But surely the “Mazda specs” will be ranges of values for each parameter, and therefore really not useful.
For the NC I’m pretty sure they are as follows:-
Camber F -1.50 to -3.50; R -1.00 to -3.00
Caster F 6.00 to 8.00 degs
Toe F -0.38’ to +0.22’; R -0.05’ to +0.05’ (NB these are expressed in “minutes” - 60’ in a deg and 1 deg generally translates to around 8mm depending on wheel diameter)
From experience, using the middle of each of those ranges will work quite nicely, and be a “safe” setup to cover most standards of driver.
My last MX5 was a 1.8 NC1.
I have glanced at the set up figures for my NC 1 and think the set up for my NC differed significantly from your NC.
Different different CC’S, heights, wheel size, suspension parts etc probably come into play.
Also he NC developed through the years 2005- 2015. (NC1 to NC2 and all sorts of special editions)
That may explain differences in set your NC set up to mine.
Thought it would be as simple as someone having the figures from Mazda for my 2016 ND 1 1.5 soft top. Seems way more complicated than that.
One thing we have found out is the ND is NOT an NC…
I’m not prepared to give you numbers to wort to as every car is different hence why I do not give out a printout.
Each car must be done to its own merits to get the best results…
Taking into consideration tyres, useage, milage used & type of roads etc etc
But as I said above ND is not an NC!
One of the main reasons I have won so many races in an ND is because my fellow competitors who came from NC’s was setting them in the same way as their old race cars…I however looked outside the box so to speak and have now actively given them the answers to help them catch me lol
1 Like
Yes, I understand that the ND is not a developed NC, but has been re designed from the wheels up.
My understanding (or misunderstanding) of Alignment machines is that they have a database of car manufacturers cars and alignment data for their car car models.
I “dreamt” that the MX5 the database on the machine used to check my alignment just stated “MX5 16” wheel" and “MX5 17 wheel”.
The operator then chose one (“MX6 16” wheel").
As you say the ND is not an NC so if the ND 16" wheel on the database relates to the NC setting then settings and limits could and would differ to my ND .
My “dream” was backed up by the fact that the Machine used for the alignment check on my ND stated the Front Caster should be 6 degrees 4 arc minutes and that relates to my 2007 NC1 rather than the 8 degrees for my current ND.
In the event the alignment check on my car showed a Caster of 7 degrees 48 arc minutes and came up red (out of limits) rather than green (within limits). It would have been green for an 8 degree setting.
All other parameters were in the green, although the rear toe on each rear wheel was on the negative limits.
Maybe I’m just a dreamer but I certainly am not a racer and not trying to catch up with anyone.
I’m just a dreamer who thinks he is getting a good drive, and wants to experience a safe drive with the best he can get out of this great car.
This is what has set me on the path to get the manufacturers settings for my ND1 16" wheels before I venture back for adjustments to the alignment.
1 Like
One problem here is you are relying on a machine…
I very recently sent back a £10k machine telling the supplier where to stick it!!!
This was because we do a lot of wheel alignment on ambulances and the spec in the machine was for a Fiat boxer that was empty, how the hell can I remove the equipment out of an ambulance…and if I did that wouldn’t be a true representation of what I’m doing.
The manufacturer wanted to alter the spec in the machine to allow it to show ‘green’
This is where a good operator will out perform a good machine any day… with ambulances we take into consideration
High speed.
Understeer when pushing hard.
Braking from high speed etc… where as tyre wear only plays a small part as that is a consumable.
So to re cap…please find yourself a ‘good’ man rather than asking a machine for an answer
Mainly aimed at Rodders - I appreciate that you do this kind of stuff for a living you are also very experienced (and successful) on track. But I think you’d have to agree that the settings I suggested in post 21 above would work perfectly well for a road going NC or ND - and that’s what really important for the vast majority of people, and is the context of this thread.
For the track, as you know very well, it’s a whole new ball game and settings are tailored to the specifics of the car (ie often modified) and to driver preferences.
By the way, I agree 100% about the “good man” rather than machine or method used. We generally have ours done with string, although may then check/validate on a fancy machine.
plip1953
The way I set a ‘road going’ ND is not the same as a NC
Plip1953
Your first post gave some figures that seem different from your second post.
Your first Post had FRONT CAMBER at -2 degrees , the second post seems to be -2.5 degrees (down the middle)
Your first Post had REAR CAMBER at -1.5 degrees , the second post seems to be -2.0 degrees (down the middle)
Your first Post had FRONT TOE parallel, the second post seems to be toe out @ -0.08’ (down the middle)
Your first Post had REAR TOE 2mm (0.17’) , the second post seems to be parallel(down the middle).
The only thing I can say about finding a good man is that I originally got my man from this forum.
In my recent attempts to get alignment figures from a local Mazda Dealer I was asked if I had tried this forum for figures and believe it or not they also referred me to the very man I used and intend to use for adjustments. Got to place my trust somewhere.
Pretty sure these are for the 2.0 but they are supposed to be factory specs
Glug69
These are the same spec as provided by ian.prosser earlier in the topic.
I have been taking these specs to be for the 1.5ND & the 2.0ND since 16" and 17" wheels are referred to. (top right of the rear wheel spec sheet). But there again the Spec is from a USA source where there are no 1.5ND’s
It is very frustrating that I cannot get a definitive reference to my 1.5ND.
Joining the Owners Club would solve nothing since there appears to be no download for ND Alignment Spec anyway.
Makes me wish I did’t have one. Really fed up with this and seriously thinking of getting rid.
I think you might be over thinking it then, can’t believe you would want to get rid of the car because you are having doubts about whether the specs are for the 1.5 or 2.0, if it says for 16" wheels as well as 17" why not just use them , it’s hardly going to be miles out if you are using the correct ride height to get the settings, and unless you are chasing hundredths of a second on lap times , you are not going to notice a difference.
1 Like
I have to agree with G above.
An expert, and I do mean expert has said ‘Something is SERIOUSLY amiss!’ if your quoted figures are correct.
You have been given the factory specifications and others have told you what there set up is. (for your purposes the different wheel size is irrelevant)
It is time for you to make a judgement using the vast amount of information that has been given to you or pay an expert to set the car up to your specific requirements.
Sorry if my post appears a little terse, lots of people have tried to help and guide you but you are still requesting more.
If the car drives in a way that you are happy with and the tyre wear is even why not just enjoy it and save yourself a lot of heart ache, just a thought.
3 Likes
Fair enough, but you didn’t actually answer my question…
Yes, they are a bit different, but I simply said that setting them in the middle of the range would give a nice “safe” setup. And that is true.
What you need to try to appreciate is that, say, a difference in front camber setting of either -1.5, -2.0 or -2.5 probably wouldn’t be noticed by 95% of drivers. A bit of front toe out rather than parallel might be picked up some drivers by as making the car a bit more “pointy”, and is how I prefer my road cars, but novice drivers would be better off with parallel or even a mm or two of toe in.
So don’t get too hung up about a fraction of a degree here or there of a mm of toe one way or the other. But do make sure you know what’s been put on the car, drive it for a while, and see how it feels (to you) and then you might want to consider a few small changes next time it’s aligned.
Thing is, far as I can see Mazda have provided us with every MX5 Alignment Specification from the 1998 NA up to the NC Mk3.5 2009-2014. I have them all, but nothing for my 1.5ND
It seems the USA have been provided with the ND alignment Spec for their 2.0ND.
I have nothing against them USA, but where is the EU, UK , Australia spec for the Mx5 ND’s to include the 1.5 ND with its 16" wheels.
Why is there a discussion here?
Why are we and our technicians left to choose & discuss what should work for the domestic road driver? ( I accept that “racers” are a breed above, and they know what they are about)
As far as I can see our alignment machines may only graced with data up to the MX5 NC Mk3.5 2009-2015, why?
Why, Why, Why.
Near enough and every thing should be OK is not good enough Mazda.
No mistake my Jack Russel icon is there for a reason as I worry on this bone of contention.
That’s the end of my rant.
Why do you think the 1.5 with 16" wheels will be any different to the specs you have been provided with? You said yourself that they include 16" and 17" wheels on the specs provided, presumably the ride height difference will be the crucial factor in deciding which of the numbers to use.
Indeed the ND spec does mention the 16" wheel on the rear alignment table , but on that table only.
I would be more assured by separate tables for 16" and 17" wheels as were done in the past with the NA, NB & NC
I have all the alignment specs provided for MX5’s from 1998 to 2014.
For all Specs provided from 1998 to 2014 the 16" and 17" heights bands differ as do the 16" and 17" alignment specification within those bands.
It is possible they may not differ for the ND, but fact is they have in the past and I am reluctant to assume they don’t now, even allowing for that isolated mention on the Rear wheel table…
You could say there may be little difference, but the fact is if there is a difference why make one at all if it doesn’t matter.
Why is near enough and everything will be alright OK.
What size tyres do you have on the 16" wheels? If the overall diameter of the factory 16" wheel and tyre combo is the same as the 17" combo, then maybe the numbers will be the same, other than that what do you think is going to be the big difference between a 1.5 car and a 2.0? The weights are going to be different, but I would imagine that will be compensated for by the ride height table, the track width could be different, but without knowing the offset of 16"/17" wheels that isn’t a given, up thread you said the car handled fine with the settings you have, which appear to be off spec, I still don’t think that if you are finding the car OK at the moment, the difference between the specs is going to be a problem, if there are actually any discrepancies.
Also, having just looked at the chart, the difference between 16" rims and 17" rims is .1 of a mm pretty sure that is not going to make any difference to street driving.