Wheel alignment at the dealership results
 

Got it done at the dealership after installing new tires. What do you think of the readings? They said rear camber couldn't be brought to BMW specs coz the vehicle is lowered. I'd installed H&R lowering springs (front with rear leveling kit) several years ago.

Looks pretty great except for the rear camber.

You might want to look at the situation and solution I showed in
https://xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-forums/...djustment.html

First is to take a look and see if maybe the shoulders that the eccentric bolts+washers push against may be mashed as mine were in the photos.

Second is that there is a point at which the eccentrics will push against the shoulders, and no more (surely that's where you are now). And then beyond that there is some adjustment that can be achieved by pulling things into place and then locking it down with the adjusting bolt. In particular, look at the last photo and explanation in post #6 there to see the "extra" adjustment that may be available.

So even if your eccentrics and shoulders are looking good, there may be further adjustment possible, without resorting to adjustable control arms, etc. From memory, and probably true within a factor of 2, it only takes about 1mm of motion at the adjustment bolt to get about a degree of camber change.

Amazing insights, thanks! I'll take a peek ...

The more important thing is toe and they are very well done. A little less in the rear to avoid the infamous inner edge wear a little more in front to keep down the tramlining and weeble-wobble on top of crown.

When I DIY my alignment I aim for 0.15° toe all the way around. 0.15*60=9' or almost exactly what you have. FYI; atan (1/16 / 24)= 8.95' or 0.149° so I use a 1/16 " spacer on the front of string tight around the wheels. I adjust the toe until the string is as straight as possible. I actually usually pad the 1/16 up to 3/32 to make it easier to do visually and that matches almost perfectly the high end of BMW spec.

It's worked well for me: no abnormal tire wear and I can set toe after any suspension change that matters without making appointment or the expense of the pro shop.

Front camber is factory pinned and only has a comically small amount of adjustment if you pull the pin.

The front camber changes by a LOT every time you steer so as long as the pinned value doesn't appear to be modified by a crash no need to worry.

The rear camber of 2° is within spec, mine is over that but I have worn ball joints soon to be replaced. You are over spec but with the toe set properly I doubt you will get any strange wear as long as the ball joints are all tight.

They make camber bolts for the front end, I wonder if somebody makes similar for the rear for e53, that you can swap for the eccentric head bolts to get more adjustment than stock without having to resort to replacement arms.

Thank you Andrew, I appreciate your insights! Would raising the rear ride height improve the camber adjustability? Years ago I'd installed H&R 29378-1 that comes with adjustable level sensor linkage in the rear axle. As is now, the vehicle drives amazing after the alignment at BMW Seattle.

I wouldn't worry about the 20% extra camber, it's actually more than likely improving your handling. The negative camber purpose is to load the suspension to deal with the massive side loading during cornering. You can rest assured the negative camber is zero during hard turns. The fronts work the same way. Look at a Mercedes when the wheel is turned full, the wheels must be leaning 5° or more. BMW do the same. The fronts negative camber only kicks in when steering but since the back don't steer they are preset to negative.

Change out control arm #6 in the diagram, 33326774796 guiding suspension link. The bushing deflects inward over time and causes
excessive negative camber.

EDIT I was looking at my suspension today, #6 is the toe arm, my mistake. It should be #11, wishbones 33326770859/60.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...rJYcQ&usqp=CAU

I lowered mine 2" and they couldn't get camber into spec. I installed adjustable camber control arms and they were able to get the camber into spec. Unfortunately, they aren't able to get the toe into spec. So, I purchased a set of Megan Racing adjustable toe control arms. I'll be installing this weekend and then it's back to the alignment shop. I started with the camber arms hoping I wouldn't need the toe arms. If you drop it far enough, you'll need both.

Inspected the vehicle and took a spirited drive through sharp bends and the vehicle handles amazing. The rear axle camber alignment shoulders look ok and the eccentric bolt + washers are within them. The camber doesn't look bad either after further observation from a distance. Rear suspension is pretty much new - I did an entire suspension overhaul a couple of years ago including the bushings of part # 15 (using a shop press), except for the subframe bushings.

I'll call it a day and enjoy the vehicle. Thanks for all the feedback - great learnings there!

I recommend bushing kit for the rear.

As long as your tire wear is not a problem, I'd say you have nothing to worry about, but if you want to think more about the alignment ...

---------

Nice pics! They look a whole lot nicer than what I found in my car, posted in the link above. Those are from the nut side, so hopefully the bolt side (forward side of the swing arm) look equally good.

The first thing I notice is that the third pic (left side) is not adjusted to its full travel. At full adjustment, you'd have the center of the bolt pushed a little further to the right, and the eccentric washer would be symmetric top to bottom. So that means just by adjusting that bolt you could reduce your left camber a little.

But why didn't they do that? Well the printout shows -2*38' left and -2*55' right (2.63* and 2.92* vs. the 1.83* spec). So maybe since the right side was out, they did not want to fully correct the left side since it would create too much of a cross-camber between left and right.

And BTW, cross-camber is one of the few things in an alignment you'd actually notice from the driver's seat - the car would pull to one side. When my car had its ball joints, etc. issues it still drove perfectly. Tight, straight, etc. My only issue that I noticed was tire wear, and I think that situation (suspension / alignment issues / accelerated tire wear, yet it drives great) is common with these cars.

But when I looked again at the printout, I see that the "before" rear camber numbers were closer to spec than the "after" ones. So the alignment process made camber worse. I know the guide links back there were adjusted to correct rear toe, but the effect of those on camber is pretty minimal, so ???

Also, I see the right side one has a flattened bottom, as if the car was once jacked from that point, but not a problem.

In general, as I think I mentioned in that other thread I linked, deciphering things now as you are doing is a tougher problem than doing it yourself since you need to try to figure out the why and what was done by the pros.

I have a Klein Tools 935DAG digital angle gauge

https://www.kleintools.com/catalog/l...auge-and-level

that gives very repeatable measurements (sub 0.1 degree), and can be easily calibrated. A straight edge (I used an 18" bubble level) laid vertically against the rim edges with the DAG on it gives a very accurate camber measurement. Your top pic shown in the parking structure looks like you have a flat place to park. You could measure the slope of the floor, correct that out, and quickly do some measurements to confirm what's going on. But that's just what I'd do ...

Thanks for the heads-up about the camber being closer to spec before the alignment. I didn't notice that until now. I'll call them on Monday.