# Shocks or set-up...?



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

ok, lemme give a lil background. 
back in the day, i lowered the TTQR with H&R springs, stock shocks and alignment shortly afterwared. After about a year, i had realllllllly bad cupping in the rear. Loud vibrations that would resonate through the car at certain speeds. 
I was told that this was due to lowering the car on stock shocks which could handle the increased weight of the wheel, the decreased stroke and their age of course. SOOO 
I got Bilstien Mono-tube gas shocks all the way around, new tires, and alignment. At that point, I had the technician remove some of the toe and camber that were dialed into the rears as i thought it would help increase the life of the tires. 
not too long afterward, I had a failure of the OEM strut bushing on the front so I replaced them with adjuster camber plates. Unfortunately, I didn't have the money to get an alignment immediately. 
HOWEVER, i started noticing that the rear were beginning to cup again. I was pretty pissed because I was under the impression that the better shocks would keep this from happening. I also started having a vibration when I turn the wheel to the left to take curves (not corners). Also, if I attempt to make a very hard left curve like a highway exit at speed, my TC light would come one. But this vibration was non existant for right turns/curves or straight line driving. I attributed this to the lack of alignment since the camber plates. 
SO I got another alignment which is here: 









The technician didn't seem to very familiar with audi's specifically, but called another tech up once he saw that the OEM audi alignment numbers call for over -2.8* of camber. He thought that was a lil extreme, and as you can see from the numbers, I was still only running -1.8*. He did say that he felt there was a reason that audi was calling some toe in the rear. I was running 0.0" and .04" He suggested that we should put that back into the setup, and as you can see, it's 0.13" which is spot on for what audi is calling for. 
As for the front, we dialed out less camber, and less toe. 
Issue is, I now feel the vibration more. The vibration is not more in the middle of the steering wheel angle and slightly left. 
I tried putting a different set of wheels on the front (stockers) to see if the was tires. No go, vibration still exists. So I had the tires on the rear swapped so the good meat of the tires will be on the inside (still hav a lot of life on 'em). i have yet to put them back on so I don't if that will alleviate the vibes at all. But I can't fathom why cupping in the rear would cause a vibration that would be affected by the steering so easily (and only on one side). 
Also, the shocks were purchased in 4/2009. I couldn't tell you how many miles they've seen, but I'd be kinda shocked if they were bad already. What is the life expectancy of Gas shocks and what is the probability that the issue is really the shocks as opposed to alignment set up? what are your opinions on these numbers anyway? 


sorry for the lengthy post...but this situation has been on my mind for a while...


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

The 1.8* camber in the rear is still a little high for a street car/daily driver, and will continue to wear the rear tires accordingly. I highly doubt your shocks are bad. Once the tires are worn, trying to figure out why one turn and not the other and end vs end noise goes out the window. You've got them set up now to wear out the odd wear, so just drive it a bit and see if the noises start to fade.


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

1.8* still high? what are you guys running then? 
Audi calls for like 2.8* (if i remember correcly). this print out shows the acceptable range, but it doesn't show what the exact spec the OEM is calling for...


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

OEM rear camber spec is based on measuring fender height. :screwy: 2.8* will chew up the inside tires pretty quickly.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

OE specs are crazy for the rear of the TT. Way to much camber for both handling and tire wear. The suspension engineers probably designed the rear with adjustable lateral links in mind but the guys wearing suits and ties decided against it for production. The hole point of having static camber compensation is to have the wheel close to perpendicular to the ground plane dynamically when fully loaded in a turn. The multi link design in the rear of this platform does not lose too much camber like the front does, and anything past -1.3 degree (I use -1.5 in my car in competition) static camber compensation is stupid and useless. The front is different story where upward of -3 degrees is needed to overcome the horrible camber curve associated with the "Mc*Crap*son" design geometry.


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

I've got -3 camber in the rear and have no wear issues... 

Are you sure the problem is with the alignment and shocks? What about ball joints and tie rod ends?


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

I don't know, but i don't have any wiggle on the wheels when they're off the ground... 

that's how you test for that right? lift the car and see if the wheel will wiggle or move? 

what about Toe...? what are you running in the rear?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Neb said:


> I've got -3 camber in the rear and have no wear issues...


 Even with 1/3 of your contact patch just hanging out and having no way to get some action due to the limited dynamic camber loss? I wonder how much of that statement is applicable to the rest of us.


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

i also think how much negative camber can be run successfully depends on the width of the wheels... 
-3* with a 7" wide rim will still have all the rubber on the road, but 9.5" wide rim with -3* will not


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Krissrock said:


> i also think how much negative camber can be run successfully depends on the width of the wheels...
> -3 with a 7" wide rim will still have all the rubber on the road, but 9.5" wide rim with -3 will not


 The amount of static negative camber that can be used successfully is totally independent of the width of the wheel/tire. Both the 7" and 9.5" examples used will have the same percentage of their tire contact patch used efficiently or not (the wider one just has the advantage of putting more rubber to the ground although it's still doing it at the same suboptimal level). 

The amount of static camber compensation needed has to do with the camber curve. I keep saying compensation because the only reason for having camber at a static state is to compensate for dynamic movement that exist from the car's geometry (certain cars, mainly perfectly designed unequal length double A arms, do not loose or gain much camber while in motion and have no use for that kind of compensation. We are just dealing with desingn flaws by dialing camber at rest). 

Simply put, in our car we have pretty bad camber curve in the front and need more static compensation on that axle. While the rear is better in terms of geometry and resulting camber curve, calling for a lot less static compensation.


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Even with 1/3 of your contact patch just hanging out and having no way to get some action due to the limited dynamic camber loss? I wonder how much of that statement is applicable to the rest of us.


 I have no idea what this means. 










But this is with -3 or so. Not really sure what you mean by 1/3 of my contact patch hanging out. I wish I could find all my settings to post them up but I can't find my sheet


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

ok Marcus, 
so what is your opinion on the sitution? could the cupping have been caused by the shocks or the -1.8* and no toe of the rear? 

and Neb, you're stretched...all of you tread is on the ground. I'm not stretched. and the outside corner does not touch for me...even at -1.8*


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Neb said:


> I have no idea what this means.
> 
> 
> But this is with -3 or so. Not really sure what you mean by 1/3 of my contact patch hanging out.


 Neb it's simple, l can do it just eyeballing your rear wheels. At best, only the 2/3 of the contact patch (the actual patch of rubber that makes good contact with the ground) is getting some real weight on it. The inner 2/3 portion is carrying most of the weight and effectively generating grip. It is not necessarily a bad thing when you compromise/compensate with that much static camber but the tire's angle when loaded in a turn dynamically has to warrant it. 

Let's use the front as an example, when you take a turn the positive camber angle resulting from body roll and the geometry calls for static compensation to make things close to optimal when turning. It's still compromising straight line and braking ability but it is on the turning axle. In the rear, running that much static camber is ludicrous. Based on the geometry on our cars your front wheels should be looking like your rears and the rears like the fronts. You are only using a fraction of the grip available to you and I don't want to sound like I'm preaching but your rear sidewalls are f***ed as well, the stretch on them basically makes air the only thing giving you side load rigidity.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Krissrock said:


> ok Marcus,
> so what is your opinion on the sitution? could the cupping have been caused by the shocks or the -1.8* and no toe of the rear?


 Too many variables and not enough data for me to actually assess what the real cause is. You could have worned/aging components contributing to the issue. Yes the camber was and is still too much but your toe was in check. I would inspect all the joints in the rear if I were you, you could have something like your trailing arms bushings, hub bushing or excessive movement in your lateral link joints. Inspect everything and fix the alignment and your should be good.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> your rear sidewalls are f***ed as well, the stretch on them basically makes air the only thing giving you side load rigidity.


 Them's fighting words around here, performance be damned!


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> running that much static camber is ludicrous. Based on the geometry on our cars your front wheels should be looking like your rears and the rears like the fronts. You are only using a fraction of the grip available to you and I don't want to sound like I'm preaching but your rear sidewalls are f***ed as well, the stretch on them basically makes air the only thing giving you side load rigidity.


 Meh, I've been running that much camber for as long as I've owned the car. Never any problems, no weird cupping or wearing issues or handling issues. It's a TT, not a racecar and I don't drive like an ******* on the streets or track it so you really don't notice the difference.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Neb said:


> Meh, I've been running that much camber for as long as I've owned the car. Never any problems, no weird cupping or wearing issues or handling issues. It's a TT, not a racecar and I don't drive like an ******* on the streets or track it so you really don't notice the difference.


 I understand all that and there is a probably a big portion of the community that, just like you, would not notice a difference if you bolted 4 donut spares on their cars as long as it fulfilled the aesthetic standards of the moment. 

I know it's a TT and not racecar, even with my own car, where the emphasis is put on function and performance (I'll admit it looks like sh** compared to yours)... but IMO using your case to make a general statement of what happens is misleading. Everyone else (besides you) that daily drives (not race like me) with 3 degrees of static camber in the back will experience accelerated tire wear and poor handling. That is a more appropriate generalization of what happens but again acceptable handling seem to subjective around here.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Neb said:


> Meh, I've been running that much camber for as long as I've owned the car. Never any problems, no weird cupping or wearing issues


 And don't you change wheels and tires like every few weeks too?


----------



## mikegtimx (Apr 5, 2011)

i do have rear little camber, it look fine for me but thats my daily drive, so my rear tires are crying, i´ve been told in the aligment shops that the rear wheels can not get align the same way as the front wheels, IS THAT TRUE??????? wtf wich options do i have ??


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

... is there anyone else out there that has experienced cupping in the rear?


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

mikegtimx said:


> i do have rear little camber, it look fine for me but thats my daily drive, so my rear tires are crying, i´ve been told in the aligment shops that the rear wheels can not get align the same way as the front wheels, IS THAT TRUE??????? wtf wich options do i have ??


 When u get an alingmnet, ask them to bring the camber down some. This may only be possible if you have the right equipment (adjustable arms, kmac, etc)


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Krissrock said:


> ... is there anyone else out there that has experienced cupping in the rear?


 I have... the camber and inability to set toe back to specs due to some minimal drop (about 1") did it for me. It wasn't excessive but enough to be noticed visually and through feel (there was some huming at highway speed also).


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

so returning toe to spec helped? 
thought your car was set up for racing? 

well, i got the wheels back on but the cupped area is not on the outside. I'll be riding on the smooth area of the tire so the vibration should be reduced at least. I'll report tomorrow if that was the culprit of the vibration


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

I was having issues with my rear tires for a bit due to bad toe alignment. 

I thought I was cupping but turns out it was only slight feathering. Preceded to get things checked out. First off, 3 of the 4 wheels were unbalanced. One of the rear wheels was also off by 2.5oz :screwy: 

moved to the alignment. Not quite sure how it got to this, but last place I got my alignment done (where ever the collision place took it after the rear got hit) decided that it was a good idea to max out rear toe? We took a look at it and it was sitting at -.21 out. :what: Alignment in general was rather screwy, but the rears were the most off. 










We tried our hardest to set a more aggressive rear toe (.15) but couldnt even get a dead even 0.0 in the rear, so for now its where its at. In any case, Ive been driving for about 3 weeks and the vibrations are nearly gone (I drive *a lot*) 

Hopefully you got yours figured out, cause man was it annoying as poop!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Krissrock said:


> ... is there anyone else out there that has experienced cupping in the rear?


 Yes, on stock suspension and aligned, with -3.1/-2.8 in the rear I chewed up a set of tires pretty quickly even rotating them on time. Added a pair of MadMax adj. arms in the lower rear position, aligned it to -1.2* on both sides, and the wear problems stopped. Your rear camber is too high, like Marcus and I have already told you.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Krissrock said:


> so returning toe to spec helped?
> thought your car was set up for racing?


 Yes it did! The toe really was a byproduct of the camber for me, so fixing it allowed to bring back acceptable toe settings via the OEM trailing arms slotted holes. 

The car is set for racing before events, but I do another alignment after, to drive in the streets (sometimes twice a weekend but only the aggressive front camber and some front toe out is dialed back and forth). Another thing to keep in mind is that although I'm racing and the rear of the car naturally toes in under compression, I'm not dumb enough to go more aggressive than 1/32" of toe-in. The speed stability that some toe in offers is confidence inspiring and allows me to push the car much harder.


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I know it's a TT and not racecar, even with my own car, where the emphasis is put on function and performance (I'll admit it looks like sh** compared to yours)... *but IMO using your case to make a general statement of what happens is misleading.* Everyone else (besides you) that daily drives (not race like me) with 3 degrees of static camber in the back will experience accelerated tire wear and poor handling. That is a more appropriate generalization of what happens but again acceptable handling seem to subjective around here.


 But aren't you using the same generalization statement as your car is set up for racing? I'd like to think I'm not the only one on this forum that runs a bit of camber with stretched tires. How many people are on bags these days anyways... 

Also maybe our definition of 'poor handling' is completely different. You, being that you do actually race (which is awesome btw) your TT, handing has to be one of the most important things when you're on the track. If something isn't dead on perfect you'll feel it right? The same thing can't be said for driving on the street IMO. You're not doing high speed driving and tight corning on a daily driving basis (aside from the occasional on-ramp or round about). But even then, compared to stock, or previous cars, my handling is still far better than what it was. Poor compared to a car set up for racing? Probably. But noticeable to the average person daily driving a car lowered on coilovers? I doubt it.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Neb said:


> But aren't you using the same generalization statement as your car is set up for racing?
> 
> But even then, compared to stock, or previous cars, my handling is still far better than what it was. Poor compared to a car set up for racing? Probably. But noticeable to the average person daily driving a car lowered on coilovers? I doubt it.


 He just said in another thread, that the rear suspension settings he doesn't change between race alignment and street alignment, so no he's not making a generalization there. 

And this is just like the age old argument about the front control arms being parallel to the ground. Just because it "feels" better because the spring rates are up and you sit lower and it reacts differently to turning, that doesn't make it "better" than stock. It may be what you're after, but without quantifying it in terms of cornering speeds, you (not you specifically) just don't know other than what your ass is telling your brain about how it "feels." 

Like I just posted about, -3.1/-2.8* killed my tires while they were on the rear, with toe zeroed out. This was a 235/40 on a 7.5" wheel, so not stretched. Installed Max's arms, realigned to -1.2*, and the wear stopped. It is what it is. The fact that you are stretched, and do change wheels and tires pretty often (I don't know how many miles you drive), leads me to believed that you're not after performance anyways, so if your tires don't wear oddly, then more power to you.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Neb said:


> But aren't you using the same generalization statement as your car is set up for racing? I'd like to think I'm not the only one on this forum that runs a bit of camber with stretched tires. How many people are on bags these days anyways...


 Some valid points Neb, especially about what's perceived as good handling. One big glitch in the logic, my car was strictly a daily commuter for the longest (actually was my wife's car and daily driver before I decided to open the hood one day). I drove the car everyday for for 2+ years with street alignment, so I know what the possibilities are. Find me a few other cases that had no problem with that much camber and toe and you may start generalizing... but I can, just from this thread alone, give you 4 concrete examples including me that had issues as a result of it (Krissrock, TempesTT, 20vmaster and myself would be the norm and your case the outlier).


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

20v master said:


> It may be what you're after, but without quantifying it in terms of cornering speeds, you (not you specifically) just don't know other than what your ass is telling your brain about how it "feels."
> The fact that you are stretched, and do change wheels and tires pretty often (I don't know how many miles you drive), leads me to believed that you're not after performance anyways, so if your tires don't wear oddly, then more power to you.


 Well the last set of wheels I had for 1.5 seasons and they had no uneven wear on them (or my winter tires for that matter) so I think the changing tires point it moot. I easily had 10,000 miles on those last wheels, plenty to determine uneven wear. 

And no, I'm not after performance either, so my setup is geared towards looks over 'performance'.


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Find me a few other cases that had no problem with that much camber and toe and you may start generalizing... but I can, just from this thread alone, give you 4 concrete examples including me that had issues as a result of it (Krissrock, TempesTT, 20vmaster and myself would be the norm and your case the outlier).


 Everyone on vortex that's on airbags? There has to be at least half a dozen people, and that's just on here. There's lots on the TT forum (UK based) that have camber/stretch/bags and I haven't heard about weird cupping or wear issues. For sure you'll have more wear than normal, I'm certainly not trying to dispute that. But I don't believe you'll get the cupping style of wear because of camber and that's what I'm trying to get at. I would put my money on a bad alignment over running a few degrees of camber.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Neb said:


> Everyone on vortex that's on airbags? There has to be at least half a dozen people, and that's just on here. There's lots on the TT forum (UK based) that have camber/stretch/bags and I haven't heard about weird cupping or wear issues.


 And maybe those people with their "dynamic" suspension know to live with wear, and don't report it on every forum. After all, "style" has it's costs too.  You're just wanting to argue over cupping vs feathering vs uneven wear. It's all wear, and shouldn't happen on a car that you don't want to change tires on prematurely.


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

So what's your point though? The OP said he was getting really bad cupping, then alignment came up with excessive camber wear. I was just saying I've never had that weird cupping with my alignment and ride height. Then the handling discussion came up and here we are.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Neb said:


> So what's your point though? I was just saying I've never had that weird cupping with my alignment and ride height.


 You have no cupping here. 



Neb said:


> Meh, I've been running that much camber for as long as I've owned the car. Never any problems, no weird cupping or wearing issues or handling issues.


 You have no cupping or wear issues here. 



Neb said:


> I've got -3 camber in the rear and have no wear issues...


 Again, you have no wear issues. 




Neb said:


> Well the last set of wheels I had for 1.5 seasons and they had no uneven wear on them.


 Again, you have no wear issues. 



Neb said:


> There's lots on the TT forum (UK based) that have camber/stretch/bags and I haven't heard about weird cupping or wear issues. For sure you'll have more wear than normal, I'm certainly not trying to dispute that. But I don't believe you'll get the cupping style of wear because of camber and that's what I'm trying to get at. I would put my money on a bad alignment over running a few degrees of camber.


 Then here, you say that with -3* camber you'll have more wear than normal, but then clarify that you won't get cupping, just uneven wear, and point to bad toe/alignment as causing cupping. 

So which is it, you won't get uneven wear, or you will get uneven wear but no cupping if your camber is at -3* but your toe is out? The point is that without adjustable arms, even on stock suspension if it's sagged and giving excessive camber, you can't get toe and camber right to not have uneven wear, regardless if it's cupping or feathering or just wearing the inside of the tire. The whole point is to avoid uneven tire wear FOR ME and most others I'd assume. For air bag riders with stretch and/or stagger that don't care about wearing half the tire out, enjoy your -3* that does nothing to benefit handling.


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

20v master said:


> So which is it, you won't get uneven wear, or you will get uneven wear but no cupping if your camber is at -3* but your toe is out? The point is that without adjustable arms, even on stock suspension if it's sagged and giving excessive camber, you can't get toe and camber right to not have uneven wear, regardless if it's cupping or feathering or just wearing the inside of the tire. The whole point is to avoid uneven tire wear FOR ME and most others I'd assume. For air bag riders with stretch and/or stagger that don't care about wearing half the tire out, enjoy your -3* that does nothing to benefit handling.


 If you want to be a dink then no matter what your setting you have you'll get uneven wear. Show me a worn down tire where the entire tread wears down the same  That better for you? 

I was just stating my personal experience with my own setup. Maybe I should just start all my replies with 'in my personal experience' but I'd like to assume people get that part already. I find my handling has improved over stock even though I have camber. I don't have uneven tire wear that's visible to the eye or any cupping. I have good alignment shops that I go to that know how to align adjustable tie bars. There, that's all my info and my opinion, take it or leave it.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Neb said:


> If you want to be a dink then no matter what your setting you have you'll get uneven wear. Show me a worn down tire where the entire tread wears down the same.


 I don't know what a dink is, but you obviously think I'm just arguing to argue. I have definitely worn down full sets of tires evenly all the way across the tread, so you pretty much lost credibility there. As Max said, if you have even wear with -3* in the rear, then you're the outlier. Lucky you.


----------



## mikegtimx (Apr 5, 2011)

Krissrock said:


> When u get an alingmnet, ask them to bring the camber down some. This may only be possible if you have the right equipment (adjustable arms, kmac, etc)


 i have stock suspenssion, no rear control arms etc, but i have little camber... twist a little bit the axle? is the only option i have i think huh


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

well,...the vibration was slightly less with the tires swapped. 
I wish I had a whole nother set of tires i could use, but i think my stockers have a slight bit of cupping as well... 
I'm not really sure why running less camber would cause an issue that's not existant in the stock setup which calls for me...I'm not sayign tha you guys that are calling the camber the culprit are incorrect however... 
I can believe that running less toe than the car is designed for could be an issue... 
but i think i'd be even more inclined to believe that there is some hardware that needs replacing. I've never replaced any bushings or anything in the rear, and I sure don't know what i'm looking for..


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

There's not really anything to change other than the wheel bearing and the bushings/rose joints where the control/lateral arms bolt to the hub. The bushing in the front of the trailing arm could be bad I suppose, but I've never heard anyone on here even mention that one. Paging Max! :laugh:


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

ok. so i've decided to replace the front bearings based on some research. Word is that if you get a symptom like mine, a vibration when only turning a certain direction that completely dissappears when you turn the other direction...that it's usually a bearing. 

the DIY's i've found, everyone has replaced the hub as well. it semes to be easier since the bearing will be stuck in it usually. However, the hub assembly for the 6spd is at least $175 
is this about right? $175?


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

It's very easy to change just the bearing and not replace the hub.


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

anything else I should look to change while doing this (besides brakes)?


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

20v master said:


> It's very easy to change just the bearing and not replace the hub.


This. You just need to press them in and out.


----------



## J Patterson (Apr 11, 2009)

That can still be tires. I have a tire plug in one of my fronts that I can hear ---feel at 25--35 mph.
It gets louder and softer as I veer left and right. I have moved the tire from side to side to verify.

FWIW your alignment posted at the beginning of the thread looks about perfect. I run more camber front and rear and set toe to zero ( I have adjustable rear control arms and front strut bushings) because of tracking my car, but for street only I would run near what you have.


----------



## M this 2! (Feb 8, 2012)

i've been running -1.5 all around for years. for the street, -1.5 is aggressive for the front and the inner shoulder gets abit more wear. in the rear, that camber wears the tire completely flat. that gives a good, good amount of front grip and lets the rear rotate at will. again you will get great tire wear as long as your components are in proper condition.

...i'm only bummed that after this many years i've never been able to have more front camber for the track as i do not have adjustable plates. would love to see what the TT feels like with -3 up front.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

M this 2! said:


> would love to see what the TT feels like with -3 up front.


It feels a lot better but not as good as -3.6 degres of front camber added to an extra 2.8 degrees of caster


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

J Patterson said:


> That can still be tires. I have a tire plug in one of my fronts that I can hear ---feel at 25--35 mph.
> It gets louder and softer as I veer left and right. I have moved the tire from side to side to verify.


interesting....i do have a plug in one of my rear tires too...I've been meaning to swap out the rears with a different set so that I can confirm that its not coming form the rear. but i feel the vibrations through the pedal and steering wheels so well, that I was sure it's coming from the front...


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

well swapped out the wheels that had the one plug in it... 
amazingly, the vibration is less BUT still there, and also still goes away completely with the wheel to the right. 

my bearings have shipped so i guess i'll see what happens this weekend.


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

looks like i found it... 






 


turns out to be the passenger side


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

For people who have replaced bearings before.... 

should there be any movement at the hub at all ? I've now put in new bearings and pressed in the hub as well...and on the drivers side with the rotor on...i can still wiggle the rotor/hub a lil!  
The axle nut still isn't on, but I would expect that i should not be able to wiggle the hub/rotor at all! 

Will the axel nut be the final piece to tighten it all up? or am I looking at a messed up knuckle?


----------



## trixx (Dec 23, 2002)

Krissrock said:


> For people who have replaced bearings before....
> 
> should there be any movement at the hub at all ? I've now put in new bearings and pressed in the hub as well...and on the drivers side with the rotor on...i can still wiggle the rotor/hub a lil!
> The axle nut still isn't on, but I would expect that i should not be able to wiggle the hub/rotor at all!
> ...


get that axle nut in a check... the axle nut presses everything together and should tighten it all up :thumbup:


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

ok...doing that tonight.


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

ok...I impacted the axle nut on, then had the brakes applied and breaker bar'd the nut another 180 degrees...All is nice n tight. 

I actually drove the car into work today and I noticed that i don't get the "clunk" sound when turning the wheel for the first time in the morning....and NO VIBRATION  sweet

however, my steering wheels is off now by a noticeable 10 degrees or so...making an appointment for an alignment today.


----------

