When on uneven bumpy roads, the steering wheel shakes from side to side over the bumps. It did not do this prior to the alignment and new tires. I've actually had the tires balanced 5 times and still get a slight shimmy at 65mph. I'm now thinking everything is related to the alignment? I also recently had the steering stem off to replace the rubber seal in the firewall as I had the cracked manifold sound (thank god it was just the seal!!!), don't think this is related but thought I'd mention it. One other thing the shop told me my rear rim is bent but were able to get the runout(?) to .002 so I don't think that is the issue either especially since its on the rear.

Any ideas? Might bring it back to the dealer to have them look at the alignment again.

tires are balanced? didn't throw a weight?

I hope I'm not barking up the wrong tree, but have you checked the condition of your steering rack bushings?

Sent from my PG86100 using AutoGuide.Com Free App

Post up your final alignment numbers from the sheet. Better yet, just scan the printout and post up the image.

I hope I'm not barking up the wrong tree, but have you checked the condition of your steering rack bushings?

Sent from my PG86100 using AutoGuide.Com Free App That's what was wrong with mine. And it did exactly as op explained.

The rack bushings could be contributory, but the OP indicated that the symptom didn't present until after he had an alignment done. I'm guessing the alignment tech set caster too low. That "squirrelly" feeling, especially over uneven terrain, is a dead giveaway. That's why I asked for the alignment printout.

Steering rack bushing appear ok. Its going back to the dealer Thurs to have alignment re-checked.

Steering rack bushing appear ok. Its going back to the dealer Thurs to have alignment re-checked.

Are you going to post up the current alignment numbers or not? Tryin' to help here...

Are you going to post up the current alignment numbers or not? Tryin' to help here...

The dealer didn't give me any #'s but I'll get some on Thursday when I go back. Thanks for the input thus far. Do you think this could also be contributing to a steering wheel shake on the highway? Like I said the tires have been balanced 5 times but the last guy said the tires have flat spots on them that may or may not work themselves out and may or may not be the cause of the shake on the highway. What an ordeal this whole things has been!!!

[...]

Do you think this could also be contributing to a steering wheel shake on the highway?

[...]Yes. An alignment with insufficient caster, as Remmy stated, can cause exactly the symptoms you describe. That's why he asked for the alignment results.

You might find this a bit illuminating:



http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/suspension-and-axle/134608-alignment-problem-wear-outer-edge-passenger/#post1104095


and this, too:



http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/1gen-tundra/184553-camburg-alignment/#post1681387

Once you post up the alignment figures; anything glaring should be a giveaway. In the future, as I'm sure you learned from this post, always get your before/after figures.
Bump-steer can be attributed mostly to caster or toe (camber if much positive), shocks, "ghost steering" of your worn tie rods...etc

Your alignment figures will be a tell all (mostly).

What kind/size of tires did you get? What machine are they using to balance them? What kind of weights (or lack of) do you have on em? Did you curb check your wheels?

Once you post up the alignment figures; anything glaring should be a giveaway. In the future, as I'm sure you learned from this post, always get your before/after figures.
Bump-steer can be attributed mostly to caster or toe (camber if much positive), shocks, "ghost steering" of your worn tie rods...etc

Your alignment figures will be a tell all (mostly).

What kind/size of tires did you get? What machine are they using to balance them? What kind of weights (or lack of) do you have on em? Did you curb check your wheels?

Tires are brand new 265-65-17 Michelin Cross Terrains. Balanced five times in total, twice on a Road Force 9700 (?). The weights are stick on weights on the inside of the rim. Not sure what curb check means, but the most recent balance was done by a guy who spent 2 hrs on them with the Road Force machine and seemed very knowledgeable and willing to help solve my issue. His comments were "did the car sit for a long time with these tires on because they have flat spots" and "you have one bent rim but it got it to .002 so install it on the right rear". He labelled all the other tires as well and wrote on the tire where to install them on the truck - I don't have these figures with me at work but I can post them tonight. He suggested I get the tires replaced if the steering wheel still shakes after he balanced them but I'm now more inclined to think its an alignment issue that is causing all the problems.

I really appreciate all the feedback, this has been a really frustrating & time consuming experience.

OK... 2 hours to road-force balance a set of Michelins? I'm calling bull****. Michelins are the most consistently-made tires on the market. Someone there is full of it -- or clueless. Probably both.

Don't bother farking around with any more wheel/tire balancing until you get the alignment numbers so we know where in hell you stand.

Pardon my French, Remmy, but you're jumping to conclusions.

Two hours to road force balance a set of tires is not unusual, particularly if there is a bent rim. To do it properly requires, for each wheel/tire assembly:



1: Mount the bare wheel on the balancer.

2: Measure the wheel runout at both mounting bead surfaces. The balancer will save this away.

3: Remove the wheel from the balancer.

4: Mount the tire on the wheel.

5: Mount the tire/wheel assembly on the balancer.

6: Measure the loaded runout of the tire (i.e. with the force-loaded roller) on the balancer. The balancer will save this away, and will use the saved runout of the wheel to compute the loaded radial force variation of the tire.

7: Mark the wheel and tire as shown by the balancer.

8: Remove the wheel/tire assembly from the balancer.

9: Break the beads of the tire loose from the wheel, then rotate the tire to match the mark on the tire with the mark on the wheel, then seat the beads and re-inflate the tire.

10: Mount the wheel/tire assembly on the balancer.

11: Measure the loaded runout on the balancer again. Verify that it is within limits.

12: Balance the tire/wheel assembly in the usual manner.

13: Remove the tire/wheel assembly from the balancer for mounting on the vehicle.


This is a time-consuming and labor-intensive procedure. Note that it has to be done for all four wheel tire assemblies.

It helps to understand that road force balancing uses the loaded radial force variation of the tire to compensate for the runout of the wheel, thereby minimizing the runout of the wheel/tire assembly. However, any particular tire does not necessarily have a loaded radial force variation that exactly compensates for the runout of the wheel to which it is paired, as the pairing of a wheel to a tire is generally a random process.

When wheels have a significant amount of runout (perhaps when one is bent, for example), the balancer also allows a set of four wheels and tires to be swapped about such that a particular tire is matched to a particular wheel, thereby minimizing the net loaded runout of all four wheel/tire assemblies as best they can be. This can work wonders, but note that it requires an additional step of removing all four tires from the wheels, matching them up, and mounting them properly per their match marks, thus adding considerably more labor and time.

I suspect the technician, who is described as "seemed very knowledgeable and willing to help solve my issue", used this matching procedure.

Finally, note that eliminating vibration requires both properly road force balancing all four wheel/tire assemblies and properly aligning the axles they rotate around. You have to do both before you can tell if either did any good, and "balance first, align last" is the correct order.

He's done just fine so far, methinks. Now, we need to see those alignment numbers ...

Pardon my French, Remmy, but you're jumping to conclusions.

Maybe DJ... maybe. But, this is his third pass on balancing the wheels and he's gotten different answers and different results every time. (He's since edited his original post and removed some pertinent history...) I know road-force balancing takes more time than a simple spin balance (breaking the bead, resetting in new position, refilling, etc), but 30 minutes per wheel? Seems slow to me. Anyhoo...

My point was to suggest he stop chasing his tail until he knows where his alignment tech left him. Without that, a big piece of this puzzle is missing. Remember, he stated that his symptoms didn't start until immediately after the alignment.

I must say that I have found this thread to most intriguing and informative.

My experience with the shake, rattle and roll we get goes way back. I thought all this time it has been tire related...but now I am beginning to see a new light here. My latest tires were Road Force balanced when new, and never quite have been right. I even had one replaced under warranty due to a broken belt. However, I now think most of this is alignment related.

Many years ago, I purchased a lifetime alignment through a local Firestone store when I had a set of Revos on it. Haven't been back in a while, so I think in the next week or two I will pay them a visit, get some numbers and give them DJ's specs. See what happens.

What just irritates me to no end is that when the frame was replaced, they should have had to align the truck, but then they would have stuck to the specs without probably even road testing it.

When I get the work done, I'll try and share the results. I am really curious now.

[...]

I know road-force balancing takes more time than a simple spin balance (breaking the bead, resetting in new position, refilling, etc), but 30 minutes per wheel? Seems slow to me.

[...]Not to me. Been there, done that.

Remember, some of my software is in that road force balancer, and I mentored the engineer who designed the electronics and wrote the rest of the software. I've done what I described, and I know how long it takes to do it.

86977

Alignment specs before and after performed today at the local Toyota Dealer. Tech said there was nothing wrong with it or the truck, however, would not go with a ride with me so I could show him what it is doing. So the "squirelly" feel continues to be there on rough roads and the tire shimmy at highway speeds is always there (55mph to 70mph).

Last ditch effort I have 2 ideas:
(1) Return the brand new tires and get another set, I was told all 4 tires have flat spots, they are Michelins am I'm told it is very rare to have defective Michelins
(2) Replace the bent rim on the right rear that measured .002 runout on the GroundForce, is this causing the steering wheel shimmy at highway speeds

Beyond that I'm done wasting time with this FRUSTATING issue!! Should've saved my $$ and kept driving on my old worn out non-shimmying misaligned tires!!

I'll throw out a couple thoughts:

Seems odd that all 4 tires would have flat spots. If they are, I'd suspect you'd feel that at all speeds, not just between 50 & 70. Maybe there is a suspension problem (bad shock, ball joint, tie rod end, etc.)?

Maybe the different tire construction from your old tires is causing the squirrely feeling on bumpy roads? Stiffer sidewalls give a different feel. I had just the opposite (less squirrely on bumps) when I went from factory Dunlops to Michelins.

To eliminate the bent wheel being a problem, replace it w/ your spare temporarily and see if this changes anything. Heck, you could move your spare to each location sequentially and see if anything changes.

I hope you didn't pay for this alignment job.

Here is what's wrong with it:

1) There are no rear measurements. Evidently he did what's known as a "two wheel alignment". He saved time and effort by not compensating the rear sensors for runout, which is why they have no rear alignment measurements. Thus, the front toe measurements are not referenced to the thrust line of the rear wheels, as they should be. Referencing the front wheel toe to the rear wheel thrust line is how to determine whether or not the steering wheel is level when the vehicle rolls in a straight line. Failure to get this right is the single most common complaint, and the most visible error, in wheel alignment. He didn't even check to see if such was the case, and so he cannot know if there is "nothing wrong" with this alignment.

2) The "actual" and "before" measurements are the same. Even the left and right toe measurements are the same, and they won't be the same if they steered the wheels at all. A change of 0.1mm of toe is equal to 0.01° of toe, which is within the "noise" range of the aligner. Thus, all he did was measure the alignment, and he didn't even measure it correctly.

3) Camber is negative, and the difference between left and right camber is 0.4°. If the alignment technician thinks there is "nothing wrong" with this alignment, then he is not competent to do alignments. He either doesn't care, or he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Incidentally, this is the first shop I'm aware of outside of North America to use mm for toe measurements. That's neither good nor bad, rather it's just unusual.

Caster of 2.2° or 2.3° ought not to cause vibrations. Thus it's likely that the cause of the vibration is elsewhere. Even so, I would not be satisfied with that alignment.

Now for the best part:

A wheel with a total runout of 0.002" is a very round wheel. 0.002" is about the thickness of a sheet of copier paper. Seriously, if the technician measured 0.002" of runout and told you that it shows you have a bent rim, and he thinks that alignment is a good alignment, then you need to find another tire and alignment shop. You have a problem to solve and I doubt seriously that these people can solve it.

P-Car-Tower
I already attempted to use the spare but looks like I'll need some acorn lug nuts - stock lug nuts for factory alum wheels do not appear to fit the spare tire steel wheel. So I went today and grabbed 12 x 1.5mm acorn nuts, will this do the trick? What do I torque them at? I know the alum rims get torqued at 83 ft lbs, thinking the steel spare tire torque would be much more?? Thanks for the suggestion though, it was already in the works.

DJ:
Thanks for taking the time to explain the alignment issue. The alignment was done by the Toyota Dealer and the most recent tire balancing done by a reputable tire shop. I think I'll leave the alignment issue for now based on your comment that the alignment specs wouldn't cause the vibration. Now for the wheel tire runout:

LF .16
LR .31
RF .22
RR .002 bent rim (you should see all the weights on the rim, he was quite impressed to get it the runout so good)

Question I have is are the runout numbers acceptable? When I googled acceptable runout it would appear .125 is the suggested maximum runout - other than the bent rim tire, all other runout numbers exceed the acceptable range - am I understanding this correctly??

I spoke to the tire shop and Michelin today - one or the other will be getting me a new set of tires.

Now for the wheel tire runout:

LF .16
LR .31
RF .22
RR .002 bent rim (you should see all the weights on the rim, he was quite impressed to get it the runout so good)

Question I have is are the runout numbers acceptable? When I googled acceptable runout it would appear .125 is the suggested maximum runout - other than the bent rim tire, all other runout numbers exceed the acceptable range - am I understanding this correctly??

I spoke to the tire shop and Michelin today - one or the other will be getting me a new set of tires.Your question puts this issue in a new light. Let's make sure we get the terminology straight.

The Hunter GSP9700 measures runout in three ways:



1) The runout of the bare wheel, measured where the tire beads seat. Each bead surface has its own measurement. Runout here indicates whether or not the wheel is bent.

2)The loaded runout of the tire/wheel assembly, measured at the tread surface. This is measured by the loaded roller pressing against the tread surface with about 1,400 pounds of force. This determines what the vehicle experiences as it rolls down the road.

3) The loaded runout of the bare tire, computed as the vector difference between the loaded runout of the tire/wheel assembly and the runout of the bare wheel. This determines whether or not the tire is uniform.


Your earlier comment about this was:



"Replace the bent rim on the right rear that measured .002 runout on the GroundForce ..."


which I understood to mean that the bare rim had only 0.002" of runout, i.e. it is what I listed as runout type #1. If I understand your current comments correctly, you are saying that this rim is bent, but matching the tire to it reduced runout type #2 to only 0.002.

Now for a bit about units. The units of runout are "distance", usually measured here in the good old USA as "inches". The effects of loaded runout on the vehicle are discussed here:



http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tires-and-wheels/96268-road-force-balancing-what-questions-ask/#post642609


Note therein:



"The nominal scale factor is that a measured runout of 0.001 inch corresponds to about one pound of "road force". That's where the term "road force" originates."


The usual rule of thumb is that a road force of 25 lb or less won't be noticed, but that is only a rule of thumb. In your case, a road force of 31 lb is probably a problem. If one such wheel/tire assembly vibrates, then the others just might be excited thereby because they, too, generate such road force, and since they all are the same weight and roll at the same rate, the resonant frequencies are likely the same. One could excite the other, like smaller waves combining to make a bigger wave.

But there's a worse problem to consider. The GSP9700 matches a tire to a wheel to minimize the net loaded runout of the tire/wheel assembly. However, it does so using only "first-order harmonics", i.e. it treats the runout of the wheel as if it is a circle whose center is not on the axis of rotation of the wheel, and it treats the loaded runout of the tire similarly. If you have a bent wheel, i.e. one you can visibly see is bent and whose runout you can measure, this might not be an accurate model of it.

Why? Because a wheel could be bent such that it is slightly squashed, and so is shaped like a football. Then it would have a very significant second-order harmonic, but if the squashing is uniformly done, the first-order harmonic would be zero. Such a wheel would thump down the road, wouldn't it?

The GSP9700 can measure higher-order harmonics, but there isn't anything one can do in the way of matching tires to them. One can, however, determine that a wheel is too bent to use.

I'll tell you a true story of what happened to the Hunter Product Manager for Balancers. He had a very expensive set ($900 each) of foreign-made mag wheels for his car, and they vibrated considerably when he mounted and (yes, of course) road-force-balanced them. His put them back on the GSP9700 and measured a very low first-order harmonic, but a very high fourth-order harmonic. They were bent like a square. He force balanced them again, and the vibration was worse. He put them back on the GSP9700 yet again and measured a very low first-order harmonic, but a very high eighth-order harmonic. They were bent like a stop sign. He finally determined that they were being bent, first into a square, and then into a stop sign, by the jaws of the tire buster machine. They were pretty, but they were a bit too soft to be good wheels.

I suspect you have wheels that are similarly misshapen, meaning they have significant higher-order harmonics, such as second- or third-order. They aren't just "bent", they are "rumpled". I deduce this only by two considerations: 1) Michelin tires do not usually have such high road-force balancing results, and there has to be a reason why; and, 2) the wheel that is described as "bent" is highly unlikely to have a first-order harmonic of only 0.002 and have similarly low higher-order harmonics.

So, I suggest it's time for a bit of expert help here. This is a VERY good opportunity for a bit of training in how to use the advanced features of the GSP9700 to diagnose vibrations problems, and the provider of such help is the local Hunter T & T Rep. "T & T" is shorthand for "Technical and Training". These guys are experts at this sort of problem and part of their job is to train Hunter's customers to use their tools to solve them. Getting the tire shop's technician, and the local Michelin rep, both together at the same time with the Hunter T & T rep would result in your problem getting solved, and make everyone else's job better for the future.

Now for the hard part. You just might need new wheels, not new tires.

The GSP9700 can diagnose this. The tire shop should know who his local Hunter T & T Rep is. If not, it can be found through Hunter's web site.

DJ, I didn't know that the Hunter machines could measure second-order or greater harmonics. Very interesting...

If I recall correctly, the GSP9700 can compute and show the 1st through at least 8th order harmonics. Once the sampling is done, it's just arithmetic.

After a great Bilstein 5100 install at all four corners by 4Wheel Parts, I just got the wife's 2003 4Runner back from a dealer alignment. First pass, they tried the old "set the toe and let it go".

Uh, not even close to acceptable dip****s. The grizzled mountain monkey who did the alignment never touched the adjustment cams. The "tech", who magically appeared in the booth as I was arguing with the service advisor, had the nerve to try to tell me that he hit the alignment specs but the "printout is showing it wrong". Yeah... sure. I raised holy hell, schooled them on why the alignments are set the way are, and told them to get it right. The alignment loser looked like he got hit in the face with a crowbar and started apologizing profusely for lying; the service writer seemed ready to cry. I told them they had an hour to get it right.

An hour and a half later, I go back to pick it up. This time, the dealer's "team leader", i.e. the supervising mechanic for the entire shift, was there in the service advisor's booth when I arrived to pick it up. Although the alignment was better, I felt it still had too much cross-caster (0.6 degrees). I then asked the supervising mechanic what Hunter machine he uses.

Him: "No idea".

Me: OK. Did you use the CAMM console?

Him: "No. I've never used it."

Me: Why? You do know that a majority of Toyota vehicles are designed with independent front suspensions. Are you sending all these out after just eyeballing the settings?

Him: "Yep. That's just the way we do it."

Me: You do realize that what went out first was actually and legally fraud, yes?

Him: "Yeah... It shouldn't have happened. I'll be talking this over with my manager."

Yeah. I'll believe that when blueberry pancakes start shooting out my *******.

Me: "Just so you know, I WILL BE talking this over with your manager on Monday as well."

Staggers the imagination. Not surprising, just really, really disappointing. This was just an alignment. What would happen if I asked them to replace a lower ball joint? Would THAT get half-assed as well??

As you say DJ... "They don't know what they don't know."

I attached a scan of the final alignment numbers. DJ, whadda ya think?

[...]

As you say DJ... "They don't know what they don't know."

I attached a scan of the final alignment numbers. DJ, whadda ya think?That alignment is bloody awful.

What is wrong with the alignment:



1) A side-to-side camber difference of 0.5°

2) Positive camber on one side, negative camber on the other side

3) A side-to-side caster difference of 0.6°

4) A total toe error (i.e. difference between measurement and specification) of 0.06°


What is wrong with the shop:



1) "Set the toe and let it go," but toe wasn't set properly.

2) The supervising technician does not know what alignment tool he has.

3) The supervising technician does not use his alignment tool properly.

4) The supervising technician does not know how to use his alignment tool properly.

5) The supervising technician does not recognize a bad alignment when he is shown it.

6) The supervising technician does not care whether the alignment is a bad alignment or not.

7) The supervising technician defends his ignorance, incompetence, and fraud as "just the way we do it".

8) The alignment technician makes the supervising technician look like superman.


This combination of ignorance, arrogance, and fraud ought not to be accepted.

Stand Your Ground.

They did not do what you paid them to do, and I doubt they could if their lives depended on it.

After a great Bilstein 5100 install at all four corners by 4Wheel Parts, I just got the wife's 2003 4Runner back from a dealer alignment. First pass, they tried the old "set the toe and let it go".

Uh, not even close to acceptable dip****s. The grizzled mountain monkey who did the alignment never touched the adjustment cams. The "tech", who magically appeared in the booth as I was arguing with the service advisor, had the nerve to try to tell me that he hit the alignment specs but the "printout is showing it wrong". Yeah... sure. I raised holy hell, schooled them on why the alignments are set the way are, and told them to get it right. The alignment loser looked like he got hit in the face with a crowbar and started apologizing profusely for lying; the service writer seemed ready to cry. I told them they had an hour to get it right.

An hour and a half later, I go back to pick it up. This time, the dealer's "team leader", i.e. the supervising mechanic for the entire shift, was there in the service advisor's booth when I arrived to pick it up. Although the alignment was better, I felt it still had too much cross-caster (0.6 degrees). I then asked the supervising mechanic what Hunter machine he uses.

Him: "No idea".

Me: OK. Did you use the CAMM console?

Him: "No. I've never used it."

Me: Why? You do know that a majority of Toyota vehicles are designed with independent front suspensions. Are you sending all these out after just eyeballing the settings?

Him: "Yep. That's just the way we do it."

Me: You do realize that what went out first was actually and legally fraud, yes?

Him: "Yeah... It shouldn't have happened. I'll be talking this over with my manager."

Yeah. I'll believe that when blueberry pancakes start shooting out my ********.

Me: "Just so you know, I WILL BE talking this over with your manager on Monday as well."

Staggers the imagination. Not surprising, just really, really disappointing. This was just an alignment. What would happen if I asked them to replace a lower ball joint? Would THAT get half-assed as well??

As you say DJ... "They don't know what they don't know."

I attached a scan of the final alignment numbers. DJ, whadda ya think?

I know you are ticked off but I had to laugh when I read this.

I know you are ticked off but I had to laugh when I read this.

I knew you would. I posted it up there for you!!

That alignment is bloody awful.

What is wrong with the alignment:



1) A side-to-side camber difference of 0.5°

2) Positive camber on one side, negative camber on the other side

3) A side-to-side caster difference of 0.6°

4) A total toe error (i.e. difference between measurement and specification) of 0.06°


What is wrong with the shop:



1) "Set the toe and let it go," but toe wasn't set properly.

2) The supervising technician does not know what alignment tool he has.

3) The supervising technician does not use his alignment tool properly.

4) The supervising technician does not know how to use his alignment tool properly.

5) The supervising technician does not recognize a bad alignment when he is shown it.

6) The supervising technician does not care whether the alignment is a bad alignment or not.

7) The supervising technician defends his ignorance, incompetence, and fraud as "just the way we do it".

8) The alignment technician makes the supervising technician look like superman.


This combination of ignorance, arrogance, and fraud ought not to be accepted.

Stand Your Ground.

They did not do what you paid them to do, and I doubt they could if their lives depended on it.

DJ, aren't the "Actual" figures the final, after-adjustment settings? If so, then the only setting I'm not particularly happy with is the 0.6 degrees of cross-caster (3.3 degrees vs 2.7 degrees). Toe looks perfect. I wish camber was just slightly positive rather than negative (rear-wheel drive vehicle), but it's so slight (-0.1 degrees).

I know the "Before" numbers were horrible; I expected them to be after the strut/shock install. What I want to know is what changes the rear specifications? The 4Runner has an independent rear suspension. Aren't they adjustable as well, or are they supposed to align the front so as to track properly with the rear suspension's geometry?

I will be having a long conversation with the service manager first thing on Monday about the whole incident.

As always, thanks for your invaluable help DJ.

i think there is 1 too many *'s in there. i'm confused!!!:rolleyes:

DJ, aren't the "Actual" figures the final, after-adjustment settings? If so, then the only setting I'm not particularly happy with is the 0.6 degrees of cross-caster (3.3 degrees vs 2.7 degrees). Toe looks perfect. I wish camber was just slightly positive rather than negative (rear-wheel drive vehicle), but it's so slight (-0.1 degrees).

[...]Oops. How embarrassing.

When looking at camber, my eyes strayed a bit. Camber is fine.

Total toe, however, is off. The specification is halfway between the two limits specified, which is (+0.25° + (-0.08°)) / 2, which rounds to +0.09°. It is set to +0.03°, which is +0.06° in error.

Total toe error is a very important cause of premature tire wear. If it is not correct, then the tires have to scrub sideways a bit as they roll down the road, and this wears the tread off. +0.06° is a significant error.


[...]

What I want to know is what changes the rear specifications? The 4Runner has an independent rear suspension. Aren't they adjustable as well, or are they supposed to align the front so as to track properly with the rear suspension's geometry?

[...]I am not familiar with the rear suspension of the 4Runner. I suggest browsing the intertubes to find out what, if anything, is adjustable in the rear suspension alignment.

i think there is 1 too many *'s in there. i'm confused!!!:rolleyes:

Fixed. I only have one *******, not two.

Oops. How embarrassing.

When looking at camber, my eyes strayed a bit. Camber is fine.

Total toe, however, is off. The specification is halfway between the two limits specified, which is (+0.25° + (-0.08°)) / 2, which rounds to +0.09°. It is set to +0.03°, which is +0.06° in error.

Total toe error is a very important cause of premature tire wear. If it is not correct, then the tires have to scrub sideways a bit as they roll down the road, and this wears the tread off. +0.06° is a significant error.

I am not familiar with the rear suspension of the 4Runner. I suggest browsing the intertubes to find out what, if anything, is adjustable in the rear suspension alignment.

No worries DJ! Thanks again for your help.

I'm going to get in contact with Hunter's rep for my region (Scott Robb) and see if he can offer assistance in these issues, at least so that the next folks don't get screwed by this dealer's service monkeys.

DJ, referencing my alignment report posted above, would a high rear total toe number (0.18 = LR: 0.13 | RR: 0.05) cause rear tire wear?

DJ, referencing my alignment report posted above, would a high rear total toe number (0.18 = LR: 0.13 | RR: 0.05) cause rear tire wear?That is not an easy question.

There are two kinds of total toe: 1) "static" toe; and, 2) "dynamic" toe.

Static toe is what you measure with wheel alignment instruments. The vehicle is "static"; i.e. it is not moving, it is not affected by aerodynamic forces, and (usually) it is not loaded.

Dynamic toe is what you wish you could measure with wheel alignment instruments. The vehicle is "dynamic"; i.e. it is moving, it is affected by aerodynamic forces, and (often) it is loaded (minimally with a driver).

The two conditions are not the same. The load in the vehicle and the aerodynamic forces applied to the vehicle tend to make the vehicle "squat", which makes the suspension flex, which makes the wheels steer, and so determines what "dynamic" total toe is as the vehicle rolls down the road. This happens on the front wheels, and it happens on the rear wheels of vehicles which have independent rear suspensions. The difficulty for the vehicle manufacturer is to determine what specification of static total toe for an axle will produced the desired dynamic total toe for that axle.

That means it's difficult to tell whether or not a particular total toe setting on a particular axle of a particular vehicle will produce premature tire wear. One is better off trying to make such a prediction by comparing a total toe measurement to a total toe specification. Absent a specification for total rear toe for your vehicle, one cannot make such a prediction.

* * Alignment Update * *

I spoke with the dealer service manager yesterday regarding my experience with their alignment "tech" as posted above. He was apologetic, confirmed that my experience was unacceptable practice, and was perturbed at the fact that his techs thought it was acceptable to throw away the original report in an effort to cover up their negligence/incompetence. He wasn't aware that Hunter offers T&T support and vowed to get a Hunter rep in to get his personnel trained on the machine(s).

He asked me to bring the vehicle back in when he was in-shop so he could 1. get my take on what happened so he can address the incident with the employees, and 2. get the vehicle back on the rack and aligned properly (still too much cross-caster, 0.6 degrees).

I will be taking it in tomorrow and will update the thread after. We'll see...

That alignment is bloody awful.

What is wrong with the shop:

1) "Set the toe and let it go," but toe wasn't set properly.

2) The supervising technician does not know what alignment tool he has.

3) The supervising technician does not use his alignment tool properly.

4) The supervising technician does not know how to use his alignment tool properly.

5) The supervising technician does not recognize a bad alignment when he is shown it.

6) The supervising technician does not care whether the alignment is a bad alignment or not.

7) The supervising technician defends his ignorance, incompetence, and fraud as "just the way we do it".

8) The alignment technician makes the supervising technician look like superman.


This combination of ignorance, arrogance, and fraud ought not to be accepted.

Stand Your Ground.

They did not do what you paid them to do, and I doubt they could if their lives depended on it.

You'd be surprised how many shops own the machine, but still use it in the "typical" old fashioned way. I called around here in MA, and only ONE out of 6-7 shops that had the machine had a tech that knew how to use it correctly. I'd literally have to drive 100 miles out of my way just to get to it.

DJ,

Any chance on getting a free copy of the manual on how to use he "CAMM" feature of the WinAlign software for the 611, 811 or newer models? Maybe we can "school" some techs like I did when using the GSP9700 in how to set the road force from 40 lbs/tire to 20 lbs/tire, but with the alignment machine instead.

[...]

He wasn't aware that Hunter offers T&T support and vowed to get a Hunter rep in to get his personnel trained on the machine(s)

[...]Well done!

This shop owner appears to be responding properly to this problem. Good on him, too!

You'd be surprised how many shops own the machine, but still use it in the "typical" old fashioned way. I called around here in MA, and only ONE out of 6-7 shops that had the machine had a tech that knew how to use it correctly. I'd literally have to drive 100 miles out of my way just to get to it.No, I wouldn't be surprised. I've seen it first-hand for decades.

The problem has many parts:



1) The typical shop owner is reluctant to have his alignment technicians trained on the equipment he buys. While they are being trained, they are not aligning vehicles. This is known as the "I don't have time to sharpen my ax; I have wood to cut!" approach.

2)The shop owner who does have his alignment technicians trained typically has only one technician trained, expecting him to then train the others. This doesn't work because the trained technician prefers to be indispensable, doesn't like not earning while he trains somone else, and isn't a trained instructor at all. This is known as the "Trickle Down" approach.

3)The alignment technician who is trained often doesn't remember all that he is trained. The machine itself has so many features (i.e. compare Microsoft Word to NotePad or TextEdit) that he is somewhat intimidated by it. So, he finds a comfortable "path" to get the initial measurements of the vehicle, then he uses the basic adjustment screen full of bar graphs to make his adjustments. The specialized software tools that make otherwise difficult adjustments easy and fast are thus not used, and often he isn't aware of them. The is known as the "I know everything I need to know!" approach.


This problem has no cure that I have ever found, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't keep trying.

And, this problem exists for every wheel alignment console out there, from every manufacturer.


DJ,

Any chance on getting a free copy of the manual on how to use he "CAMM" feature of the WinAlign software for the 611, 811 or newer models? Maybe we can "school" some techs like I did when using the GSP9700 in how to set the road force from 40 lbs/tire to 20 lbs/tire, but with the alignment machine instead.Maybe, but I doubt it. Hunter's web site says that such manuals are available from Hunter's T & T Reps. They are not available from Hunter's web site.

However, the manual itself is built into the console. It is there in the form of a compiled "Help" document that is readable via a browser. In the usual manner, there is a "Help" softkey (usually the last key on the right on the last row of keys of every screen). Pressing it brings up that document in a browser. So, all the technician needs to do is press "Help", then search for CAMM in the contents or index, and it will tell him both how to bring that display up and how to use it.

There is always an easy way to bring up such adjustment screens. On that basic bar graph adjustment display (the one which technicians typically land on and stick to), there is a softkey which is labeled "Make Additional Adjustments". Pressing it brings up a display which lists (and describes) the various adjustments which can be made to the vehicle being serviced. If that vehicle has adjustments of front camber and caster which use cams or slots, one such item will be "Adjust camber and caster with cams" (or some such; my memory isn't perfect). Selecting that item will bring up the CAMM display, which prompts the user how to use it properly, step by step, even if he has never seen it before.

Yes, it's really that easy to get to it, and it is really easy to use. Sigh ...

For a bit of insight into the software, go see this file and read where it discusses the CAMM display:



http://www.hunter.com/alignment/hawkeye_elite/6230T.pdf

* * Alignment Update * *

Just returned from the service manager's effort to get the alignment done properly. I'm happy with the numbers. It drives well, tracks straight, no vibration. (report attached)

They said their Hunter machine is only 3 years old. The SM walked through every step of the adjustments with his "best" tech. I didn't get into personnel issues with him, it's not my place, but I certainly hope he takes advantage of the suggestion that he get his techs properly trained on the equipment so they aren't continuing to defraud their customers.

Well, looks like I'll be getting a new set of tires on Friday to replace the new ones that were put on 3wks ago. Sure hope this cures my woes.

I drove the truck LOTS on the weekend. The shaking steering wheel went away a few times but was there 95% of the time. I noticed I'm feeling every bump in the steering wheel, it feels really spongy/rubbery, and I'm thinking perhaps this is the issue and not the tires??? Someone suggested steering rack bushings but I checked them out and they seem fine.

Maybe its just all coincidental that it happened after the tires & alignment. I had the alignment done the day after I had the tires put on so it really is hard to determine what is causing the issue - perhaps neither and I've got something else going on??

My truck started slightly "dancing" after having four new Michelin LTX M/S 2 tires installed followed up by an alignment.

Around 60mph to 65mph a slight bounce feel on the floor pan could be felt and the steering wheel gently rocked back and forth.

My man at Toyota put her on the rack and pointed out (1) a leaking shock on the driver side (2) the rack bushings squishing out of the unit from what he was suggesting was an oil leak on the rack seals (3) tie rod ends were sloppy

I installed new Bilstein shocks and tie rods and that in itself improved the ride. I didn't risk turning my rack in to trash so I'm letting him take care of it for me.

Got the new tires replaced with a new set today. Runout numbers .002, .004, .004, .009 VERY ROUND TIRES. I immedietly noticed a difference low speed and high speed, it was smooth as glass. There is still a very very very minor movement in the wheel at about 70mph thinking that may be linked to the road transfer I'm feeling in the steering wheel - is the concensus that this would most likely be steering rack bushings? As I mentioned before I did replace the rubber seal in the firewall that goes around the steering stem recently (had the manifold leak sound) - I re-checked the connection today and noticed there is an ever so slight movement from side to side where the steering stem coupler attaches to the gear on the steering rack - is this normal, if not there may be a problem with the rack?

Anyways its MUCH better now with this second set of new tires so I may just leave everything alone.

Glad things are better for you!
The old tires may have been hiding some other issues but at least we all got a lesson in how deep the knowledge base is on this site! I know i learned a few things by keeping up with this thread.

Sent from my PG86100 using AutoGuide.Com Free App