, otherwise individual toe
> and thrust angle couldn't be set. Simple reduced diameter camber bolts
> can be used through the strut ears to adjust camber if the +/- .4
> degree of movement allowed in the stock bolts is insufficient (HINT:
> something is bent).[/color]

This Ford had a screw link in only one of its lower rear suspension
arms, on the passenger side. It may have also had cam bolts, but there
were no index marks for them as with my Corolla. Do you mean some of
these suspensions are adjusted by bending members, as was done with
Ford Twin I-Beam?

<do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1128414386.550999.310830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[color=blue]
> This Ford had a screw link in only one of its lower rear suspension
> arms, on the passenger side. It may have also had cam bolts, but there
> were no index marks for them as with my Corolla. Do you mean some of
> these suspensions are adjusted by bending members, as was done with
> Ford Twin I-Beam?[/color]

That is what I have been told.

[email]do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
> This Ford had a screw link in only one of its lower rear suspension
> arms, on the passenger side. It may have also had cam bolts, but there
> were no index marks for them as with my Corolla. Do you mean some of
> these suspensions are adjusted by bending members, as was done with
> Ford Twin I-Beam?[/color]

No, I indicated that if you *need* to install camber adjusting bolts,
then something is probably bent. The normal slop in the factory bolts
is usually sufficient to get the wheels in spec. This is a Camry
discussion, after all. Rear toe is adjusted with threaded links that
double as control arms.

What model Ford are you talking about?

Toyota MDT in MO

Comboverfish wrote:[color=blue]
> [email]do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com[/email] wrote:
>[color=green]
> > This Ford had a screw link in only one of its lower rear suspension
> > arms, on the passenger side. It may have also had cam bolts, but there
> > were no index marks for them as with my Corolla. Do you mean some of
> > these suspensions are adjusted by bending members, as was done with
> > Ford Twin I-Beam?[/color]
>
> No, I indicated that if you *need* to install camber adjusting bolts,
> then something is probably bent. The normal slop in the factory bolts
> is usually sufficient to get the wheels in spec. This is a Camry
> discussion, after all. Rear toe is adjusted with threaded links that
> double as control arms.
>
> What model Ford are you talking about?[/color]

The Mazda-based Escort.

I believe you are confused. That is a common mistake but there never was a
Mazda based Escort. The only Mazda based Ford was the Probe. The only
Mazda based sedan Ford Motor Company ever sold was the Mercury Tracer. Ford
did use Mazda engines in the Escort GT for a time as well.


mike hunt



<do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1128496390.966517.234240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
> Comboverfish wrote:[color=green]
>> [email]do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com[/email] wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > This Ford had a screw link in only one of its lower rear suspension
>> > arms, on the passenger side. It may have also had cam bolts, but there
>> > were no index marks for them as with my Corolla. Do you mean some of
>> > these suspensions are adjusted by bending members, as was done with
>> > Ford Twin I-Beam?[/color]
>>
>> No, I indicated that if you *need* to install camber adjusting bolts,
>> then something is probably bent. The normal slop in the factory bolts
>> is usually sufficient to get the wheels in spec. This is a Camry
>> discussion, after all. Rear toe is adjusted with threaded links that
>> double as control arms.
>>
>> What model Ford are you talking about?[/color]
>
> The Mazda-based Escort.
>[/color]

[email]do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> Comboverfish wrote:[color=green]
> > What model Ford are you talking about?[/color]
>
> The Mazda-based Escort.[/color]

I forgot about that one. Another example of Ford being ridiculously
cheap. Setting toe on only one side of a rear suspension is asinine.

Make no mistake, the Escort circa 89-up is a Ford. The Mazda 1.8
engine was offered as an option, but it was still mostly Ford. The sad
thing is -- the newer Escorts were actually markably better than the
87-back models. Those made Russian economy cars look well engineered.

Toyota MDT in MO

Mike Hunter wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > The Mazda-based Escort.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I believe you are confused. That is a common mistake but there never was a
> Mazda based Escort. The only Mazda based Ford was the Probe. The only
> Mazda based sedan Ford Motor Company ever sold was the Mercury Tracer. Ford
> did use Mazda engines in the Escort GT for a time as well.[/color]


The 1991-1995 Escorts and Tracers were based on the Protege chassis;
earlier Escorts used a Ford chassis, but for a few years the Tracer was
based on the Mazda 323. My definition of "based" may not be as strict
as yours, and my particular Escort had Ford engine, fuel system, and
maybe electrical and brake systems. The automatic was a Mazda 4EAT.

Mike Hunter wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > The Mazda-based Escort.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I believe you are confused. That is a common mistake but there never was a
> Mazda based Escort. The only Mazda based Ford was the Probe. The only
> Mazda based sedan Ford Motor Company ever sold was the Mercury Tracer. Ford
> did use Mazda engines in the Escort GT for a time as well.[/color]


The 1991-1995 Escorts and Tracers were based on the Protege chassis;
earlier Escorts used a Ford chassis, but for a few years the Tracer was
based on the Mazda 323. My definition of "based" may not be as strict
as yours, and my particular Escort had Ford engine, fuel system, and
maybe electrical and brake systems. The automatic was a Mazda 4EAT.

Comboverfish wrote:[color=blue]
> [email]do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com[/email] wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > The Mazda-based Escort.[/color]
>
> I forgot about that one. Another example of Ford being ridiculously
> cheap. Setting toe on only one side of a rear suspension is asinine.
>
> Make no mistake, the Escort circa 89-up is a Ford. The Mazda 1.8
> engine was offered as an option, but it was still mostly Ford. The sad
> thing is -- the newer Escorts were actually markably better than the
> 87-back models. Those made Russian economy cars look well engineered.[/color]

I was once assigned a late-80s Escort and hated the thing. It rode
badly, the transmission shifted roughly (and the shifter had a strange
S-shaped pattern), the seats weren't comfortable, the seat belt chafed
my neck, and passengers who rode in back complained of their heads
knocking against the hatchback struts. I also received a memo to not
idle the engine for more than 10 minutes at a time because Ford warned
of a fire hazard from oil dripping past the valve cover and onto the
exhaust manifold. The Mazda-based Escort was a huge improvement.