I cant believe I‘m asking this, but what the heck. My wife just wrecked her 2002 Suzuki XL-7 (someone hit her on the driver front). Her camber was very negative, I automatically notice and knew to replace the strut due it being bent. Replaced that in less then 20 minutes, but there is still a slight negative in camber. I had the SUV jacked up and did the left and right tire shake and the up and down tire shake. Up and down had no free play but the left and right had a very slight free play. But the tie rods have nothing to deal with camber. The SUV has no upper control arm, so the only opponent left that I could imagine effecting camber is the axle at this point, am I right or wrong?
The rule difference does no longer take end result till subsequent week except for a rear equipment difference. Next week is whilst the automobiles that ran up entrance all 12 months will begin to battle and the groups that labored with what's going to be authorized like Greg Biffle's crew mainly, will begin to exel. Look for Biffle to win many races this 12 months with the brand new rule difference.
No. It does have an upper control arm - the strut its self. There should be no movement if the tire is grabbed at the top and bottom and push in and out. It probably will move if you grab the front and back and push in/out and that is fine. The other component you didn't mention. The lower control arm. It may be bent. Some light reading: THE MACPHERSON STRUT Earle MacPherson confronted both of these limitations when designing the Cadet in the mid-forties. The Cadet's track width was only about 48 inches (122 cm) -- fully a foot (30 cm) narrower than the track width of a contemporary full-size Chevrolet -- which didn't leave a lot of space for suspension components. Furthermore, the ambitious price target meant that the cost had to be reduced as much as possible. Beam axles would have been easier, but they would not have provided acceptable ride or handling, particularly considering the Cadet's low sprung mass. MacPherson's strategy was essentially to simplify the unequal-length control arm layout. The Cadet's suspension retained the lower control arm, which was actually formed by a relatively narrow transverse arm and a skinny, diagonal radius rod. Instead of an upper control arm, however, the wheel spindle was mounted on a vertical strut, mounted rigidly to the body. The strut incorporated a tubular shock absorber, and it served both as the upper control arm and as the axis around which the front wheels were steered. The coil spring was mounted over the upper part of the strut, near where it attached to the body; this saved space, and allowed the lower control arm to be thinner, since it didn't have to handle the loads generated by the springs.
