250
K. Shubham et al.
Table 2 Test vehicle specifications
Vehicle parameter
Specification
Body
SUV, Monocoque
Engine
Four-cylinder diesel 2 L transversal engine, 114 kW, 360 Nm, 4-point
engine mounting system
Steering
Hydraulic rack and pinion steering gear
Drive and transmission FWD, 6 Speed—manual
Suspension (front/rear) MacPherson Strut/Multi-link
Tires
R18/R17, tire pressure 32 psi
Table 3 Test vehicle wheel alignment specifications
Angle
Wheel side
Specification
Wheel side
Specification
Camber
Front LH
−0° 30 to 0° 30
Rear LH
0° to 1°
Front RH
−0° 30 to 0° 30
Rear RH
0° to 1°
Toe-in
Rear LH
0° to 0° 10
Front LH
0° to 0° 10
Rear RH
0° to 0° 10
Front RH
0° to 0° 10
To check the effect of the wheel alignment on the vehicle pulling phenomenon,
camber and toe angle values set for those sample vehicles are plotted as shown in
Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. In all figures, the horizontal lines represent the acceptable
range of variation.
It is evident from Figs. 2 and 3 that for all the vehicles front LH and RH camber
angle, respectively, though on the negative side but all the values are within the
specifications as described in Table 3.
Fig. 2 Front LH camber
angle distribution
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
LH Camber Angle
Sample Vehicles
Fig. 3 Front RH camber
angle distribution
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
RH Camber Angle
Sample Vehicles