Topic

In case anyone thinks that I made an error I can confirm they used two degrees toe in at the rear. The “technician” said that the equipment comes already programmed and they only select from a menu. Presumably every place using that equipment is using the wrong data which is why I am convinced that any TF owner complaining of poor or worse handling has either tracking or tyre issues.
Interestingly the place where I wanted the tracking done (they have a 3 or 4 week waiting list) told me that most places in Taunton don’t do it correctly.

MGB281 wrote:

In case anyone thinks that I made an error I can confirm they used two degrees toe in at the rear. The “technician” said that the equipment comes already programmed and they only select from a menu. Presumably every place using that equipment is using the wrong data which is why I am convinced that any TF owner complaining of poor or worse handling has either tracking or tyre issues.
Interestingly the place where I wanted the tracking done (they have a 3 or 4 week waiting list) told me that most places in Taunton don’t do it correctly.

In this day and age it doesn’t surprise me!

Thanks for various advice.
Today, local "Indy" garage had a look, and the toe-in both front and rear were some way off the MG spec. He adjusted them, so now front is exactly 0 degrees, and rear is 0 degrees and 32 minutes - pretty well exactly as per MG spec.
Have yet to try out the car at speed, but hoping that change will have a positive effect.
He tells me camber and caster are not adjustable on standard spec MG TFs - but his print-out shows that the camber angles are different for each side (true of both front and rear). Should I be concerned, or is this pretty typical on TFs, does anyone know?

Front camber and caster isn’t adjustable, due to manufacturing tolerances on old jigs not many TF’s would be exactly correct. If it’s not far out you will have to accept it. All early TF’s had adjustable rear camber but later ones didn’t. Has the wandering changed and the light steering?

Well, it seems a bit better, but nowhere as stable as it was before all the changes.
I'm assuming that it's not the change to Toyo tyres (previously Continentals), so putting it down to suspension changes with new subframes etc.
For those in the know, the toe-in (as my previous reply) is pretty well spot on now, BUT the camber figures (which I don't pretend to understand) are as follows:

Front: Left - 0 deg 44 min Right + 0 deg 27 min Spec value for both is Min - 0 deg 40 min, Max + 0 deg 20 min

Rear: Left + 0 deg 20 min Right - 0 deg 44 min Spec value for both is Min - 1 deg 44 min Max - 0 deg 44 min

So with front ones are out of range, as is left rear. But with no adjustment possible, any thoughts please? I'm just guessing it's down to the subframes?

Its behaviour is "tolerable" at speeds up to around 60, but as I say it's certainly not as stable as it used to be. Seems quite sensitive to side winds on dual carriageways - passing traffic, for example.

Any suggestions very welcome as it would be nice to restore it to its former stable self!

I would take it back and get them to get the rear camber correctly adjusted. Yours being a 2003 car has adjustable lower links, that is unless you have fitted the later fixed length ones. The adjustable links could be rusted solid which may explain why they haven’t done it though. It’s a bit of a pfaff to get it right because adjusting the camber alters the toe in so they have to adjust both simultaneously. If you set the toe then the camber the toe will be incorrect again, it’s a case of keeping making small adjustments until both are correct. Having said that I don’t think the rear camber would have such an affect on the stability of the car, I am sure that you have play some where.
A few years ago my middle son who bought a Ford Ka to flip, the seller told him that he had hit a kerb and bent the front suspension. All new parts were fitted but the car was just like you describe, the seller gave up and my son bought it with the defect. The first thing he did was to get the tracking done but there was no improvement, he had the tracking done a second time and still no improvement. Neither establishment could offer an explanation. One day he brought it over to me and I jacked the front end up and using a pry bar found one of the bushes was perished. I presume the shock of hitting the kerb was transferred from the offside to near side which caused it to fail. A new bush cured the problem, I suggest doing the same with a pry bar to see if you have any play.

Unfortunately, when replacing the rusty components, none of the suppliers had the adjustable links, and all advised fitting the later fixed ones. Looks like that may have been a bad idea with hindsight, as I have now lost the ability for the garage to make adjustments!
Just checked, and no-one has the adjustable ones, so maybe I'm stuck with that.

I managed to get adjustable ones through ebay a couple of years ago, I don't recall the seller but it wasn't a MG specialist.