This is for my '97 FM springs/shocks, FM sways f/r, poly bushings in everything (A-arms/sways/, and FM frame rails and butterfly brace. NOT turbo, only a cone filter, corksport exh, timing bump, FM happy meal #1, and no a/c or p/s. If any of that matters for numbers suggestions.

949 suggests (so no one has to look it up, or slap me with it)
Front camber: -1.4°
Caster: >4.5°
Front total toe: 1/16"

Rear camber : -1°
Rear total toe: 1/8"

I've had the FM suggested specs and they were OK. Looking for sissy daily driving everyday civility, Aggressive weekend hooligan idiocy fun on a weekend drive, and tires to live forever or at least not excessive wear past stockish.

My idea
Front camber: -1.4°
Caster: >3ish°--no p/s and would like to keep it low speed friendly
Front total toe: 0" or 1/16"

Rear camber : -1°
Rear total toe: 0" or 1/16"

FM sways set to softest settings f/r? I also have the stock rear sway somewhere, but I think the bushings are gone.

I'm curious about going no toe at all f/r. Toe to my knowledge is the BIG factor in tire wear, but no toe makes it "darty"? Also curious if the frame rails would change anything. I prefer more oversteer then understeer.


I'd like a fun alignment. I mean what if I get chased by baddies in a corvette through a shopping center

 

The daily has .75* camber all the way around, max caster, zero toes, tire wear is bauce.

 

0deg toe didn't make it twitchy at highway speed or tramline on weird road surface irregularities? My toe is definitely "out" at the moment, I think. It has gotten twichy and I really need a hand on the wheel in the areas of my drive were semi's have pounded the highway like an asian school girl.

 

Nope but I have an absolute all-star alignment guy who appreciates precision.

 

Yeah, I miss the older guy in Clovis. Older guy that works in the Hobby Shop on Cannon AFB (Clovis,NM) is awesome for anyone there. He races go karts and is super rectally retentive. He actually started looking into Miata's after he saw how easy they are to work on while I was there. However, the roads there will take your fillings out. I've actually had my black car down roads bad enough to NEED a spotter (I'm not kidding, offroad ftw) that aren't as bone shattering as Clovis. I can't say enough bad things about that place.

 

I think a lot of guys are running the same amount of negative camber front and rear.

How much does changing ride height affect toe?

 

Bennett Automotive in Smyrna does great work. Jim (the owner) and Mike (one of the mechanics) are both avid auto-xers, so they know how important it is to hit the numbers and they do it for a reasonable price.

 

I'll give them a ring. I was going to go to Firestone in Smyrna. Already been talking to them and the manager seems more than willing to do it right. Also already picked up a lifetime alignment from a guy in TNMOG (local Mitsu group) for cheap for the turbo car.

 

I run 2.5* camber all corners (that is going to change) with 1/16 toe out in the front, and 3.5* of caster with 0* toe in the rear. Its not twitchy on the highway, and it wont start getting twitchy on the highway until over 1/8* of toe out in the front. It does turn the wheel into ruts if you drive limp wristed. With only 3.5* of caster it does start to feel kind of vague on the highway though. I'm going to increase that as much as I can while maintaining 2.5* of camber in the front. The rear I'm going to leave the same for now but once I get stiffer front springs I'll be reducing the camber because After a run my insides are still hotter than my outsides by like 10*F.

For you liking it loose I'd run the camber you want and wither no toe or a tad out in the front and no toe in the rear and get at least 4* of caster.

 

Why does 949 go with more camber in the front than back? Is that primarily for track work, whereas the fm settings with more negative camber in the back is for more street/autoX? All other things being equal I'm thinking more camber in the front would lead to less understeer than more camber in the back?

 

F
1.8
caster? dont have my sheet around 4 I want to say.
0 toe
R
1.6
0 toe

 

More negative camber in the rear is definitely NOT an autocross thing. It ALL depends on your bars and spring rates anyway. When I had a stock front bar I couldn't keep the back end behind me with less than 3.5 degrees of rear camber. I went to the 1 1/4" NB front bar (on my na) and after that I went with the least negative camber the car would allow me. One change, 2 degrees of camber change. I don't even try to recommend alignments....haha

 

More negative camber in the rear than front is a Spec Miata thing, due to their wacky 700/325 spring rates.

Rule of thumb is 90% of front camber in rear. So if you have 2* front, then run 1.8* rear (90% of 2.0). At least that's what 949 race alignment recommends.

 

I just did poly bushings on mine and when I got it realigned I had them dial in:

-2.8 degrees of camber front
-2.5 degrees of camber rear

3.8 degrees of caster
and no toe

I LOVE the alignment, the turn-in is amazing and it holds it's grip so much better than before when it was at -1.4 degrees of camber all around.

The reduced caster made the steering a bit lighter but I don't like it. Stick with higher caster.

 

More negative camber in the rear seems to be a flyin miata and/or kieth tanner thing, according to their recommendations anyway. I followed their recommendations but now I'm wondering if I should change it.

 

Its setup dependent, with my setup currently I 2.5* all around I need a tad less in the rear and a good bit more in the front based on temperatures after a run.

 

Really happy with this alignment:

Front:
Camber: -2.7
Caster: 5.0
Toe: .0

Rear:
Camber: -2.3
Toe: .08

 

Somewhat true, it's mostly done as a "system" that involves running their huge and somewhat silly 5/8ths rear swaybar.

 

No. A miata will need the front camber set more towards negative than the rear for a given setup, for ideal grip at both ends because: we all mostly run the same tire type front and rear, and the rear suspension has more camber gain on compression than the front, therefore to keep any given tire happy with a certain amount of roll in a corner, the front needs more camber to start with.

More negative camber in the rear than front will not get you to maximum ultimate grip at both ends, but it might help keep some of us who aren't as good at driving as we think we are out of trouble, because it throws an understeer bias into things. If you are trying to go as fast as possible and using less front camber to balance out having a bigger rear anti-roll bar, you are flat out no exceptions doing it wrong. Based on the engineering of the parts on my car that came from FM, I'd say that's about right for them.

 

Have you guys ever been told that is was hard to do an alignment since the car was on coilovers? I got mine aligned today "as close as possible" because the car was lowered and made it difficult...