The rear toe for a Fiesta Mk8? I need to measure mine. It is on a set of 17" wheels with well treaded Goodyears and after the 16" Michelins on my last one, grip, ride and roadholding are very much poorer.

Well it won't be adjustable as its a solid beam axle,  you will have to go to a garage that has a 4 wheel aligner to check.

Unless something is bent like a stub axle there's not alot you can do .

Obviously get your springs, shocks, checked and the rear axle bushes!

No, There is actually plenty that can be done. I have both lasers and the power of trigonometry and what I want to do is check. The thrust angle is what I wish to know and once that is verified, I can decide what to do about it.

If the beam is bent it will be changed under warranty but I want to know for sure whether or not it is. Four wheel measurement is very easy to do. It only requires patience and simple tools.

An accurate hardpoint on each side of the body to the stub axle centreline is a good start. Seat bolts usually penetrate the floorpan symmetrically so measure diagonally and the hypotenuse so formed gives axle location.

Rear toe  if symmetrical proves thrust angle is zero. Easy way to do this is to park in a multi storey and use the RVC and its lines to view laser spots facing backwards from the rear wheels. Once the back is proven straight the front can be aligned. The mark eight needs no toe so the beams target at 17.5mm out from the rear wheel rim.

Its sounds like you already have all the knowledge you need, good luck.

Apart from the factory toe figure. Modern beam axles toe in for passive rear steer.

Are the tyre pressures correct?

Checked with a gauge calibrated to National Standards using a Druck calibrator last Friday. Next cal due 2028.

21 minutes ago, anon said:

Checked with a gauge calibrated to National Standards using a Druck calibrator last Friday. Next cal due 2028.

You could've just kicked them, to be fair

I do that to check the gauge calibration. 

I did come across this (non-UK) site  once:

https://otobasic.com/diy-periodic-maintenance/ford-fiesta-wheel-alignment-specification-data/

Thanks Eric. that's what I want. The rear axle is square to within 1/16 of an inch to the swage on the door aperture, 34 9/16" on one side 34 5/8" the other, so I am happy with the thrust angle but the rear toe in is right on the limit and I need to laser it from left to right to make sure that it is equal as I have a bit of leading edge wear on the outside of a rear tyre which I cannot yet explain. Meanwhile, a set of 16" wheels is on order.

Tyres may have been rotated?

 I don't think so Ken. One has a later date code on the rear wheel that was damaged and I am fairly sure that there has been new paint on that sill, hence my suspicion. Current crude measurement suggests the axle is near the toe in limit but inside it so I think it may be tyre age. Front toe hasn't yet been checked but I think that the root of my dissatisfaction is probably due to the 17" wheels and 205/ 45 section  tyres which absolutely ruin the compliance of the chassis. I have a deep, deep dislike of over tyred cars and unsuitably short sidewalls, whatever Ford might fit as a "Style pack". I am looking forward to collecting the sixteens next week.

The 17" wheel should have a 205/40 tyre, should it not.  Your 205/45 will have a slightly taller sidewall, which is probably still not ideal for what you like.

Personally, I prefer tyres that have stiffer sidewall.  I don't like driving cars with big side walled tyres, they feel very wallowy.

It very much depends what the chassis is used for. My F needs a stiff sidewall but the Fiesta is an all purpose car; shopping and long journeys are the main jobs. The Fiesta chasis is calibrated  to work better with certain wheel and tyre combinations, usually those at the cheaper end where most sales will be so it just has better balance (to me,) with 195/55/16s, being much more supple on  the daily poor roads and having a flickability that you don't get with stiffer tyres which to me turn it into a blunt instrument rather than a scalpel.

Your taste is reflected in your WRX, a very different sort of fast car to my old T900s which had an engine forward of the front wheels and needed (paradoxically) a soft sidewall and carefully chosen assymetrical camber settings to get the best out of them on tarmac so that they would dig in rather than slide in quick left-right transitions. The tyre bills were enormous!  (They lasted better than gearboxes though. With 300 BHP, they were always pretty marginal, being based on  that of a Triumph 1300.  I fired a CO2 extinguisher through the intercooler when running on Avgas one night to crank the power up. We never found half of the casing.)

The benchmark in my youth was the Elan which is still one of the most nimble  cars ever made on 155 HR13s which seems remarkable for a sixty year old  design with 180 BHP/ton. Like the Fiesta it has exceptional ride quality and suppleness. Speaking from blissful experience, they don't feel wallowy to me in the slightest!

12 hours ago, anon said:

The benchmark in my youth was the Elan

Superb to drive but unfortunately a deathtrap in a side impact due to the use of a backbone chassis with no outriggers. Just the fibreglass door between you and whatever is trying to kill you by squishing you against the chassis. Looking back I shudder at the ignorance of youth when driving one enthusiastically. I wouldn't go to the shops in one of those now.

Which is why we have a generation of tank drivers with Gucci handbags, cars that are too big for our streets and huge congestion. Elans were nimble enough to keep themselves out of trouble in the main and were little more of a death trap than a Mini.

Admittedly this is from the standpoint of somebody who flies a 150KG wood and fabric aeroplane!

43 minutes ago, anon said:

Which is why we have a generation of tank drivers with Gucci handbags, cars that are too big for our streets and huge congestion. Elans were nimble enough to keep themselves out of trouble in the main and were little more of a death trap than a Mini.

The world's philosophy unfortunately seems to have changed in our lifetime  from teaching you take responsibility for your own actions, to assuming you are a complete idiot and thus insisting you have maximum protection from the results of your own and others stupidity. As you say, the point of cars like the Elan and Mini was that primary safety was quite high in the sense that you were able to avoid getting into trouble in the first place.

43 minutes ago, anon said:

Admittedly this is from the standpoint of somebody who flies a 150KG wood and fabric aeroplane!

I'm beginning to suspect that you may be Biggles!😀

No Eric. (But I have flown or flown in a couple of the types in the books.)

I just noticed that this is my post number 633! Owzat for a coincidence!

5 minutes ago, anon said:

just noticed that this is my post number 633! Owzat for a coincidence!

My Mrs likes the music, I like the Mossies! Shame about the plot!

Did you know that the only aircraft on the civilian register during WW2 were a group of ten Mossies?

1 hour ago, anon said:

Did you know that the only aircraft on the civilian register during WW2 were a group of ten Mossies?

Yes, I'd read that somewhere. Nominally operated by BOAC for diplomatic courier flights to neutral Sweden, I believe?

Edit PS - going way off topic but you have reminded me I was looking for a book with a little more information on the role of the night fighter variant in support of Bomber Command i.e hunting Luftwaffe night fighters over occupied Europe. Have you come across anything?

21 hours ago, mickywrx said:

The 17" wheel should have a 205/40 tyre, should it not.  Your 205/45 will have a slightly taller sidewall, which is probably still not ideal for what you like.

Personally, I prefer tyres that have stiffer sidewall.  I don't like driving cars with big side walled tyres, they feel very wallowy.

The Mk7.5 had 205/40 17, but the Mk8 comes with 205/45 17 as standard. The 18inch wheels have 204/40s to keep the outside diameter the same. I'm not sure what tyres 16 inch wheels have, possibly 195/50s? 

Sidewall stiffness also depends on the tyre used. Not sure how the Goodyears compare to PS4s or other tyres, but I know ones like Uniroyal Rainsports are notorious of having very soft ones.

They've stopped putting the wheel/tyre details on the price list since the options were mostly dropped, but it was quite complicated:

Trend - 195/45x16

Titanium - 195/55x16

Tit X - 205/40x17

Active and ST-Line - 205/45x17

Active X - 205/45x18

ST-Line X and ST - 205/40 x18

Vjgnale - 205/45x17 or 205/40x18

On 1/14/2023 at 8:41 PM, anon said:

Your taste is reflected in your WRX, a very different sort of fast car to my old T900s which had an engine forward of the front wheels and needed (paradoxically) a soft sidewall and carefully chosen assymetrical camber settings to get the best out of them on tarmac so that they would dig in rather than slide in quick left-right transitions. The tyre bills were enormous!  (They lasted better than gearboxes though. With 300 BHP, they were always pretty marginal, being based on  that of a Triumph 1300.  I fired a CO2 extinguisher through the intercooler when running on Avgas one night to crank the power up. We never found half of the casing.)

Different tastes. 🙂 

Car before the Subaru was a Cav GSI.  It was on 15's when I bought it from a chap at RAF Marham.  I forget the tyre profile, but, they had big side walls.  They weren't ditch finders, but, I didn't enjoy the drive back to Tyneside.  It just didn't feel stable.

I've heard about folk using Avgas, possibly similar to methanol use these days? 😕