CP

Hi,

Tried to read the archives on alignments and have a few questions on alignment specifications:

(1) Read a thread that says the 95 alignment specs are different than the 96 (and newer) ones, and that the 96 (and newer) specs are more friendly for rear tire wear. Is this truth or myth?

(2) I read that there are some variations in alignment specs: U.S. standard, ROW, and RS. I assumed that has something to do with ride heights? I believe mine was set to ROW stds. Is this a good spec?

(3) Does anyone, or can point me to a alink, that actually lists all these alignment specifications?

(4) I know some members here change the camber to fit their style. Can someone please share your preferred camber (front and rear) settings and why you like them?

Thanks for the education?

CP

mooty

2. variation beside ride ht such as camber and toe, not sure caster is adjustable on 993's.

4. i had a lot of camber on mine. 2deg all around. it helps make car neutral but chews up tires very very fast.

cp, i take it the ruf is back now? excellent.

kkim

3. http://p-car.com/susfaq/alignment.html

CP

Kim,

Great tips, thanks.

John,

Nope, RUF is still at EuroCal being tweeked. The TechArt insert takes a long time to get here. They need to paint the parts, let them dry for QUITE a while, and redo the clear-bra. It will be a while before I see the car again.

I'm getting the alihnment specs basically for the last leg of the journey.

Anyone has feedback on question (1)?

Thanks.

CP

Dr. No

CP, The rear suspension geometry on the 95s is different and chews up more rear tire. It can be changed to 96+ geometry, but IIRC may need some parts. I need to dig out Paul Frere's "911 Story" to confirm.

There are some variations in the alignment specs. I have them from Porsche and if I were not an IT ignoramus could pdf and send them myself. PM me if you really want them and I'll have it done at the office.

901aero

As I am a PCA Member, it has been suggested many times in the Tech Questions section of PANORAMA when the topic of tire wear on the 95 993 is asked that the 95's should be aligned to the 96+ specs -- there are no other mods or corrections to the suspension needed to do this. It is not myth.

TheOtherEric

(1) Read this to learn more about the differences between 95 and 96 rear suspension and the cost required to update the parts:
https://rennlist.com/forums/993-forum/207969-has-anyone-updated-their-1995-rear-suspension-to-1996-parts.html

I don't know why the tech guy at Panorama bothers to suggest to update 1995 parts to 1996, because I'm sure nobody does it. It would be difficult and costly for little, if any, gain. Just align to 1996 specs, which differ primarily with regards to having less toe in.

(4) As for camber, there's no reason to stray from the specs unless you're doing track/autox. You'll just chew up the insides of your tires. Hell, even the street specs work fine on the track--ask me how I know!

CP

Folks,

Thamks for the enlightenment. The link posted by Kim above is for 94/95s. Would someone know what the specs are for 96 or newer?

Thanks again.

CP

TheOtherEric

I just checked the workshop manual and the specs on p-car.com are as of 1997 (not 1995). i saw 2 other errors:

1) Rear toe, max left-right diff = 10 minutes, for all models
2) Rear toe, RS = 15 min +/- 5 minutes (not 10 as shown)