PatrickGSR94

iTrader: (1)

2 March 2010 edit: Just to be clear, I made this thread to disspell the myths perpetuated by magazines and other sources since the mid-1990's that a camber kit is REQUIRED to prevent excessive tire wear after a car is lowered. This is a flat-out LIE! Please read on to see why.

-------------------------------------------

Well I guess this thread is long overdue, as I've had several requests to make a thread like this.

Despite the myths that have been perpetuated since the mid-90's, camber kits ARE NOT required to prevent uneven tire wear after lowering a Honda. Even the very first issue of Super Street magazine in 1996 talks about installed camber kits to prevent tire wear.

Here's what really happens. When you lower your Honda, especially those with double-wishbone suspension, the camber angle goes negative, but the front tires also toe out. That toe-out condition is what is important. Toe-out will destroy the inside edge of a tire MUCH faster than negative camber ever will, because the tire scrubs on the pavement as it rolls in a toe-out condition.

So the myth has been that you need a camber kit to bring the camber angle (non-adjustable on most Hondas) back to stock specs. So you install a kit, take the car to alignment shop, and *poof* no more tire wear. However, what really happened is that along with adjusting the camber, the shop also adjusted the toe. That toe adjustment is what REALLY saved your tires.

The truth of the matter is that you have made your car handle worse with straight-up zero camber (or close to it). It is also truth you can easily run -1.5, -2, -3, even close to -4 camber up front with very little tire wear issues. You just need to be sure to keep your alignment in check and rotate your tires every 5K miles or so. You should get an alignment at least once a year, or better twice a year if possible. All you need to do is get the toe adjusted back to stock specs. If the shop tries to sell you a camber kit, tell them no, just adjust the toe. If they say they can't do the alignment until you get a camber kit, then leave immediately and go to another shop because that is 100% COMPLETELY FALSE!

So let's talk about the "cons" of camber kits:

1. Cost, plus the extra cost of alignments every time (could be $150 or more)
2. Usually made of sub-par materials that rust, corrode, and seize up
3. Greatly reduces suspension travel clearance, both UCA replacements and just the bolt-type kits
4. Bolt-type kits are nearly impossible to keep straight and adjust correctly without throwing caster off
5. UCA-replacement kits often use POS ball joints and have even more reduced clearance under the fender
6. Likely to slip out of adjustment, requiring another expensive alignment

What are the "pros" of camber kits? Well you can add MORE negative camber than what you get from lowered suspension geometry alone, which can be good for track use. Other than that, I can't really think of anything.

One exception: A few relatively newer Honda models, such as the 96-00 Civic, the rear suspension has a pretty steep camber curve, and could benefit from slightly reducing the negative camber in the rear from what you get from a drop alone. I would recommend the replacement rear upper arm-type camber kits. Those use a turnbuckle-type adjustment that will not slip.

And now for some personal experience. I lowered my car back in early 2002 and had about -2* camber up front. I've been on various suspension setups since then with anywhere from -1.5* to -2.8* front camber and have NEVER used a camber kit. Since then I've driven about 175K miles, and I've only been through 5 or 6 sets of tires. I've always used V or W-rated summer tires, and they always last 30K-35K miles.

Now I do get a slight bit of inner wear, but I attribute that to my worn stock bushings that aren't keeping the toe in check like they should. I have all new bushings waiting to go in and I expect tire wear to be even less than before. But my tires do usually wear down past the wear bars before the inner edge shows any belts, so at that time it's time to replace the tires anyway.

I know there are many others on this site who can relate similar personal experiences. I'll let them chime in if they want.

Well that's about all I can think of to say. Hopefully this will help to dispel some of the myths. Hopefully I can help some people keep some extra money instead of wasting it all on camber kits and expensive alignments.

*edit* something else to add - lower profile tires will tend to wear a bit more on the inside edge with negative camber, even with proper alignment. I do get a bit more inner wear on my 205/45-16's than I did on my 195/55-15's or 205/50-15's. I would imagine 40-series tires would be worse. A taller sidewall can flex more, therefore more even pressure is maintained across the tread even with negative camber.

batallic

YEEAA, good job patrick finally, a camber kit is not required

electronem1

really nice info to know

Chillmatic

i tried running no camber kit on my em1.. i went through two sets of tires in about 5 months.. 2 different shops that had a good rep for alignments... the tires were fine on 90% of the tire but shot on the very inside.. both shops said they set the specs as close to factory specs as possible.. granted i am very slammed tucking tire on 195-50-15s .. so i just ordered my skunk 2 pro series plus camber kits.. going to set toe back to zero but am worried about them banging the strut tower.. and tires rubbing against fenders.. i plan to take out fender lining and rolling fenders but dont think i will be able to go as low?

STOCK_SOHC_DX

This sound like more than a camber issue.

gabebauman

I've been running no camber kits since 2004. Good stuff Patrick.

kristo

What is meant here by 'POS'?


Could you then suggest some good brands for the 96-00 Civic rear suspension.

Thanks

dandaman15

1.) "POS" means piece of sh*t.

2.) There are many from gc/koni, pic, buddy club, tokico, H&R, Ohlins...

SoCal EJ1

I'm glad somebody finally posted up the truth. I have a kit on my car for the sake of increased caster and the spherical bearings, but then again it's a custom piece. Even now though, since a little clearance has been compromised, I may soon go back to a gussetted oem unit and just retain the sperical bearings. I'm still running -2.5* up front and 1/16" toe out for handling purposes, but I've learned and known that as long as toe is set to where it needs to be for whichever purpose the car serves, you'll be 100% a-okay.

great writeup patrick

kristo

OK, thought something like that but guessed it was an abbreviation or so

So these are all quality kits then.

dandaman15

Definitely

Garage 808 Hatch

You say it may not be necessary, but with 225's up front, my car drove like complete ***. after 3 alignments. put in a camber kit, aligned it to the same toe specs as before, drives 100x better. excessive camber will cause the tires to "grab" rutts, bumps, etc making the car feel "darty" and also gives you less of a contact patch with the road in straight line driving. It WILL still cause uneven tread wear. regardless of what you say

kristo

195 is the widest you should go on a Civic <01. It is plenty for grip and if you go wider you get handling problems.

These cars were not designed for wider tires. Also stick to the right offset.

Ya Digg

I have said this a few times in camber kit threads and people say im wrong. but i have been driving lowered 3 inches for a year with just an alignment and perfect tires still.

Garage 808 Hatch

195 is the widest you should go if you're a ***** with no power. and my car hadles just fine with the 225's now that the camber is corrected.

lolumad?

i wish i would've known this before i blew all the money away.

techchild

x2 Hell I have 205/40/16's on a stock d16y7 wider the better in some cases imo

PatrickGSR94

iTrader: (1)

more info added above - shorter sidewall tires will experience more inner shoulder wear with negative camber, even with proper alignment.

kristo

Is and when is this a problem?

PatrickGSR94

iTrader: (1)

um I dunno, depends on how short and stiff the sidewall is. My 45-series tires get a bit more inner wear than my 55-series tires (pretty much even wear). 40-series will most likely wear more on the inside than 45 series if there is more than -1.5* camber or so.

Jdmsoles

haha that's to funny/ your an idiot, no car is designed to do anything except get you from point A to point B, but that is the point of building a car to make it do what you want to do.

kristo

You're too kind.

If you think the suspension geometry of an ordinary passenger car was designed with in mind oversized wheels/tires, slammed lowering, the likes, and if you think that all of such things have no influence on handling behavior ...

then you'r the idiot, or ignorent. Judging from the content of your post regarding vehicle design I suspect the former.

NOman0608

Running no camber kit for 5 years.

Never have any problems.

I try to tell everyone here that you do not need them. but they blow all there money on it anyways.

blaze the chemi

Thanks Patrick for posting this.

I just got rid of my squeaking/creaking front aftermarket UCA's this weekend and replaced them with used OEM units.

I still have the aftermarket rear UCA's in because they can influence how my car handles around the autox course by adjusting the camber. My camber is about 1.5* front, 2.2* rear.

I have always asked the alignment person to set the toe within specs, but as close to zero as possible because this is my DD and autox car.

I have never had any excessive tire wear and my last set of wheel/tires I had were 205/40/17. The inner looks about the same as the outside after 20K miles and 3 years of autox.

thekza

I have a friend who's car (2000 EM1) doesn't have a camber kit, and his runs fine as a daily. It's lowered 1.75 inches.. all he did was get an alignment after installing the suspension.

Good thread.