Load & alignment

[98OldsIntrigue]

This article

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3486

Front End Alignment vs Trunk Weight

says a little something about (static) total toe, left and right toe, and perhaps suggests something about "how camber can affect toe" in general.

 

I think I'm beginning to understand the (general) theory and operation w/r/t alignment. There's hundreds if not many thousands of books/magazines/articles on the subject and anybody can find a pretty decent (general if not too terribly specific) source of information about that although it seems that ... put it this way; it's complex and I'm not sure the "average" mechanic want/needs to COMPLETELY understand everything that goes into a (four) wheel alignment.

 

But let me ask another question, beings the w-body car is the PERFECT vehicle to ask about, OK? Reason I say that is, PROVIDED YOUR LAST ALIGNMENT WAS GOOD, and you've replaced any/all worn suspension parts - so long as the frame isn't bent - then the ONLY (front end) alignment you're really talking about is a toe-alignment, sometimes glibly refered to as a "toe-and-go," partly because (*with no upper control arm) THERE IS NO CASTER/CAMBER adj., unless you're talking about aftermarket camber bolts and/or reeming the 3 bolts atop the strut tower, or perhaps reeming the lower thru-bolt of the strut to the knuckle - AND WHO DOES THAT? Answer: practically no alignment/body shop I'm aware of (in this major metro area) since it probably MEANS the frame is bent and/or "worn suspension parts" to start.

 

In essence, then, on the typical w-body, the "toe and go" is (normally) what you expect/get/pay for. Granted, that's INDIVIDUAL toe, i.e., left and right toe, perhaps both front and rear, and "total toe" (an obvious concern/spec) is part of the package as well.

 

The Hunter machines will boast getting (individual) [static] toe to 0.01 precision, with a published (and verified) accuracy of +/-0.2' (minutes not degrees is my understanding). But static CAMBER changes "the minute you get in the car" and for a large driver the static toe changes instantly by say about 0.05 ... and OF COURSE tire pressure CHANGES from summer to winter by about 3-7F (even from afternoon to dead of night) in temperate zones. Maybe not such a great concern in FL or AZ, but that differential in tire pressure affects camber (and hence toe) perhaps nearly as much as load. It's "evenly" distributed, of course, but still affects total toe (arguably) by as much, i.e. 0.03-0.04

 

THEREFORE, when both a) load AND tempF are accounted for,

then (under some driving conditions) total toe might be expected to be "off" (from even the BEST alignment) by as much as 0.05+0.04 = 0.09 -OR- when +/-0.2' accuracy is acounted for perhaps even 0.10 ... so maybe things get hairy, and maybe they don't.

 

(Static) Alignments, in one sense, only (really/truly) minimize tire scrub or wear in straight-line driving (and over level pavement). Old days, to account for road crown, left camber might be dialed into 3.0 and right to 3.5, and also help account for "asleep at the wheel." Of couse, bias-ply tires might be more forgiving than radials, especially low-profile radials. And suposedly, FWD cars will provide "torque-toe," so that a very slightly negative toe will allegedly self-align under acceleration. Lastly, when considering straight-line driving - about the only variable that one CAN isolate to consider effects of the "perfect" alignment, tires themselves suposedly self-straigten a bit under speed. I'm not sure if that's gyroscopic, or merely a mechanical effect; either way my Olds Intrigue calls for a 0.10 TOTAL toe (which is positive); and that must mean 0.05 L and 0.05 R since I haven't yet examined the published specs. 

 

Likewise, it would APPEAR that many (if not most) FWD cars call for a (front) total toe from between -0.1 and +0.1, or L/R toe (repectively) each around +/- 0.03/0.05 for a total toe < 0.1 ... anyhow one can't help but wonder how much of that is guessing game.

 

Reason I say that is, published alignments specs for an individual car (at least some cars - A FEW) are known to change over time; the manufacturer PROBABLY realizes that both tires and performance (if not road conditions Lol!) can CHANGE the "ideal" wheel alignment specifications ... I'm not totally sure WHY.

 

All of that leads to a lot of questions and very few answers. An increase in (positive) camber tends to decrease (the normally positive) total toe, I'm pretty sure, and a lowered ride height (expected over time?) might "adjust," therefore, the normal toe CLOSER to zero (rather than further away) on most FWD cars? It's fairly well established, that for the casual driver, in terms of steering stability, a negative toe is never really desirable ... but is 0.01 toe (per front side) every bit as good as 0.03? or 0.05 toe? Or even BETTER IN TERMS OF TIRE WEAR?

 

IS IT NOT TRUE THAT A LOWER (POSITIVE) FRONT TOE - even in a FWD - WILL RESULT IN LESS TIRE WEAR? Assuming it's a Hwy-driven ride? WOULD NOT A TOTAL TOE (IN FRONT) OF 0.02 RESULT IN LESS WEAR THAN 0.04? or 0.08? IOW, less steering-stability, maybe, but also better wear? Also ASSUMING the driver doesn't (of course) "constantly self-correct!" Some drivers "white-knuckle" the steering - others don't. Why not, then, "tune" the front-toe to the driver (as at the track?) Would tuning the front toe (a little out of spec) NECESSARILY give greater (i.e. better) WEAR?

 

LASTLY, given what could be called a) road conditions and "dynamic" effects on toe that aren't really (techically speaking) dynamic at all, but rather "operating conditions" including tire temF, it's relevant to ask, just HOW "PERFECT" is the so-called "PERFECT ALIGNMENT" really/truly/actually going to "need" to be? And of course I focus on toe, because is a well known fact that "bad toe" destroys more tires than anything; and really, honestly, toe IS THE GOING CONCERN (otherwise 100% healthy suspension) for w-body cars. 

 

PS: one might want to ask an alignment tech these questions; then again, there's some (possible) "problems" with "technition bias?"

If, for instance, typically a guy brings a car in for alignment AFTER he notices "pulling" and/or "serious tire wear," so most of what "technition sees" is worn tires and bad alignments -OR- worn suspension parts -OR- all of the above.

 

It's ALSO KNOWN that bad shocks/struts can destroy tires (nearly) as quick as anything. And MOST (older cars) actually don't have very good struts. OVER 1/2 of all drivers (of older cars) may be driving on bad struts. Compare that to the guy(s) who has a (newer) car with 25-35,000 miles and (still) good ball joints/struts/bushings ... take HIS alignment specs: perhaps his front left toe is 0.02 and right toe is 0.04 (a little out of spec from 0.05 [ea.]) yet the front tires are still good? "Well, dum-dumb," you might say, the tech says "that just doesn't happen," and that's because he (the tech) maintains, "Whenever alignment is a LITTLE BIT OUT OF SPEC you are GOING to see bad tires!"  ...

 

My (hypothetical) response might be, "The REASON a tech thinks you won't see cars with front toe a little off, however, still running good tires, i.e. 'bad' toe - yet showing very quick (feathering) wear" is actually because "Hardly anybody BOTHERS to bring in those cars to start with!"   Now of course I've put in big red letters "(hypothetical) response" because it's always possible ANY PORTION of this whole somewhat-hypothetical thought process may be baloney. But the REAL problem is, nobody (I can find) really wants to report much at all about "HOW BAD IS BAD?" w/r/t front toe.

 

For example, if left toe is 0.03 and right 0.05, is that going to increase tire wear by 20-25%?  Will L/R toe = 0.03/0.08 wear a tire 25-30% faster? How about 0.01 and 0.09: Will that equal 50% more (faster) wear? All you ever see is anecdotal, and (frustratingly) it's MOSTLY either completely "one side of fence or either," i.e., "I do my own driveway alignment, the car handles great, and never see any unusual wear," and another set of folks (sometimes techs) who say, "Man, try aligning your own tires, and you'll be buying another pair real quick!"

 

It's OK for me to add, that I've not looked at the "tolerances" of the alignment specs of many cars - partly because ... well I'll explain at a later date.

 

FWIW, I read this (at another forum) just now:

In the past, General Motors used a fairly sophisticated system to measure dynamic toe as the vehicle rolled along a particular road at the Proving Grounds in Milford, Michigan. The result was a plot of dynamic toe vs. speed, which let them experiment to find the static toe setting that would result in a dynamic toe of zero at a speed 55 mph. That static setting became the alignment spec for that vehicle. That same person put this: So, if your technician uses a rule-of-thumb that setting total toe a bit more toe-in than the manufacturer specifies will produce more steering stability, he's guessing without doing some experimentation with the specific vehicle he's aligning. The danger, if that is the correct term, is that incorrect total toe is a cause of extremely quick tire wear. A little error ain't bad, but a lot of error makes for a lot of wear. Still, he sure as heck didn't want to QUANTIFY "little error" OR "lot of error"  and furthermore, it's obviously not error, rather simply a modification. And was in resonse (obviously) to a different poster who expresses that, "his guy" i.e. "his tech" does things "his way" (including loading the vehicle [of all things] when aligning) - and that - (according to such-and-such poster) then makes him "The ONLY GUY ON THE CONTINENT [he knows of] doing things [i.e. loading] that way." Not a big deal, no biggie, but when the other [Toyota] poster puts total toe of 0.12 (= .06L/R) instead of the (I'm presuming total toe) spec of 0.10 (just like 0.05L/R w-body cars) AT THE RECOMENDATION of "the best known alignment tech on the continent" [i.e New Zealand Lol!] then one STARTS TO WONDER,

 

"What type of [actual measured spec] is GOOD, and what is BAD?"

 

and [for once in life] without too much drama can anybody (truthfully) QUANTIFY (aproximately - any "range" would be great) HOW BAD IS BAD? in terms of actual, real, observed tire wear?

 

I easily UNDERSTAND that would probably REQUIRE a "test car" and the associated "sacrifice"; nonetheless these machines obviously exist:

Yet seldom (if ever) does one encounter a real-world (lab) test result; i.e., something so simple as "In our experiment, 0.5 toe" (5x's the typical/normal) resulted in "27% more tire wear compared to 0.0 toe," and "1.20 toe yielded 52% increase in tread wear," although that sort of test might be highly suggestive. A real-world (road) test of a (slightly) mis-aligned new car

right-off the assembly line would be CONCLUSIVE (for instance [one car] 0.5L 0.5R [and another] 0.0L 0.5R for 5,000 miles is about all it SHOULD take. Indicating, either a slight toe discrepancy gives "extremely quick tire wear," or else it doesn't. End of Story.

One alignment tech wrote, When analyzing tire wear, ­remember that modern tires have much more flexible sidewalls and more rigid tread belts. This makes them more tolerant of ­deviations from the “ideal†camber and toe angles, and took note of the "mysterious effects of load"; yet when stating The most effective method I’ve found for analyzing tire wear is the simple process of checking tread depth across the tire tread. In many cases, a minor variation of 1/32-inch in tread depth can indicate the need for a slight change in toe angle, and then never went on to DESCRIBE these cases any further. How MUCH ("how bad IS bad?") was this "slight change"?

Anybody can boast "Oh, this little tweak FIXED everything," implying that "all the sudden the tires wore more evenly," but what if the shocks/struts (in many/most/some) his cases were also bad? Then yes, fixing toe WOULD cause more "even" wear - but they'd STILL be left wearing rapidly! And how would the owner ever know one-way-or-other? Sure, the guy's tire wears out a little quicker than expected, but much more EVENLY than before, and so the owner (and why NOT the technition?) then thinks - assumes - the (overall) premature wear was "probably due to the bad toe (only) - that ate them up at the start," when all along it was the worn struts AND the toe causing premature wear in general. Naturally, given the number of variables, ANY MAN ON EARTH - if he thinks about it - might have cause for SOME scepticism that "a tiny error in toe" is always going cause "extremely quick tire wear," when someone from the same school (of thought - same tech training - same Hunter alignment equipment - same "shop talk") has already mentioned:

[Today's tires] are suposedly more tolerant of ­deviations from the “ideal†camber and toe angles.

 

You can't have it both ways! If new tires (new-tech radials) are more tolerant of ­deviations from the “ideal†--- then why the hell does a slight change in toe even fix problem(s)? When simple logic should suggest, that since modern tires have much more flexible sidewalls, then MAYBE "slightly bad toe" is NOT the (real) source of (all) the problem(s). I'm not really sure, I'm in the dark about this, I'm a little perplexed, a wee bit mystified. "How bad is bad" is a question that MIGHT be answered by looking at "tolerances," but not the type that just indicate "service prefered." The DIFFERENT types of tolerances (clearly for different purposes)  - I don't quite grasp either. Of course it's possible this "how bad is bad" (in your toe alignment specs) hasn't been answered well (in English - there's scientific papers in Chinese I saw today) --- but when it comes to answering the question on a practical basis the w-body car would be perfect - since (from a design standpoint) the SCA rack & pinion essentialy LEAVES ONLY the "toe dimension" as a suitable single variable. 

[Imp558]

My brain hurts now

[55trucker]

I gather that *in between the lines* you have a question in there somewhere about your car's alignment specs?

[98OldsIntrigue]

I gather that *in between the lines* you have a question in there somewhere about your car's alignment specs?

Of course,

 

I already asked in a roundabout way, and an alignment tech STILL might be the guy to ask,

 

Assume a w-body, no wrecks, and assume a well established center line or zero thrust angle (or - assume the last alignment true-ed those things up - which amounts to almost exactly the same thing).

 

1) If your left front toe is set to 0.01 and right to 0.09, e.g., and you've got new (typically serviceable) parts up front - about how many miles before you might expect (significant/measurable) uneven wear?

2) Very Similar question: the "newer/better" (with laser, not plates) at around 100 bucks ... DIY kits seem to be able to get your total toe to within +/- 0.1 or maybe a  little better, to within 0.06 or 0.07 or 0.08 or so, and that's why I put the "off" spec in Q 1 the way I did,

3) Under single passenger load, your typical (Hunter machine) total toe is going to be out of spec by about 0.05 anyhow, and that's not really ever questioned, yet we hear practically ZERO complaints of "those" (unloaded) worn tires. Why is that?  Is the wear "there," yet it goes unreported?

4) Sometimes you see guys with "pretty elaborate" string setups (Corvette forum for instance) ... I'm curious if they can toe to within closer specs, say < +/-0.05? or < +/-0.04? What's the CLOSEST anybody gets?

5) I'm glad you asked, beings I looked alot on the Internet and couldn't find anybody who COMPARES their DIY alignment to that done on a Hunter machine, not more than one time, and that might not be a fair trial. It sorta makes sense, if you've got ACCESS to a Hunter, then why ever BOTHER with a DIY.

THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER REASON "WHY" nobody really has posted (exactly) "how bad IS bad?" ... the question I tried to repeat over and over and over above --- and I think it means performing a fairly simple experiment (yet also partly sacrificing a pair of tires), but I'll make all these questions Into one VERY definite one:

 

 

Has anybody QUANTIFIED (in numbers - with a degree of uncertainty as is always done in science/engineering) "How bad IS bad?" For example, where the engineer concluded: "total toe off spec by .03 or .05 increases the typical radial tread wear by 13%"   -----

it's a very natural question to ask, with some "real world data," especially since it's pretty easy to see many thousands if not millions are wasted with lousy alignments --- and it could be argued the average/typical (unloaded) alignment throws the total toe off by at least 0.03. How often DOES the alignment tech place 175lbs in the driver seat during the adjustments? How often is ANYBODY asked (by the tech) "Is this car typically just one or is it a two-passenger car?" beings it makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE. And with TWO passengers (3-400lbs) maybe the total toe is OFF by 0.07 or 0.08 --- and it appears the DIY alignment (can often enough) get you THAT CLOSE anyway.

[98OldsIntrigue]

My brain hurts now

Imagine how mine feels Lol!

[98OldsIntrigue]

Mechanics (and maybe those with any sort of dog in the hunt) sometimes let "general" questions get under their skin, and that is understandable. I don't really relate but I think I understand.

 

But here's (probably) a good "SUMMARY TYPE" question: if we know, which we do, for practical intents and purposes, that passenger LOADING (or unloading) throws MOST alignments out of toe by about 0.05 or more, then how/why is it that (at least with some slightly better care and another $50 in tools) that a DIY alignment to within 0.06 (or 0.07 or 0.08) is to be referred to as a "rough" align ... maybe a DIY (on a w-body) actually may not BE so "crude" or "rough" at all?

 

I'm actually TRYING TO BE specific in my question(s) .... and looking for specificity in answers.

 

PS we got her Olds Intrigue that needs (maybe) alignment, plus my old Blazer, and possibly one other car. It's pretty well known "toe" is what burns tires more than anything, and that if caster is close, camber is close, toe might be your downfall. It looks like I see a real nice (carpenter's square-looking) DIY caster/camber tool for about $150. The "best" (Tracace?) DIY toe tool looks to be $100. I can't help but wonder (especially if you examine/understand tread-wear patterns) these might be worth it. It's probably a (question of) return-on-investment ...

 

(FACTORY) alignment specifications are mostly "suggested" to one degree or another. If I KNOW my alignment is REAL close, but see a little (toe) feathering on outer edges, is it likely a quarter-turn in the tire rods might "fix" it?

[Imp558]

Second gens have toe and camber adjustable front and rear.

[55trucker]

I personally think that you're putting too much emphasis on vehicle loading. When an alignment is done, it's true that there is no passenger weight on the vehicle, IF one was to load down the vehicle to its max loading and continue to drive the vehicle under those conditions I can see where the front toe might alter, but only to a very very small degree (perhaps less than a quarter of a degree), and that would be positive toe only.

As the strut depresses the top of the strut leans inward, this induces a change at the tie rod end, more positive toe is induced, when the load is removed & the strut returns to its normal state the toe angle goes outward to its normal setting.

 

What can cause a greater amount of toe angle concern is the number of miles on the vehicle & the condition of the lower control arm bushings. If the bushings are worn (to the point where one can visibly see movement in the arm) when the vehicle is under acceleration & the vehicle weight transfer moves rearward the bushings will cause the arms to move & toe in is induced, inversely when the brakes are applied & the vehicle weight shifts to the opposite direction the arms will move in the opposite direction & toe out is induced. When the vehicle is at rest the toe returns to it's original state.

 

It's not uncommon for alignment techs to allow for this condition by dialing in slightly less positive toe (such as 0 toe) to compensate for this.

 

I'd be less concerned about your vehicles loading & more concerned about the condition of the suspension components unless you have a continued 900lbs in your vehicle ALL the time equally distributed then by all means get an alignment done under those circumstances but that would be extreme.

 

You can, as a customer have the techie set the toe to where you personally want it to be, of course under these circumstances no shop will warranty the work as you the customer have varied from the OEM specs.

[Imp558]

I always assumed the manufacturer specs were there to specify what that exact vehicle needs to compensate for load and speed. Otherwise all cars would have the same specs.

[98OldsIntrigue]

Second gens have toe and camber adjustable front and rear.

Hold on, front camber adj on the 2nd gen Olds Intrigue is (generally) NOT an option outside aftermarket camber bolts and/or modifying the lower strut brackets and/or drilling/filing oblong the (three) tower openings. I just did one so maybe I'm hallucinating.

 

And I should also put that SOME strut packages MIGHT come with the oblong openings on the bracket, but I've a feeling they are few and far between, partly due to design considerations, I'd venture.

CAMBER adj on a w-body (with new struts bushings links &tc) shouldn't be such a going issue; my UNDERSTANDING is these SCA cars are principally sensitive to toe adj only, sacrificing a few tuning/handling points at the expense of simplicity/cost-point.

And that's WHY we hear so often the term "to-and-go alignments" - it sounds cheap because it is cheap - but that's how the car is engineered: asking for MORE than toe is (generally) asking for "aftermarket modifications." It might make more sense if the (kinda-high-dollar) struts I just bought for the 2nd gen Intrigue HAD the oblate bracket holes for camber adj,. but then again, maybe not --- there's got be be "arguments both ways" but it'll be an easier discussion when I can report back here to the forum my specs?

[98OldsIntrigue]

"I personally think that you're putting too much emphasis on vehicle loading."

 

No, not necessarily  I'm not --- did you not read the link I posted? One passenger threw the front total toe off by 0.05 or 0.06 or 0.07 (or whatever).

 

"Less than a quarter degree"

ok but that's confusing the issue beings a quarter degree is 0.25 degrees! Factory spec on the Intrigue toe is 0.10 and that's less than a tenth degree! You're suggesting an error in toe TWO-AND-ONE-HALF-TIMES that isn't a concern? To reiterate, Intrigue front toe calls for 0.05 PER SIDE

[98OldsIntrigue]

I always assumed the manufacturer specs were there to specify what that exact vehicle needs to compensate for load and speed. Otherwise all cars would have the same specs.

And that's where you were mistaken, beings many manufacturers (beemmer &tc,) explicitly state: "Align the car under load."

 

If a company PRESUMED "one passenger" or "two passengers" then they'd be FORCED to publish different specs for different loads, and that's the WHOLE (or a real good) point (in many respects), since, if load and driving conditions vary, "How good is good?" Or "How accurate (realistically) can these so-called PERFECT shop-alignments be?" and consequently then "how bad is bad?" ... since they only account for "average" load and speed and crown and Tire Manufacturer &tc &tc &tc (see, up above, you didn't say "average" load or "average speed" or "average number of hard turns the driver makes," and maybe that's a tip-off rather than oversight.)

 

Load affects alignment! , fact, truth, reality, End of (that) story.

 

Again, please read the link I posted to start with, beings it will "demystify" .... or read any other information about "load and alignment" beings it's out there. Heck, I just grabbed one link as an example --- but REAL facts about alignment aren't always "just a dime a dozen," partly because there IS some art with the science? and I'm pretty sure guys that race cars (for a living) think about it nearly every day?

 

Now where you get the concept, "Otherwise all cars would have the same specs" --- that one you'd have to ask differently beings I've no idea how to interpret that question right now, my apologies.

[98OldsIntrigue]

When you say: "I'd be less concerned about your vehicles loading & more concerned about the condition of the suspension components unless you have a continued 900lbs in your vehicle ALL the time equally distributed then by all means get an alignment done under those circumstances but that would be extreme,"

you missed the part where I'd said, "The suspension parts are GOOD" at the very beginning.

 

My "concerns" are sound, and on solid footing ... at another point I put "Assume a w-body, no wrecks, and assume a well established center line," and also "assume zero thrust angle," both of which tend to at least further suggest good, new, un-worn suspension components.

 

So no, the going concern is "how good (or accurate) is good" front toe, or "how bad is bad" toe, and I'd rather TRY (maybe by asking around or finding somebody who knows for a fact and *best case* might even point to something could be verified perhaps, perhaps even published, I mean maybe somebody out there ...) answering THAT before anything else. I'm well aware of camber effects on toe &tc &tc ... and bad shocks bad bushings it's all bad ... those parts are new and in great shape on all three of these cars.

[Imp558]

Second Gen W-Body cars have a standard McPherson strut assembly in both the front and the rear. The bolts that hold the strut to the spindle assembly ALL have some amount of play, thus leaving with a small amount of camber adjustment. Different manufacturers of struts will have more or less and it's also very common to simply grind the holes in the struts into slots.

 

First Gens have a similar rear where camber is obtainable but not in the front.

 

On a personal note.. and I don't want you to take this wrong. Please start from the beginning and re-read this thread. This is the most laid back and relaxed group of guys on any forum anywhere, we're friends here and in most cases IRL. You can and hopefully will be a valuable member of this community but you are WAY too intense.

Please, get laid or drunk or whatever is missing from your life and then come join the fun here.

[98OldsIntrigue]

 it's also very common to simply grind the hole

s in the struts into slots.

 

 

Sincerely hope you, Mr Answerman, likewise don take this personal, but it's flat out ignorant to even SUGGEST that  "it's also very common to simply grind the hole," and if you got something to grind, which apparently you do, then please, do everybody a favor and go grind it out with one of your fun buddies; Based upon your difficulty with simple logic, reading for comprehension, and apparent urgent need to chime in on matters you're plainly in the dark ... don't take this personal, but you can take your grease monkey comments elsewhere.

"Common" or even "very common" in your narrow frame-out DREAM WORLD perhaps, whatever that neck of the woods... have you checked the labels on the bottles you been drinking? Talking about "getting laid" as you do, apparently that's the only thing on your mind?? - barring ANY significant or relevant information to the thread.

 

BTW, fun is fun but I thought maybe this forum might have something to do with keeping a vehicle safe and sound for myself and my family and I take that seriously. So why don't you grow up?

 

BTW, you don't know me from Adam .... I might be the most easing going, fun loving guy on the planet. Definitely satisfied! You, OTOH, have no earthly idea. And your MISINFORMATION - about "common" camber adjustments - VERY WELL might lead people (who do take things seriously once in a while) DOWN THE WRONG PATH. Presumptuous, Mr Answer-man, that's what you plainly are. Maybe you need to get over yourself, and your presumptuousness might be one place to start.

 

Keep a finger pointed at others, obviously, and THREE pointed back at yourself the whole time Lol! I would say "figure it out," but odds are "lost cause."

[Imp558]

Welcome to my block list.

[Psych0matt]

You're an idiot. I guess if your point was to alienate some very knowledgeable people by asking a question and then arguing about the answer (which apparently you already know?) then congrats, you win the Internet [emoji322]

[digitaloutsider]

I've stayed out of this because you're a new user, and everyone kind of has to get adjusted to the people here, but Christ man. You post these long diatribes with random case and typesetting styles, and it's next to impossible for anyone to decipher exactly what you're trying to convey.. and I write technical documentation for a living.

 

Since I truly can't understand what you're looking for, the best I can tell is that Imp558 truly did try to point you in the right direction, and gave you a little good natured ribbing in regards to your completely indecipherable posting style. You then reply back and question his knowledge ("grease monkey", "misinformation", etc) and generally act like a dick. There is NOT a forum or group for these cars online where you're going to find people more patient and understanding than here. If you took that post to the Facebook groups or GPF or 3800Pro or somewhere, you'd be absolutely raked over the coals and hung out to dry. You don't need to like everyone here, but I am absolutely not going to tolerate you being a jackass to senior members who are trying to help you.

 

You're driving a 20 year old grocery getter, not a high-precision race car. If you put it up on a rack and the alignment comes back within specification, it's fine. You're overthinking and absolutely over-analyzing everything. Take the advice from people in the thread, or don't. I really don't care. Just knock it off with the attitude.

[98OldsIntrigue]

No, if you read the posts, then you'd know who's the jackass, jackass. Here's some "advice" since one or two of the daily trolls might have a stick up the arse?

 

ok Shaun, "kiss my attitude" is about what you and/or --- you haven't the slightest idea WHAT I'm driving, and no, you don't understand, if style points is what worries you, so YOU gonna stoop to the same sheet? birds of a feather - do whatever the heck ya please if it brings ya some sorta satisfaction.

 

You're an idiot. I guess if your point was to alienate some very knowledgeable people by asking a question and then arguing about the answer (which apparently you already know?) then congrats, you win the Internet [emoji322]

 

any other of the "Dicks" or "Harrys"  around here or chickenshits wanna hide behind Internet.... "try to help" all you want - but blanket BS useless misinformation IN THIS thread passed off by so-called tech experts as "useful helpful knowledgeable" - you can't possibly be serious. PsychOmutt or whoever/whatever you are, if ya knew yer head from a hole in the ground?  bugger off,

repeating, bugger the f off if this thread ain't something you CAN comprehend. Who the f R U anyhow?

[98OldsIntrigue]

and if anybody writes "technical sheets for a living" shouldnt have the slightest problem understanding a STRAIGTFORWARD question such as "how bad is bad?" when it comes to front total toe. PROBLEM IS perhaps you're a mere techie and not a scientist or engineer? Get off yer "tech writing skills" for a spit second and get real degree, or Masters or Phd if it makes you happy - then you'd see there's NO PROBLEM phrasing different questions in different typeface, and no, your writing style/technique isn't too terribly impressive not to mention your knowledge base.

 

So you copy/amend the style/content of thousands of others came before you? Real style, real important, real original Lol! But if JQ public poses a question six ways to sunday you cant grasp it. Your problem, not mine.

[98OldsIntrigue]

Furthermore, saying "anyone" like you speak for everybody. Get a life. Speak for yourself. Seems like there's some serious GROUPTHINK going on among a few here right now, and you'd rather butter your buddy's butt than anything. Gives that impression, anyhow.

[98OldsIntrigue]

Perhaps the first post wasn't PERFECTLY well posed according to somebody who writes tech notes full time,

BUT THE FIRST JACKASS COMMENT CAME FROM THE BOARD, NOT ME.

 

And who really needs jackass comments - to START with? apparently those who think somebody "new here" needs jackass advice on getting drunk and/or laid simply because his inquiry might not have been spelled out according to a style manual?

[98OldsIntrigue]

You're an idiot. I guess if your point was to alienate some very knowledgeable people by asking a question and then arguing about the answer (which apparently you already know?) then congrats, you win the Internet [emoji322]

Douche, what business of yours??? Stick yer brown nose wherever ya please I spse - and anybody else runnin around buttering yer buddy's butt - it's not just distasteful (I'd guess) but sure comes across cowardly and/or disgusting.

[Psych0matt]

You're doing nothing but proving my point. Thanks! Oh, and it's my business as someone has 14 years invested in this site and doesn't want to see it ruined by what I can only imagine is a 40 year old that never mentally matured past 12, but I digress. Keep spouting idiocy, see where it gets you.

[98OldsIntrigue]

You're doing nothing but proving my point. Thanks! Oh, and it's my business as someone has 14 years invested in this site and doesn't want to see it ruined by what I can only imagine is a 40 year old that never mentally matured past 12, but I digress. Keep spouting idiocy, see where it gets you.

bugger off --- find somebody else to troll