Alfa Romeo Giulia Forum banner
221 - 240 of 268 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Took the car out for a 45 min drive today through some B roads - granted the temp is in the 30f here and I'm on the PCorsa, the car was razor sharp, far more than before!

I would say I'm a good driver, but didn't push it to hard given the current conditions, so far very happy.

I will be attempting to increase myself on my lift next weekend and then will report back after alignment.

It never ends - in a good way!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,996 Posts
@GMS , did you have to replace the lower Cross member bolt to adjust the Rear Camber?

The picture shows what's in the workshop manual, you can see the note in brackets after the rear camber specification⁰. How did you adjust rear camber?

Font Number
Green Product Motor vehicle Automotive design Machine
 
  • Like
Reactions: exlondoner

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
@GMS , did you have to replace the lower Cross member bolt to adjust the Rear Camber?

How did you adjust rear camber?

View attachment 122230

There is no need to replace the lower wishbone to crossmember bolt. The OE bolt is an eccentric (offset bolt) although it doesn’t look that way in the pictures. Have a look under your car, you’ll see it.

Edit: here's a better picture.
Automotive lighting Motor vehicle Font Vehicle door Automotive design

Note: there's an error in the techCONNECT Content; "For the rear wheels half toe-in adjustment" should say For the rear camber adjustment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,996 Posts
There is no need to replace the lower wishbone to crossmember bolt. The OE bolt is an eccentric (offset bolt) although it doesn’t look that way in the pictures. Have a look under your car, you’ll see it.

Edit: here's a better picture.
View attachment 122235
Note: there's an error in the techCONNECT Content; "For the rear wheels half toe-in adjustment" should say For the rear camber adjustment.
Thanks for the confirmation. I remember seeing this procedure and had spotted the error, makes logical sense now. Just what MacGeek posted a long while ago, confused me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: exlondoner

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,996 Posts
@GMcA or @GMS so a question if I may, and apologies for the slight tanget. I am fitting the Stelvio fully forged 20 inch wheels and am most likely going one sidewall size up as I don't like the rubberband profile of the oem equivalent when on 20s. I am going to run 245/35/20 and 285/30/20 ( instead of 245/30/20 and 285/25/20). I am on stock 2019 springs and will be driving fast road. Do I need to run more negative camber front AND rear given the tyres are slighter larger by 1" in diameter?

Once I know how much clearance I will have upfront I will look at the GMS uniball kit and ST lowering springs with a custom made bottom spacer to lift the height by 10mm as I don't like how low the front will be for the bad roads around where I live in UK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Do I need to run more negative camber front AND rear given the tyres are slighter larger by 1" in diameter?
I'd say no, if anything a tad less toe.

To get better perspective we'll convert 1º to mm

Measured at tyre tread, 245/35R19 diameter = 654.1mm, 1º = 5.71mm; so at -1º camber the top of the tyre leans in 5.71mm from centre.

Measured at tyre tread, 245/35R20 diameter = 679.5mm, 1º = 5.93mm

So, we could say the “more” is built-in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Hate to say this but the what you may want is the Porsche. I am sure you will love the QV but if you really want a hardcore track car, the porsche is king. I'd really like one as well but I have this thing for Alfa. ;) Regardless of the future, let's hope the cars are not too mishmash but most likely will be. The thing about porsche is they get it. Only 1 time per year could there be a possibility of a 911 leaving the factory that is the same as one other. Very rare though. Makes them unique plus they can be rebuilt, they are reliable and long lasting and parts are always available. If Alfa did this it would be a whole different story, instead they removed thousands of options to make these cars more personal. Ditching the 4C was a bad idea too. Now there is just cars. Although the Qv is a 4 door supercar it's not going to be as good as a 911 on the track or even a 4C for a true track car but that said we are trying, right??

Maybe I need to get into porsche? 🤔
My daily is worth less than the 4C parts I drive in it sometimes, and it just suits me fine. I never lied the idea of having expensive DD. Too much stress leaving the car anywhere, potholes in the winter time, salty roads, etc. And you can't have a comfortable daily car with great track performance, it's one or the other...choose one. I choose shitbox as daily and sorted out track car for fun, which is street legal just about enough to get me to the track and back home. That's the current status of 4C, and I have the same idea about QV. A hardcore track focused build, more capable than GTAm.



I wrote a bit weird. By double caliper this is exactly what I meant - 1x rear brake caliper and 1x emergency brake caliper. Looks massive and heavy.

Probably a 380mm steel slotted rotors and proper brake pads is what I would do for the tracking. And of course, try to get rid of all the unnecessary weight ASAP.

By running costs, I mostly meant the wear and tear of such a powerful and heavy car. This could be improved noticeably by again - dropping the weight. I do kind of understand the lack of available motorsport parts and the price penalty for the QV though. It's a rather small market so not much interest in developing parts for these cars by big names. So if the quantities of fabricated parts are small, the pricing can't be good. Development (carbon moulds, CAD programing, welding JIG etc.) and testing (stress analyze, FEM analyze, track testing,) of 1 item costs the same as for 1000 pieces, while fabrication costs are drastically lower for large amount of pieces (CNC operation, etc.). Also proper motorsport parts are never cheap, so when you find a pair of "race" control arms, full exhaust or full carbon body kit for a few hundred $, you can be sure it's not really a "motorsport" grade (light, durable, effective). I'm not a wealthy guy by any financial means so I've had my share of cheap race parts on previous cars and it always ended the same. I had to buy proper items sooner or later and in the end it costed me even more. Over the years, we have bind together a team, business partners, know how and capabilities to fabricate decent parts. We strive for the best right from the start, as it's proven best approach when it comes to motorsport. If I can't afford a project, I come back for it later. No shortcuts! I would have done the same with QV. Step by step development, testing and improvement.



What you want is a Ferrari, the 488 Pista. The meaner version of QV engine and 300kg less with mid engined layout. That's the real deal. Too bad it costs 8x times used QV. :LOL:



Sure, the 911 GT3 series are pure example of what constant development and improvement can bring. We can probably agree that MR layout is superior to RR layout (weight distribution, rear diffusers, handling, etc.), yet the Porsche kept improving the RR layout to the max and made one of the best sport cars. The performance gap between each generation is noticeable - 996, 997, but the 991 was a game changer. Car is next level in terms of performance compared to previous versions. Had Alfa Romeo had the same approach, I'm sure that the 3rd gen of cars would be probably close to perfect. It's just that Alfa Romeo doesn't do that. They made 4C, right from scratch and the car is pretty damn good, given this is their first modern MR car, but it's a bit unfinished. They release the car, it gets bad reviews, sells bad and it's a financial failure for the company. They were so close to success but didn't pull it off. Used 4C price are appreciating a lot now and would make a great leverage for the next gen 4C. I'm sure 2nd gen 4C would sell for 20% higher MSRP easily if the car had sorted out gen 1. weaknesses and it would cost close to none to repair these. The sales revenue would be on a completely next level compared to 1st gen. They did all the hard work and boom - they quit. I don't really understand the Alfa Romeo's financial department, please forgive me.

Now, the Giulia. Brand new platform - Giorgio, again, close to perfect, but unfortunately, now abandoned. This way Alfa Romeo will never get the sports car right. Impossible. And they'll never make a revenue out of it. They'll loose the interest in sport cars probably soon, if not already. Focusing on common cars like they do now, won't bring in the money in either. The battle for market share in this segment is enormous and Alfa's reputation is not being the most affordable or the most reliable car which is pretty much what this segment is all about, so it's gonna be tough. It would be better for them to focus on sport cars and leave the common cars for Fiat and Lancia. Porsche did the same (VW and Škoda as common cars) and they have one of the highest revenue per sold car. Base Cayman is about 60k€ and fully loaded GT4 is close to 200k€, yet the actual build cost difference between these two is perhaps additional 30% to the base Cayman.That's financial's department doing their work. With such approach the generated revenue will always be able to support further development and new great sport cars. I'm sure we'll see more of supreme sport cars from Porsche, while I'm afraid the 4C and QV is the best the Alfa Romeo will gave us in their modern era. I wish I was wrong, but I'm, not so sure.
I do love the 996 GT3 and 991 GT3 however
my tiny Giulia super with GMS camber kit rules on the corner :)

 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
4,212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #234 ·
We are looking at making RUCA's too. Ruca is with the engineer right now. With ours we will allow the use of the OEM arm which is a very strong arm. I have seen the RUCA's available and the design does not work for me using a threaded end or threaded bolt to adjust. That is a huge weak point under stress plus it's a weak point in that it can come loose when you have 2,3,4 nuts to adjust. The OEM is well made and stout.

Body jewelry Automotive exterior Rectangle Jewellery Font



We are coming up with a solution to be able to adjust a bit more than what the factory adjustment range can do. We want to be able to obtain -2.5+.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
-3.00˚ Camber? Anyone?

GMS Caster/Camber Correction Kit- Alfa Romeo Giulia, QV, GTA-

PRE-ORDERING NOW. (Prototype mode- 30-60 days)

A must for all Giulia QV's even if you do not track it. better handling and better tire wear.




Caster/Camber Correction Kit- Alfa Romeo Giulia, Stelvio QV, GTA- GMS


In stock format, the Alfa Romeo Giulia is quite low on camber for serious performance driving, quickly wearing outer edge of the tires and reducing the grip during cornering. While camber can be gained up to about -2°00' by simply shimming the front lower aft control arm, the caster will be severly effected by doing so as it will increase over +8°00, interfering with the wheel liners and front coolers. Solution? GMS Caster / camber correction kit.

The kit is designed to replace soft OEM rubber bushing with eccentric uniball. Result? First, up to 2° of caster reduction while allowing up to -3°00' of camber, yet keeping the caster within OEM specified range and preventing any interference with wheel liners or front coolers. Second, OEM rubber bushing, especially on grippier tires, semislicks or slicks give lots of play and therefore dynamic alignment changes on the front axle. By replacing them with cross axis joint / uniballs you get rewarded with better feedback and steering precision while not causing any noticeable NVH increase.

This product is a "must have" upgrade for any Giulia owner with appetite for faster lap times, improved front axle feel or need for increased camber.



  • Corrected caster on cambered vehicles.
  • Up to 2° of caster reduction.
  • Up to -3°00' of camber at +6°00' of caster.
  • No wheel rubbing or interference.
  • Unmatched handling precision.
  • Unmatched handling feedback.
  • Unmatched reliability.
  • Unmatched lifespan.
  • All aluminum T6-6061 CNc machined eccentric housing.
  • 42CrMo4 CNC machined uniball housing and axis.
  • Heat treated interior cross axis.
  • PET-GL self lubricating sliding medium.
  • Rubber sealed assembly for weather proof use.
  • Maintenance free.
  • Sold as a set (2 uniballs for both front control arms).
  • Detailed alignment sheet included (street, track, race).
  • Laser engraved GMS logo.
  • Fits all Alfa Romeo Giulia, Stelvio QV / GTA / GTAm.
View attachment 113763
View attachment 113764
View attachment 113765
View attachment 113766
3 degrees will wear the inner edges of the out within 6k miles.
Not advised on a road car
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
4,212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #236 ·
3 degrees will wear the inner edges of the out within 6k miles.
Not advised on a road car
No one has advised -3.00 for street use.

If you read the description on the link at the bottom and with every kit comes instructions with alignment spec's.


*NEW: updated guidelines based on current database, that should help the future users to get the desired camber without too much of trial and error by shimming more or less.


Street (about -1°30' of negative camber on OEM 2017 springs): 1x M10 mm washer + 1x 8mm alu shim + 1x 4mm shim are to be placed between each bolt of the mounting tab of the bushing. Rest of the shims (8mm stacked) are to be placed under each bushing to chassis mounting tab. This will add minimal negative camber at front wheels.

Track (about -2°00' of negative camber on OEM 2017 springs): 1x M10 mm washer + 1x 4mm quick adjustment shim are to be placed between each bolt of the mounting tab of the bushing. Rest of the shims (16mm stacked) are to be placed under each bushing to chassis mounting tab. This will add moderate negative camber at front wheels.

Race (about -3°00' of negative camber on OEM 2017 springs) : 1x M10 mm washer is to be placed between each bolt of the mounting tab of the bushing. Rest of the shims (20mm stacked) are to be placed under each bushing to chassis mounting tab. This will add maximal negative camber at front wheels.


*Please note that the amount of negative camber gain greatly depends of the ride height of the car (springs / coilovers). Lowered cars, will have much less need of shims for the same amount of camber compared to the standard ride height cars.

*Vehicles with ST springs or similar, shall use 4mm less shims for same result. Prototype car was equipped with ST springs, therefore 16mm stack of shims was enough to get over -3°00' of negative camber. Now we've added additional 4mm of shims to the package (total stack of 20mm shims vs. initial 16mm shims) to get also users with standard springs now being able to get up to -3°00' of camber.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
No one has advised -3.00 for street use.

If you read the description on the link at the bottom and with every kit comes instructions with alignment spec's.


*NEW: updated guidelines based on current database, that should help the future users to get the desired camber without too much of trial and error by shimming more or less.


Street (about -1°30' of negative camber on OEM 2017 springs): 1x M10 mm washer + 1x 8mm alu shim + 1x 4mm shim are to be placed between each bolt of the mounting tab of the bushing. Rest of the shims (8mm stacked) are to be placed under each bushing to chassis mounting tab. This will add minimal negative camber at front wheels.

Track (about -2°00' of negative camber on OEM 2017 springs): 1x M10 mm washer + 1x 4mm quick adjustment shim are to be placed between each bolt of the mounting tab of the bushing. Rest of the shims (16mm stacked) are to be placed under each bushing to chassis mounting tab. This will add moderate negative camber at front wheels.

Race (about -3°00' of negative camber on OEM 2017 springs) : 1x M10 mm washer is to be placed between each bolt of the mounting tab of the bushing. Rest of the shims (20mm stacked) are to be placed under each bushing to chassis mounting tab. This will add maximal negative camber at front wheels.


*Please note that the amount of negative camber gain greatly depends of the ride height of the car (springs / coilovers). Lowered cars, will have much less need of shims for the same amount of camber compared to the standard ride height cars.

*Vehicles with ST springs or similar, shall use 4mm less shims for same result. Prototype car was equipped with ST springs, therefore 16mm stack of shims was enough to get over -3°00' of negative camber. Now we've added additional 4mm of shims to the package (total stack of 20mm shims vs. initial 16mm shims) to get also users with standard springs now being able to get up to -3°00' of camber.
I’m currently using -3.00 race set up however it would be less problem if you have hard compound high TW tires (such as Continental DWS06:TW560). Factory QV Pirelli asimmetrico set up is to be ended faster than -3.00 race set up with hard compound tires in terms of the running cost.

I’m very sad to say that Alfissimo adjustable FUCA cannot be installed in Japan by law if I wanna use my Giulia as a daily commuter for work :/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
I’m currently using -3.00 race set up however it would be less problem if you have hard compound high TW tires (such as Continental DWS06:TW560). Factory QV Pirelli asimmetrico set up is to be ended faster than -3.00 race set up with hard compound tires in terms of the running cost.

I’m very sad to say that Alfissimo adjustable FUCA cannot be installed in Japan by law if I wanna use my Giulia as a daily commuter for work :/
I actually have the car at the shop right now to install GMS camber kit, ST springs, rigid collar and track brake pads as I plan to run fuji speed way in a couple of weeks. Are you saying -3.00 for daily driving will wear the tires too unequally to be practical?

Thanks for clarifying... I need to tell my guy to go for 2.00 or 3.00, as he was saying 3.00 was too little for track time...
 

·
Registered
2018 Vulcano Black Giulia Quadrifoglio
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
I’m currently using -3.00 race set up however it would be less problem if you have hard compound high TW tires (such as Continental DWS06:TW560). Factory QV Pirelli asimmetrico set up is to be ended faster than -3.00 race set up with hard compound tires in terms of the running cost.

I’m very sad to say that Alfissimo adjustable FUCA cannot be installed in Japan by law if I wanna use my Giulia as a daily commuter for work :/
Why is that against the law
 

·
Registered
4C
Joined
·
75 Posts
Thanks for clarifying... I need to tell my guy to go for 2.00 or 3.00, as he was saying 3.00 was too little for track time...
Running -3°00 is a bit extreme. If you'll drive slow / cruise, then -3°00 will wear inner edges. If you'll be pushing the car all the time, then you'll be fine. It all depends of use and stiffness of the car. Soft cars need to run more negative camber to compensate for body roll, than stiff track cars have to. Either way, you'll sacrifice something. There is no universal setup that won't wear tires when you're fooling around and provide best grip when you're tracking. It goes same for the stiffness. A car's suspension that is soft and comfort will never be stiff enough for the track. I'd stay within range of -2°00 to -2°30 for a daily car. It will still make a lot of difference on the track compared to OEM setup. That's what we aim for when client with street driven car comes for a "track" alignment.
 
221 - 240 of 268 Posts
Top