OEM+ Street Alignment Recommendations for a Lowered CT5-V Blackwing?

[Elcoqui]

Anyone out there have the OEM street alignment specs for the CT5-V Blackwing?

I've been searching the forum but can't seem to find them. Most of the threads I come across are discussions comparing the street vs. track alignment or talking about how many cars leave the factory with the alignment out of spec. I did find the PDF for the track alignment, but not the standard street specs.

The reason I'm asking is that I recently installed Eibach lowering springs and I'm getting the car aligned soon. I'd like to see the factory street specs so I can have the shop make a few minor tweaks, something a little more aggressive than stock, but nowhere near the track setup since I don't track the car. I think I remember reading that the factory front camber is around -1.5°, and I've seen a few people recommend around -2.0° for spirited street driving, but I'm not sure if that's accurate.

The car is mainly my daily driver, but a couple of times a year I take it on spirited mountain drives like Tail of the Dragon, Back of the Dragon, and next month I'll be heading to Blood Mountain in Georgia.

Just to clarify, I'm not looking for the track alignment. I actually like how the car handles with the factory street setup. My goal is simply to see if there's a little room for improvement now that the car is lowered, something that gives a bit more front-end bite or sharper turn-in without sacrificing ride quality, straight-line stability, or tire life. If the consensus is that the OEM street specs are already the best compromise, then I'm perfectly happy going that route.

 

[ellteefour]

The attachment in this post shows the ranges the poster's alignment shop's computer was referencing, so it suggests if you went -1.8 all around you'd still be within the "street" spec. Total toe can affect inner edge wear more than camber. Trending towards zero will reduce wear/improve response but with an inverse relationship with dartiness/tramlining on less than perfect road surfaces, like rain grooves, expansion joints, etc.

 

[Champale]

In my experience, running -2.0 F and -1.5 R camber with essentially zero toe has not made the car darty as one might think. I think the long wheelbase contributes to that. I've done over 15k miles at that spec with no issues. I did replace the tires at about 10k because for some odd reason the rear tires were nearly bald (couldn't possibly have been from doing stupid stuff with traction control off, right??). The fronts were about 2/3 worn down and pretty evenly worn across the tread.

 

[ellteefour]

I did replace the tires at about 10k because for some odd reason the rear tires were nearly bald (couldn't possibly have been from doing stupid stuff with traction control off, right??).

Riiight

 

[Elcoqui]

The attachment in this post shows the ranges the poster's alignment shop's computer was referencing, so it suggests if you went -1.8 all around you'd still be within the "street" spec. Total toe can affect inner edge wear more than camber. Trending towards zero will reduce wear/improve response but with an inverse relationship with dartiness/tramlining on less than perfect road surfaces, like rain grooves, expansion joints, etc.

Thanks, Merlette. I came across that post too. I think if I can end up somewhere in the -1.7 to -1.8 range up front, that would be the sweet spot for the way I use the car. I also agree with your point about toe. I'd rather keep it close to the factory street setting than chase zero toe since this is primarily my daily driver.

 

[Elcoqui]

In my experience, running -2.0 F and -1.5 R camber with essentially zero toe has not made the car darty as one might think. I think the long wheelbase contributes to that. I've done over 15k miles at that spec with no issues. I did replace the tires at about 10k because for some odd reason the rear tires were nearly bald (couldn't possibly have been from doing stupid stuff with traction control off, right??). The fronts were about 2/3 worn down and pretty evenly worn across the tread.

Thanks for the feedback. That's good to know, especially since you've put over 15k miles on that setup. If I can get around -1.7 to -1.8 up front, I think that would be a nice middle ground for the way I use the car. I'll probably leave the toe close to the factory street setup (around +0.10 to +0.16 total) based on the alignment sheets and information I've come across. I'm hoping that gives me a little more front-end bite without giving up the stability and tire life that I like about the stock setup.

 

[Elcoqui]

Quick update: I got the alignment done yesterday. There was a misunderstanding because the shop was supposed to call me before making any adjustments so we could discuss the specs I wanted. Instead, the tech aligned it to the factory specs that the alignment machine pulled from the door sticker.

The good news is the shop said I can bring it back and they'll adjust it if I want. Right now the front camber is -1.0° on both sides. Ideally, I was thinking about having them increase it to around -1.5° for a little more front-end bite.

Based on how I use the car (mostly daily driving with a few mountain trips each year), am I really leaving much on the table by staying at -1.0°, or is the difference between -1.0° and -1.5° pretty minor for street driving?

For those of you who have experimented with different alignments, would you leave it alone or go back and have it adjusted?

 

[Apex Eater]

I don’t think you’re necessarily leaving anything on the table, but at the end of the day you paid and didn’t get what you wanted. If it were me and most of the miles are daily driven, I would go back to get the -1.5* camber and have them get that total front toe closer to +0.10 - 0.00, other than that, it all looks good and just a matter of preference.

 

[Kawman]

In my experience, running -2.0 F and -1.5 R camber with essentially zero toe has not made the car darty as one might think. I think the long wheelbase contributes to that. I've done over 15k miles at that spec with no issues. The fronts were about 2/3 worn down and pretty evenly worn across the tread.

I'm glad to see other's talking about zero toe. I asked for .12" total toe out in front, but when I picked it up it was at .12" total toe in. When I asked, he said he figured I misspoke by requesting toe out. He said I wouldn't like it, as the car would be darty. We ended up going with .06" total toe out.

I do sometimes feel a little something like wandering, but I don't find it to be bothersome on the street. Granted most of my miles now are on the track.

 

[Kawman]

Right now the front camber is -1.0° on both sides. Ideally, I was thinking about having them increase it to around -1.5° for a little more front-end bite.

Based on how I use the car (mostly daily driving with a few mountain trips each year), am I really leaving much on the table by staying at -1.0°, or is the difference between -1.0° and -1.5° pretty minor for street driving?

For those of you who have experimented with different alignments, would you leave it alone or go back and have it adjusted?

I would definitely go back to have it redone. IMHO, your front camber is low. Your front toe is way high. Your rear camber is way high.

For a street alignment with just a little tweaking I'd recommend something like -1.5 front camber and -1.0 rear camber. The front should have more camber than the back and yours are reversed. The rear total toe of .13 is fine, but can't we get it a little better balanced, like say .06 and .07 for the total of .13? At .22 that front toe is excessive and will wear out your inside edges without even given you the benefit of better handling. Drop that to at least .12 total toe in. Really I would go closer to zero toe, but maybe that's too much of me in the recommendation. But notice that others have mentioned it as well.

And so much for all those single use bolts. LOL Funny how the dealers won't touch the alignment without replacing all the single use bolts, but regular alignment shops will use them again and again and again.

 

[Champale]

I'm glad to see other's talking about zero toe. I asked for .12" total toe out in front, but when I picked it up it was at .12" total toe in. When I asked, he said he figured I misspoke by requesting toe out. He said I wouldn't like it, as the car would be darty. We ended up going with .06" total toe out.

I do sometimes feel a little something like wandering, but I don't find it to be bothersome on the street. Granted most of my miles now are on the track.

And your car is a 4BW so it's a little more sensitive than the 5 in my experience. I also used to own a 4BW and ran the full track alignment on the street but it was never what I could call twitchy or had a tendency to tramline (although my tolerance is pretty high considering cars that I own/have owned which definitely could be considered twitchy with racy alignments - GT350R, multiple Mitsubishi Evos, Evora 400, Type R, etc).

 

[Elcoqui]

I don’t think you’re necessarily leaving anything on the table, but at the end of the day you paid and didn’t get what you wanted. If it were me and most of the miles are daily driven, I would go back to get the -1.5* camber and have them get that total front toe closer to +0.10 - 0.00, other than that, it all looks good and just a matter of preference.

Thanks for the feedback. Bringing the total front toe down a bit should make the steering feel a little more responsive.

 

[Elcoqui]

Thanks for the feedback. I definitely agree with adding more negative camber up front. I'm just curious about the rear camber recommendation. Do you think Cadillac designed these cars with more negative rear camber mainly for stability and predictable handling? Just wondering if reducing it to -1.0 gives up any straight-line stability or rear-end confidence on the street.

I would definitely go back to have it redone. IMHO, your front camber is low. Your front toe is way high. Your rear camber is way high.

For a street alignment with just a little tweaking I'd recommend something like -1.5 front camber and -1.0 rear camber. The front should have more camber than the back and yours are reversed. The rear total toe of .13 is fine, but can't we get it a little better balanced, like say .06 and .07 for the total of .13? At .22 that front toe is excessive and will wear out your inside edges without even given you the benefit of better handling. Drop that to at least .12 total toe in. Really I would go closer to zero toe, but maybe that's too much of me in the recommendation. But notice that others have mentioned it as well.

And so much for all those single use bolts. LOL Funny how the dealers won't touch the alignment without replacing all the single use bolts, but regular alignment shops will use them again and again and again.

 

[Kawman]

I'm just curious about the rear camber recommendation. Do you think Cadillac designed these cars with more negative rear camber mainly for stability and predictable handling? Just wondering if reducing it to -1.0 gives up any straight-line stability or rear-end confidence on the street.

Camber is for cornering. I'm at -3.7 and -2.7, but I'm setup for the track.

Dragsters run with zero camber. If you are launching and feeling something funny/loose in the rear, you might try a lock-out kit for your cradle bushings. I've gone to solid aluminum cradle bushings. The lock-out kit is an easier install and much easier to undo.