# Did I get Taken? **URL:** \ **Category:** Maintenance/Repairs\ **Tags:** alignment, accord, wheels, honda\ **Created:** [July 9, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/did-i-get-taken/51519 "2010-07-09T01:42:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lgagne](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/lgagne/32/1904_2.png) [@lgagne](https://community.cartalk.com/u/lgagne)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/did-i-get-taken/51519/1 "2010-07-09T01:42:56Z")
Went for a tire rotation on my 2000 Accord and was told that the left front and rear were wearing unevenly and I should get an alignment. When I got the computer printout the Before Measurements were: Camber Caster Toe LFront -.3 3.1 .04 RFront .5 2.4 -.01 LRear -.6 .15 RRear -.6 -.01 Total Toe Front: .03 Steer Ahead: .02 Total Toe Rear: .15 Thrust Angle: .08 and the After numbers are: Camber Caster Toe LFront -.3 3.1 .00 RFront .5 2.4 -.00 LRear -.6 .16 RRear -.6 .05 Total Toe Front: .00 Steer Ahead: .00 Total Toe Rear: .21 Thrust Angle: .06 So, can anyone tell me if any work needed to be done in the first place and If the work they did was any good? Thanks for any help you can give me! ---
**Author:** ![meaneyedcatz](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/meaneyedcatz/32/692_2.png) [@meaneyedcatz](https://community.cartalk.com/u/meaneyedcatz)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/did-i-get-taken/51519/2 "2010-07-09T02:22:19Z")
Don’t know. What is missing are the tolerance’s of what the specs should be. That means a number range that a spec could fall into. example, +.15 to -.15. anything in that range is ok. ---
**Author:** ![waterboy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/waterboy/32/764_2.png) [@waterboy](https://community.cartalk.com/u/waterboy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/did-i-get-taken/51519/3 "2010-07-09T02:34:23Z")
Tires wearing unevenly alignment needed. EOM ---
**Author:** ![cigroller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@cigroller](https://community.cartalk.com/u/cigroller)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 4:01am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/did-i-get-taken/51519/4 "2010-07-09T04:01:57Z")
I don’t know enough about alignments to comment, but I thought that I would clarify how I read the question - basically the “before” specs and the “after” specs differ very very little. So the question is - what the heck did they even do to correct an alignment problem, if any? If the original specs weren’t good enough, then how could the new ones be? That, at least, is how I read the question. ---
**Author:** ![ok4450](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ok4450](https://community.cartalk.com/u/ok4450)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 6:40am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/did-i-get-taken/51519/5 "2010-07-09T06:40:12Z")
How were the tires in question wearing? Was the LF tire wearing on the inside edge and both rears wearing on the inside edges? The negative camber on 3 of 4 wheels catches my eye with the RF being one orphan with positive camber. This is why I asked if the tires are wearing on the insided edges. Just skimming over the before and after specs I don’t see that much of anything changed other than setting the toe to dead ahead (very quick and easy) and there is really not even enough difference there to matter that much. Caster can be pretty much left out at this point. ---
**Author:** ![andrew\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@andrew\_j](https://community.cartalk.com/u/andrew_j)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/did-i-get-taken/51519/6 "2010-07-09T16:47:45Z")
You did not get taken as you accepted the proposal work. ---
**Author:** ![the\_same\_mountainbike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@the\_same\_mountainbike](https://community.cartalk.com/u/the_same_mountainbike)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/did-i-get-taken/51519/7 "2010-07-09T17:00:24Z")
IMHO since the tires were wearing unevenly an alignment is prudent and appropiate. I do not think you got taken. Even of the uneven wear included signs of a possible worn component, a good alignment includes a look-see for chassis wear on articulated components. You did not get taken IMHO. They did the prudent thing. ---
**Author:** ![oblivion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3ab097/32.png) [@oblivion](https://community.cartalk.com/u/oblivion)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 4:15pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/did-i-get-taken/51519/8 "2010-07-10T16:15:41Z")
An alignment seems reasonable if they weren’t lying to you about the tires wearing unevenly, but they sure didn’t adjust it much. A few thousandths… a good bump in the road would probably do that! So I don’t think your car really needed an alignment, but if your tires were wearing unevenly, it was reasonable to do one.