Slant Six Forum
https://slantsix.org/forum/

Was I too hard on the guy?
https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45597		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  krytellan [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Was I too hard on the guy?
Big backstory here. To sum it up:
Got the wagon. After a few months got new tires. Had an inspection done... needed to replace idler arm and did. Took it for an alignment. This all happened ending 4/26/11.

Ever since then, driver front tire always seemed a bit cockeyed, with the bottom of the tire tilted in toward the car a bit... like this (/) from the front. Because the whole wheel and alignment thing was such a freakin' ordeal, I just sucked it up.

Now... 9 weeks later. Took a good look at side tire and have significant wear and feathering on outer 1/2" of tire. Since it had been only 3.5k miles that I had all of the tires I took it back to the alignment shop and told them I wanted it good.

They gave me every excuse manageable as to why it might be that way, basically blaming the car for the problem. Shocks, age, suspension, whatever. I told them I'm not here to talk about shocks, but for alignment. They have no problem giving me a $1000 estimate when I took another car in for an alignment, so if something was wrong with my suspension when I came in for an alignment, they would have told me so, and I said that to them. The point I was really trying to hammer home to them was that it was only 9 weeks ago I had the alignment and in order to see such significant wear, it had to have nearly left the shop that way...

They weren't listening.

They finally agree to take a look at it because they realized I wasn't going away. Looked at the specs and the toe was off on both wheels. The explanation was that the toe was, "... only off 0.05... not a big deal." However, since the "acceptable" range in its entirety was only .05, I countered with "...it sounds like a big deal to me." The toe was .20 and acceptable range was .10-.15. So... they made the adjustments to my satisfaction.

They spent the next 15 minutes pulling and yanking on my suspension trying to find things to blame.

Was I too hard on these guys for insisting they make this all good or was this really just a matter of an old car being old?

Is an out-of-toe of 0.05 really just no big deal or is it as big of a deal as it seems it would be to me?

I don't know alignment, otherwise I'd do it myself. But, I do expect a certain level of competence when paying someone $80 to align my wheels.
Author:  slantzilla [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Toe being off will make the tires wear and make the car dart and wander. However, the bottom of the tire being in has nothing to do with toe, that is a camber issue.
Author:  Reed [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
No, you weren't too hard on them. In fact, after they admitted to you that they were comfortable giving you a car that they knew they had adjusted .05 out of specifications, you were nice to not demand a refund and take your business somewhere else. Seriously, if they are willing to charge customers to "fix" cars like that, do you really trust them to do anything correctly?

Admittedly, the front suspensions used on F bodies are tricky to adjust due to the design. The front suspension on post 78 Dodge vans is similar- the upper control arm mounts to a bar that slides around two bolts that are used to lock in the camber and caster. A few years back I had the front end aligned on my brother's 83 Dodge van. I was lucky enough to find a local shop that had an old-timer on staff who actually used to work at a Dodge dealer back in the 80s. He was happy to do the work and spent two days adjusting the front right tire so it was just right. He even came in early on the second day to get the job done correctly and didn't charge extra. I recommend you search until you find a shop like that one.

It isn't being hard on a business to demand that they do the job they claim they can do correctly. Would you accept them telling you "We didn't replace the brake hose because it was just a really small crack" after the hose had failed causing a car accident and you had paid them to replace the brake hoses the week prior?
Author:  krytellan [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
OK, good. I tend to get a little worked up nowadays because I have had it with people not giving a fat rat's a$$ about the job they do anymore. I know I sound like an old fogey, but I'm only 38... sad to be jaded so early ;)

It would have taken 33% of the time today to just do an alignment right and send me on my way rather than hym and haw and drag feet trying to find ways to get rid of me. AND, in the end, they basically ended up doing a full alignment anyway. I told my wife that what I am most pissed about is that they basically forced me to act like a complete bastard to them because they wouldn't stop making creative excuses long enough to listen to me.

*sigh* I'm getting angry again...

It's times like this that I'm glad I'm capable of doing 75% of the work needed on my old F body. I simply cannot engage with "professionals" who have no clue/don't care anymore. Now, to find a way to never have to deal with a building contractor ever again...

Sorry, rant ending.
Author:  Reed [ Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
And you didn't even demand that they reimburse you for the unnecessary tire wear that their poor adjustment caused.
Author:  dakight [ Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Your first mistake was ignoting a problem that you spotted early. Had the correction been made then there would have been no excess tire wear and you wouldn't have been dragged all over the lot over a toe misalignemnt when the more serious problem was incorrect camber.

The shop is clearly in the wrong for not making the adjustment correctly, but you share in the blame for the excess tire wear because you noted a potential problem but chose to ignore it at the time.
Author:  wjajr [ Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:06 am ]
Post subject: 
I suspect this is a great example of a shop, when one calls inquiring about aligning an A Body, is told; “oh yea, come on down, we do old Corvettes and Mustangs all the time.â€￾

This is the first big red flag, the guy has no clue that Chrysler utilizes a torsion bar suspension, not a double wish bone with coils and or transverse springs, and that all one needs to make it work is a bucket of shims.

I also suspect that the height of the chassis was not first set correctly on your car before any angular adjustments were made. If the chassis ride height is not correct, no amount of frigging around will produce a good alignment.

I always take the FSM with me to the alignment shop, hopefully the technician can, and is willing to read a few short paragraphs on the subject if needed.

I also converted all my lug bolts to right-hander’s, this eliminated one point of confusion & expense when a shop is removing a wheel.
Author:  vynn3 [ Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I also suspect that the height of the chassis was not first set correctly on your car before any angular adjustments were made. If the chassis ride height is not correct, no amount of frigging around will produce a good alignment.
So you contend that a lowered A-body can't be aligned properly? IMHO, Darts at "correct" ride height in front look hideous...
Author:  Reed [ Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
I also suspect that the height of the chassis was not first set correctly on your car before any angular adjustments were made. If the chassis ride height is not correct, no amount of frigging around will produce a good alignment.
So you contend that a lowered A-body can't be aligned properly? IMHO, Darts at "correct" ride height in front look hideous...
They may look hideous in your opinion at the correct ride height, but they handle better at the correct ride height. The correct way to lower the front end of an A-body is not by releasing tension on the torsion bars, but by installing dropped spindles or different control arms.
Author:  vynn3 [ Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I also suspect that the height of the chassis was not first set correctly on your car before any angular adjustments were made. If the chassis ride height is not correct, no amount of frigging around will produce a good alignment.
So you contend that a lowered A-body can't be aligned properly? IMHO, Darts at "correct" ride height in front look hideous...
They may look hideous in your opinion at the correct ride height, but they handle better at the correct ride height. The correct way to lower the front end of an A-body is not by releasing tension on the torsion bars, but by installing dropped spindles or different control arms.
Tubular UCA's, yes, but nice, thick 1" torsion bars and really good shocks (NOT KYB's) handle and ride WAY better than stock with the front lowered 2" or so. (Dropped spindles aren't an option with KH disks.) Looks good, rides good, handles good, and tires wear evenly. Works for me, but to each his own...
Author:  Reed [ Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
I was assuming leaving the torsion bars stock. Fatter bars can probably be played with more than stock bars.
Author:  nuttyprof [ Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Toe being off will make the tires wear and make the car dart and wander. However, the bottom of the tire being in has nothing to do with toe, that is a camber issue.
They sent it out "out of spec" without telling you? They are liable for any damages caused by there negligence! You took it to them in good faith, they did not do the job you paid them for. I took a pickup in for an alignment and was told a laundry list of things to fix first, that was professional. If they could not meet specs, they should have told you and told you why! They should pay to have it done at a different shop!
Author:  wjajr [ Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:44 am ]
Post subject: 
vynn3 wrote:
Quote:
wjajr wrote:
Quote:
I also suspect that the height of the chassis was not first set correctly on your car before any angular adjustments were made. If the chassis ride height is not correct, no amount of frigging around will produce a good alignment.
So you contend that a lowered A-body can't be aligned properly? IMHO, Darts at "correct" ride height in front look hideous...
Reed:
Quote:
They may look hideous in your opinion at the correct ride height, but they handle better at the correct ride height. The correct way to lower the front end of an A-body is not by releasing tension on the torsion bars, but by installing dropped spindles or different control arms.
That is right Reed.

Correct ride height allows for full movement of all front end suspension parts. If front end is lowered by cranking down height, the car will be hitting off of the bump stops at times to all the time. This will cause control problems when driving at speed encountering uneven pavement. Once suspension is bottomed out, unable to adsorb the vertical motion, control & ride comfort is compromised. Additionally, when lower control arm is not allowed full motion, its bushing & structure is excessively stressed, and possible fender damage can occur from tire contacting wheel well opening.

The biggest problem is that these McPherson strut front end jockeys don’t understand that each side of the car have to be +/- 1/8 inch in height difference. If both sides of the car’s ride height are not within the allowable tolerances, that car can not accept a good alignment, it will not handle well, it can squeal & scuff during full stop turns, and be harder to steer.

The first time I got my car aligned, it came back with one side higher by six turns of the torsion bar adjustment bolt. How did I know this? Because I set the ride height before dropping the car off, and had recorded as additional information, the elevation of front & rear ends of both rocker panels which were all within a 1/8 of an inch of each other. When it came back the height deferential of rocker panels was an inch, and suspension measurements showed over a half inch difference between left & right. The car drove like crap, power steering howled with protest nearing its stop when parking.

If you’re A Body looks dorky when at its correct ride height, check the sag of the rear springs. Perhaps they need replacing. These cars were built to look level to a bit higher in the front, unlike today’s low front, high rear deck raked look.

Today’s cars don’t have the chassis lower in font, but use styling to create a look of a lowered front end. Stand back and observe the difference of design between cars of the long low linier look of the 60’s-70’s, and mid to late 2000’s. The new stuff’s rake is all in the sheet metal lines of a high rear deck, sloping hood, and plastic air dams.
Author:  ESP47 [ Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
Toe being off will make the tires wear and make the car dart and wander. However, the bottom of the tire being in has nothing to do with toe, that is a camber issue.
They sent it out "out of spec" without telling you? They are liable for any damages caused by there negligence! You took it to them in good faith, they did not do the job you paid them for. I took a pickup in for an alignment and was told a laundry list of things to fix first, that was professional. If they could not meet specs, they should have told you and told you why! They should pay to have it done at a different shop!
Yeah but in the real world its his fault for waiting over 2 months to go back there. To them and the BAR, thats enough time for the car to fall back out of alignment for whatever reason. If you would have taken it back immediately then you would have a good case. Now its just kinda in limbo because it took so long for you to take it back there.
Author:  gtaw [ Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:00 am ]
Post subject: 
In the real world people don't do pre-trip inspections on their daily drivers and rely on mechanics.

If they do this to somebody who obviously knows how to change their blinker fluid then what's to stop them from doing it to somebody who knows nothing about automobiles and their intricacies? If Grandma doesn't notice half her tires going bald within a month or two does that mean it's her fault?

I know that's a hypothetical scenario, but come on...A telephone call costs next to nothing.

Just my coppers
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC-07:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/