Camber correction for dropped 2nd Gens
- Thread starter GEE50FX
- Start date
- Car
- Infiniti FX 35 Limited Edition
- Name
- Rip Singh
Nope
santiagodraco
Member
- Car
- 2010 FX 50s
TC you pretty much summed up my thoughts but I've learned that when it's obvious that someone has lost all sense of reason it's best to just halt the conversation, hence my lack of comments on the obvious....reality vs. the world according to... Justin 
I think the question still remains. IF a camber kit could be built as a "custom" small run what would it cost. If tires are gone at 15k miles at 1700 a pop it might be worth spending a premium on the parts.
I can't remember the name of the shop right now but there's a suspension specialist mfg next to Uprev. I'm going to stop in again this week (schedule permitting) and talk to them about a kit and see how it goes. Don't hold your breath though.
I think the question still remains. IF a camber kit could be built as a "custom" small run what would it cost. If tires are gone at 15k miles at 1700 a pop it might be worth spending a premium on the parts.
I can't remember the name of the shop right now but there's a suspension specialist mfg next to Uprev. I'm going to stop in again this week (schedule permitting) and talk to them about a kit and see how it goes. Don't hold your breath though.
santiagodraco
Member
- Car
- 2010 FX 50s
I haven't had a chance to run over to the shop guys, sorry been busy. But I'll try to get over there next week. Don't keep your hopes up though!
santiagodraco
Member
- Car
- 2010 FX 50s
Update 2/15/2013
Good news... I visited with the folks at SPL Performance here in Austin today and discussed the situation. Here's the gist:
1. SPL has committed to build lower control arms for camber adjustment for the 2nd gen FX.
2. Commitment is dependent upon pulling together a minimum set of "pre-orders" (5-10) from interested members here. This will require a deposit. Amount tbd.
3. SPL needs a factory lower control arm to take measurements and to determine the final price of this small/custom run. Unless someone here just happens to have an extra one lying around... I've spoken with the Service GM at my local dealer and we're going to make an arrangement to get one over to SPL.
4. The unit price won't be cheap, 800-1k due to the low run quantity. However if we can get more the price will drop.
So, the ball is rolling. If we can get some commitment here, which means:
A) Post here your willingness and PM me your contact information. I will then manage the list of those interested and work with SPL to arrange for securing deposits and finalizing the list of orders. I'm basically going to help with facilitation to make sure that we keep the effort low for SPL but assure that the risk is low for members (ie I will NOT be handling the money, SPL will).
B) Be patient as this might take some time.
The arms will be aluminum. Steel is out due to the fact that our arms also mount the shocks. This is not the case for the G, just the FX. Per SPL this really means Aluminum, which frankly is ok with me. I'm always up for reducing weight.
So if you are game please step up and start with posting here PLUS sending me your contact info in a PM and we'll start getting the ball rolling!
Thanks!
Good news... I visited with the folks at SPL Performance here in Austin today and discussed the situation. Here's the gist:
1. SPL has committed to build lower control arms for camber adjustment for the 2nd gen FX.
2. Commitment is dependent upon pulling together a minimum set of "pre-orders" (5-10) from interested members here. This will require a deposit. Amount tbd.
3. SPL needs a factory lower control arm to take measurements and to determine the final price of this small/custom run. Unless someone here just happens to have an extra one lying around... I've spoken with the Service GM at my local dealer and we're going to make an arrangement to get one over to SPL.
4. The unit price won't be cheap, 800-1k due to the low run quantity. However if we can get more the price will drop.
So, the ball is rolling. If we can get some commitment here, which means:
A) Post here your willingness and PM me your contact information. I will then manage the list of those interested and work with SPL to arrange for securing deposits and finalizing the list of orders. I'm basically going to help with facilitation to make sure that we keep the effort low for SPL but assure that the risk is low for members (ie I will NOT be handling the money, SPL will).
B) Be patient as this might take some time.
The arms will be aluminum. Steel is out due to the fact that our arms also mount the shocks. This is not the case for the G, just the FX. Per SPL this really means Aluminum, which frankly is ok with me. I'm always up for reducing weight.
So if you are game please step up and start with posting here PLUS sending me your contact info in a PM and we'll start getting the ball rolling!
Thanks!
santiagodraco
Member
- Car
- 2010 FX 50s
Just the back. I don't think we need fronts (but I could be wrong). Fron't is a more complex setup I think as well.
Anyway, just for rear arms. Keep in mind these are custom builds hence the cost. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll be cheaper...we'll have to see.
Anyway, just for rear arms. Keep in mind these are custom builds hence the cost. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll be cheaper...we'll have to see.
santiagodraco
Member
- Car
- 2010 FX 50s
I wouldn't see why not. As long as it's paid for it shouldn't be a problem
SPL is the bomb, they make great parts for Z32s and Kuah (owner) has great customer service. I would definitely be in on this.
My concern though is if we are going to do the rear may as well do the front too. Instead of a new control arm for the front see if he can do anything similar to this:
http://www.300degree.com/hard_parts/camberkit/
With the front not being that far off he may be able to do something similar since the camber is not that far off once lowered compared to the rear although I am not exactly familiar with the suspension geometry. Couldn't hurt to ask though.
Randy
My concern though is if we are going to do the rear may as well do the front too. Instead of a new control arm for the front see if he can do anything similar to this:
http://www.300degree.com/hard_parts/camberkit/
With the front not being that far off he may be able to do something similar since the camber is not that far off once lowered compared to the rear although I am not exactly familiar with the suspension geometry. Couldn't hurt to ask though.
Randy
- Car
- Infiniti FX 35 Limited Edition
- Name
- Rip Singh
Ya but not on coilovers
the first gen FX uses a McPherson strut design in the front, no upper control arm. it can be lowered just about all the way down without affecting the camber all that much in the front, which is why you really don't see any first gens with alignment issues in the front, only the rear, even slammed... the second gen Fx uses a double wishbone suspension in the front,
now the double wishbone front suspension is without a doubt better than the McPherson strut setup which is why the new FX in stock form handles much better than the first gen in stock form, the front steering and suspension geometry is better on the second gen BUT when it comes to lowering this is where the issues come in to play.
in my opinion the fronts need a solution just as much as the rears on the second gen. Nissan designed the front suspension geometry to function as designed at a specific ride height of stock, which is really a fixed parameter as far as Nissan is concerned, so much so that they don't even offer ANY kind of adjustment at all to compensate for variations in static ride height... any lowering will cause the wheel to start to camber in, the lower it goes the more the wheel will camber in.
there is one more thing to be aware of... because the front is now using a double wishbone suspension, this design causes the wheel to camber in more as the suspension is lowered or compressed. this is what makes the second gen handle better than the first... this design allows Nissan to spec less initial static camber at vehicle ride height, yet when the vehicle rolls through a hard turn the outside wheel will compress the suspension and add camber to the outside wheels... the first gen can't do this and instead the first gen is dialed in with a bit more static camber, because it will NOT increase as the body rolls... what this means in the end is that if you wind up with extra negative camber at the new lowered ride height this is bad because as the vehicle rolls through a turn it will STILL add even more negative camber to that, AND because the suspension is now already partially into it's downward slope at the new lowered ride height this means that the ramp up, or amount of camber added (the camber curve) as the suspension is compressed more is even lower, in other words stock suspension may add say .2* of negative camber per inch compression from it's initial static ride height, but this ramp is generally progressive, meaning that the lower it goes the more negative is added per inch of compression... so while the first inch or travel may add .2* the second inch may add .3* and the third inch may add another .4*, so if you lowered the fx 2" then at that new static ride height the first inch of compression will now add .4* instead of .2* and so on... these numbers I've picked are purely for illustrative purposes and are not to be considered as the actual values as I have not spent the time to fully model the suspension design but this is generally how it works. in layman's terms what this means is that at a new lower static ride height the suspension geometry will add even MORE camber as the suspension is compressed that it would at the stock ride height, making too much initial negative camber even that much more of an issue..
now the double wishbone front suspension is without a doubt better than the McPherson strut setup which is why the new FX in stock form handles much better than the first gen in stock form, the front steering and suspension geometry is better on the second gen BUT when it comes to lowering this is where the issues come in to play.
in my opinion the fronts need a solution just as much as the rears on the second gen. Nissan designed the front suspension geometry to function as designed at a specific ride height of stock, which is really a fixed parameter as far as Nissan is concerned, so much so that they don't even offer ANY kind of adjustment at all to compensate for variations in static ride height... any lowering will cause the wheel to start to camber in, the lower it goes the more the wheel will camber in.
there is one more thing to be aware of... because the front is now using a double wishbone suspension, this design causes the wheel to camber in more as the suspension is lowered or compressed. this is what makes the second gen handle better than the first... this design allows Nissan to spec less initial static camber at vehicle ride height, yet when the vehicle rolls through a hard turn the outside wheel will compress the suspension and add camber to the outside wheels... the first gen can't do this and instead the first gen is dialed in with a bit more static camber, because it will NOT increase as the body rolls... what this means in the end is that if you wind up with extra negative camber at the new lowered ride height this is bad because as the vehicle rolls through a turn it will STILL add even more negative camber to that, AND because the suspension is now already partially into it's downward slope at the new lowered ride height this means that the ramp up, or amount of camber added (the camber curve) as the suspension is compressed more is even lower, in other words stock suspension may add say .2* of negative camber per inch compression from it's initial static ride height, but this ramp is generally progressive, meaning that the lower it goes the more negative is added per inch of compression... so while the first inch or travel may add .2* the second inch may add .3* and the third inch may add another .4*, so if you lowered the fx 2" then at that new static ride height the first inch of compression will now add .4* instead of .2* and so on... these numbers I've picked are purely for illustrative purposes and are not to be considered as the actual values as I have not spent the time to fully model the suspension design but this is generally how it works. in layman's terms what this means is that at a new lower static ride height the suspension geometry will add even MORE camber as the suspension is compressed that it would at the stock ride height, making too much initial negative camber even that much more of an issue..
Last edited:
santiagodraco
Member
- Car
- 2010 FX 50s
Correct me if im wrong but a solution for the front would be significantly more difficult and expensive than the rear. Also with the 1.3\1.2 drop the rear has more negative camber at rest height.
I dont see fronts happening and id rather solve the worst half of the problem than none. Just rotate often
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 2
I dont see fronts happening and id rather solve the worst half of the problem than none. Just rotate often
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 2
I honestly can't say, I haven't really experimented with one enough to know what can be done, but best case scenario is that one of the control arm mounting points can be altered to become adjustable. this is almost always the best solution, but unfortunately in many cases this will involve cutting and modifying the vehicle structure itself. if I had a second gen personally my plan would be to lower it to where I want it, then modify the mounting points to suit
this isn't such a good aftermarket solution though, an aftermarket solution would have to be engineered to bolt on without altering the vehicle structure. this may require aftermarket arms with the adjustments built into the arms themselves, keeping the whole thing as a bolt on. that's not to say that a simpler bracket or spacer setup isn't possible, it may be. it also may be possible to press either the upper or lower control arm bushings out and match them up to a suitable cam type adjustable bushing. maybe a spacer shim would have to be machined to allow a smaller cam type adjustable bushing to fit one of the arms... there are a few possibilities, just up to whoever is going to do the actual R&D to develop a solution
this isn't such a good aftermarket solution though, an aftermarket solution would have to be engineered to bolt on without altering the vehicle structure. this may require aftermarket arms with the adjustments built into the arms themselves, keeping the whole thing as a bolt on. that's not to say that a simpler bracket or spacer setup isn't possible, it may be. it also may be possible to press either the upper or lower control arm bushings out and match them up to a suitable cam type adjustable bushing. maybe a spacer shim would have to be machined to allow a smaller cam type adjustable bushing to fit one of the arms... there are a few possibilities, just up to whoever is going to do the actual R&D to develop a solution