Club 80-90 Forums

Been done to death I know, and I'm expecting for the next post to say the Bentley manual is wrong and I need to spend weeks trawling through the ever so dull syncro list for a load of info that isn't really relevent to us/you, so i though we could all work together with a few ideas of our own.

I'm going to start this with tracking, and going to use the mm scale, basically as that's what I use at work on my 4 wheel alignment stuff.

Basically the tracking setting on a T3 syncro depends on the trim height, so you need to find the trim height to be able to read off a chart what to set your tracking to, all well and good but every time I've done one of these the trim height has never been in the range that Autodata have supplied and the data has had to be projected and worked out. I thought it would be interesting to extrapolate some data working from what we have from Autodata, then, hopefully at the end we will have a useful table that we can all use to get your vehicles set up right.

I've tried messing about with the geometry, setting it to zero, bit of toe in, bit of toe out and had some quite scary results, I have had the most success by doing in my head what I talked about above, projecting the data to suit the application. It does work.

Why am i doing this? to make my life easier and quicker at work, and to be honest there have been some really dull threads on here lately and i just fancied something thats of actual use to you! plus with having 2 youths and being self employed I don't get time to come to any events anymore so I'm just trying to keep my hand in!


So, looking here at Autodata, er, data then we have a fairly limited range, what is interesting is that there is a different range for 14" syncro, and 16" syncro.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but other than the size and offset of the rim and the different size tyres then there is no difference in the suspension other than a different damping rate, and the fact that the wheelbase is slightly longer 9and the fact that the ackerman principle will be a little messed up due to the rear axle being that little bit further back.
For some reason, the WYSIWYG editer is doing odd things, so I'm going to go away and come back shortly with some graphs and I'll put some data up and see if you agree with it...

Okay, starting point, below should be a bit of an image.


So, we have trim height down the left (measured in mm from hub centre to wheel arch lip)
Tracking settings for 14" syncro in the next column, then 16" data in the 3rd column.
The data in green is as what Autodata reccommend, the orange data is what I have projected from the pattern was there.
So, that gives us a little above and below the data we have.

Back shortly...

erm, right.
Now forgive me, I have never had any formal computer training, failry much self taught by trial and error.
I spent about 3 hours the other night trying to do a graph and gave up.
Then I remembered I had a recent school leaver on the pyaroll and asked him, in about 30 seconds I had a graph!
So, I got him to show me how he did it, and I have managed of a sort to replicate what he did at work, at home.
Cheers Rich!

So, remember I'm new to this, should be the above tabular data represented in a lovely scatter chart..
need a bit of work, and I'm hoping this is where some of you lot maybe able to have some input!


As you can hopefully see, the long line is the 14" extrapolated data, it's a bit wavey, and I don't like the fact that the trim heights are in 83 and 88mm increments, I want 0 and 5mm increments! I'm just like that sorry!
Do you think it would do any harm to just have the top reading and the bottom reading, disregard the intermediate data and have a nice straight line?

Good work Mr B.

Right, same image as before, syncro 16" data projected for a raise in suspension height.
14" data removed except for highest and lowest settings giving a nice straight line.
Only thing I have not got my head around is adding the vertical guide lines to make reading the data off a bit easier.

Have a looks, see what you think.


What I'm trying to work out is why the 16" data is different? is it due to the wheelbase? or is it down to the distance from the road.
You know, that the centre line of the wheel, and the KPI lines should meet on or somewhere the road surface, well, on a 16" with taller tyres then obviously that isn't going to work anymore, maybe why the 16" have a different offset wheel, is the tracking difference tied into this or the wheel base?
is it worth tagging another line onto the graph for 15" wheel between the 14" data and the 16" data?

I suppose, in the real world that the difference is going to be negligeable, old vans, worn suspension, cheap tyres the tracking could be a mile off, they are not exactly high tech speed machines, would you notice a degree or 2 either way?

I'm going to try this data on Stans very, very high ML wheeled syncro Westy next week, thats got OME's and H&R Go Westy springs and to me it's all over the shop, so I'll see where thats running, then see what it's like when I've done it and report back.

Incideantally, i have also looked on TecDoc, and TecCat for wheel alignment data for the syncro, Neither data provider gives any data for syncro models!
Also of interest is that they run positive camber at the front at 1/3° (0°20' +/-20' in old money or 0.33°+/- 0.33 in Eurospeak)

As usual, the best theories, designs and thoughts are doodled on the shower door.
Having a shower earlier and thinking about this and the more I think about it I'm sure the different tracking settings are for the longer wheelbase of the 16" and nothing to do with the rim/tyre differences.
So, then i thought about doing a drawing to explain what i was on about, the I thought someone would probably have already done one, and then i found these 2 really interesting pages which I will just give you the links to and save me a job.

http://www.rctek.com/technical/handling ... ciple.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.rctek.com/technical/handling ... ciple.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know it's about radio controlled cars but the theory is still the same, the drawings are ace and they illustrate what I'm thinking perfectly.

Infact, that website has a load of easy to get your head around info for wheel alignment.

Camber - http://www.rctek.com/technical/handling ... asics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Castor - http://www.rctek.com/technical/handling ... asics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

7 out of 8 posts prefer syncros............

Bloomin heck Si... dont think you quite realise how much you have syncronitus....

Nice work though... need to get my head round what you have done.. mine needs sorting too... got some stuff to do first mind...

One thing... I dont get why the 16" should have different settings... the wheel doesnt make any difference to the centre line of the hub... and the 16" upright is only different (as far as I am aware) where the brake caliper bolts on.... damper stiffer... spring the same... Mmmm

My head is now spinning!

Miles metter!
Just done Stans, a lot more precise, much more steering feel.
I will say though, the top height range for what Autodata provide also seem to be the upper limit for camber adjustment also.
One side was 515mm and the camber was okay and right at the limit, the drivers side was 10mm or so higher, but without driver and we couldn't get that anywhere near, now I see the need for the camber compensator things that GoWesy sell.
Next on the list is to sort out my turn plates and see what happens to the Castor and as I'm fairly sure that it will be miles off also on raised vans.

Well my ride trim height of 440mm is off the scale it is so low

Must sort those springs out.

Just another thing on the list...

Still the powerflex bushes have definitely sharpened the handling up, even if I have just done my own alignment by eye.

The gyroscopic effect of the larger wheels on the 16" might have given VW cause to change the settings a bit, that's all I can think of, makes a massive difference on turn in on motorbikes.

Simon Baxter wrote:Miles metter!

One side was 515mm and the camber was okay and right at the limit, the drivers side was 10mm or so higher, but without driver and we couldn't get that anywhere near, now I see the need for the camber compensator things that GoWesy sell.

How do these work? Do they compensate for the van wanting to go in the direction of the camber on a road? Cheers, Ben

Camber compensators are to do with suspension camber, not the road....
Basically the "compensator" brings the camber back into the correct working range if the suspension has been "lifted"... it compensates...

Just checked my ride height, 483 on driver's side and 475 on passenger side - unladen, standard suspension set up other than OME shocks on T5 16in rims with 235/70R16 ATs.
Why Stan's van so tall?