We Drive On The RIGHT In This Country . .

So why are there so many complaints from drivers about their vehicles pulling to the LEFT - towards the highest road crown?

Case in point: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=973135

My personal experience: Over time, 3 of the last 4 cars I've driven also developed a pull to the left - that is, the car wants to go to the left, across oncoming traffic, even though the steering wheel centers fairly close to 12 o'clock. NOT a toe issue, mind you, which usually causes a lopsided steering wheel, but an actually tendency to veer to one side or another.

My Theory: Do mfgs of both domestic and foreign models simply over compensate for road-crown combined with RH driving style here in the U.S.?

Wouldn't common sense dictate that over time vehicles would gradually develop a pull to the RIGHT? At least I'd feel safe knowing that if my attention were taken for a moment from the task of driving that I wouldn't look up face to face with oncoming traffic - or at least, the median that divides freeways.

I think perhaps, next time my car realllllly needs a wheel alignment, I'll go up and tell the tech: "When you're done aligning my car, make sure it pulls a little to the right. And none of that 1/2degree less caster or camber on the left side crap either! I want them to MATCH, side to side." They will no doubt think I'm cuckoo - but - after they finish, my car will probably track STRAIGHT! :grinno: :lol2: :grinyes:

BTW Mods/Administrators: Please fix the tagging function! Apparently, "pull to the left", and "Wheel alignment" are less than 3 characters in length, and thus "too short"! :banghead:

Yeah, so your cars are socialist.... :)

Apparently, my cars are fascist. Virtually all of my vehicles tracking problems over the years have resulted in a pull to the right.

I have wondered if its because the right side of the secondary roads I drive on are occasionally more rough than the left side, or if its related to the accumulated impacts of turning right into driveways, parking lots etc.

Yeah, so your cars are socialist.... :)

Apparently, my cars are fascist. Virtually all of my vehicles tracking problems over the years have resulted in a pull to the right.

I have wondered if its because the right side of the secondary roads I drive on are occasionally more rough than the left side, or if its related to the accumulated impacts of turning right into driveways, parking lots etc.

Any political undertones in this thread are not of my origination! ;) My Title simply suggests that cars should pull toward the side a country drives on. But in all seriousness, it does frustrate me. Just as in Great Britain or any other country that drives on the left, cars should naturally roll off in that direction, as opposed to pulling towards oncoming traffic.

The last car I owned that developed over time a mild pull to the right was my 1981 Buick Century. On a heavily crowned road, I'd have to have that "Buick" logo pointing at between 10 and 11'o'clock to keep the car from the sidewalk. And it didn't shoot off to the right - it slowly arced in that direction, just as my current Kia and my last - a 05 Chevy Malibu - do, but to their left.

If you have ever visited a coastal vacation destination - such as the Jersey shore, the roads are noticeably crowned there for the frequent runoffs from rain and coastal flooding.

Here in Connecticut, you wouldn't notice the crown unless you lay your head down so that your eyes are flush with the curb. My feeling is that mfgs align their vehicles to compensate for an "average" road crown nationwide - overcompensating for CT, where 1 inch of rain per week flabbergasts most folks around here, but just right for Wildwood or Atlantic City, where a cloudburst may drop 2-3 inches in about an hour.

To engineer a car that NEVER pulls regardless of degree of crown would not feel natural - and would require gyros and other technology usually used to stabilize military fighter jets in flight. The very fact that a car pulls away from crown over distance is part of its "connectivity" to the road. You know by that feel that you are driving fully on the correct side of the road, especially in darkness when lighting may not always be adequate. Again, I don't mean "shooting off" to one side. I.E. You are doing 40 down a suburban two-lane. You let go of the wheel and start counting. One-one thousand, two-one thousand, three...etc. The car shouldn't start to pull until about 3-5 seconds after letting go of the wheel at that speed. That is normal, and describes a car that is directionally stable with a normal one-hand driving style.

In the Kia and the Chevy, the pull to the left is just as mild, but I do occasionally receive a few hi-beam flicks from oncoming drivers to remind me of just who's side I'm intruding on.

To engineer a car that NEVER pulls regardless of degree of crown would not feel natural - and would require gyros and other technology usually used to stabilize military fighter jets in flight.
.

Not necessarily. The GM MagnaSteer system uses electromagnets to artificially increase the self-centering tendency as speed increases. At highway speed there is some self-correction for wandering and pulling built into the system.

Then there are the Chryslers from the 1960's and early 70's with power steering. Some of these cars have such over-powered steering that NOTHING gets through. It's like the steering wheel has a radio hook-up to the front wheels like an old video game. If those things had alignment problems, you wouldn't know.

None of the cars you mention are well-known for handling. When one drives a really good handling and good steering car, the intuitive steering feel one gets is remarkable. In such cases, you wouldn't want any additional mechanism to correct any steering problems because they may affect road feel.

Based on past experience, I am convinced that bad or mushy handling is deliberatly built-in to many cars, especially American ones.... where good road feel has been specifically minimized.

Not necessarily. The GM MagnaSteer system uses electromagnets to artificially increase the self-centering tendency as speed increases. At highway speed there is some self-correction for wandering and pulling built into the system.

Then there are the Chryslers from the 1960's and early 70's with power steering. Some of these cars have such over-powered steering that NOTHING gets through. It's like the steering wheel has a radio hook-up to the front wheels like an old video game. If those things had alignment problems, you wouldn't know.

None of the cars you mention are well-known for handling. When one drives a really good handling and good steering car, the intuitive steering feel one gets is remarkable. In such cases, you wouldn't want any additional mechanism to correct any steering problems because they may affect road feel.

Based on past experience, I am convinced that bad or mushy handling is deliberatly built-in to many cars, especially American ones.... where good road feel has been specifically minimized.

Actually - and you may be horrified by this, Mag - both my wife and I feel more sure-footed behind the wheel of the 2008 Optima than the 2005 Malibu or the 2003 Impala I had prior(!) We've both got that thing doing 70 with one hand on a PARKWAY forcryinoutloud, but found ourselves gripping the wheel of the Malibu for dear life at anything over 50mph. :grinyes:

The 2005 & up Malibu, as you may recall, has the newer electric power steering, which has yet to win this old-school hydraulic PS fan.

I think the problem with domestic models is Americans like their steering - particularly in parking quarters - nice and easy. GM in particular caters quite well to those folks, with Mopar a close second. Ford is more of a "world" organization, and their handling and general road manners in anything (besides their trucks & the Taurus) do show it. Think about that - only in America do folks care more about ease of parking than about handling on curvy roads & straight-line stability at 70mph & up. LOL!

Additionally, I feel that power steering is simply too strong across the board. There's little need for it over 20-30mph, and it should simply fade to zero in that speed band(I think this is called Variable power steering?). How expensive is that to achieve in anything without a German marque on the decklid? And as far as "Magnasteer" is concerned - I for one don't need a GADGET artificially centering the steering wheel! That's what Caster & SAI(kingpin) and good bushings are for.

Cut back on such assist, improve the tolerance between suspension members & bushings, and I feel a lot of cars rated "5" or "6" for handling might just see a 7 or 8 from the consumer sites.

I do not think that the GM electric PS was the same as 'Magnasteer' My '97 Deville has magnasteer, (with hydraulic pump ) and pretty mushy steering. But the system does firm-up the steering and improves the straight-line tracking remarkably.

But, as you say, it would be much better to engineer the system with less assist and more decent road feel, so expensive gizmos are not required.

Imo many North American buyers like mushy, vague, overassisted steering, especially in the past. A co-worker liked the vague looseness of her Cavalier. She borrowed a Mazda 3 and simply hated the sharp, precise handling, with lots of road feel. For her, it was way too sensitive to steering input... meaning she really didn't have a clue :(

I have also come across loyal Cadillac folks who deride my Deville and having a firm ride and feel which is too European for them. That car is so mushy, soft and quiet, it's like driving an isolation booth. What more do people want? If they want to feel less of the world, I suggest Valium and Novocane.

Other examples come to mind...... back in the '80's I was a big fan of the North American car industry and had a couple of '80's Mustangs. I was astonished to drive an '84 Toyota Supra. (I eventually bought one) In every way, except for straight-line speed, it was a far more sophisticated, refined and smooth car, with far better handling and chassis dynamics. It made me mad to think that Ford and GM were heaping their primitive Mustang/Camaro stuff on loyal buyers when the Japanese obviously had better products. I also felt the same way when I owned a 77 Lincoln and a '79 BMW 733 at the same time. The BMW was a modern car in every sense of the world. But the Lincoln was simply full of image and faux soft luxury, with absolutely horrible handling.

Anyways, times change. I think the people who prefer the traditional luxury feel are coming to their senses or dying of old age. I still have several luxobarges in my fleet, ('77 Mark V, an old Fleetwood etc.) But I do nto expect them to provide anything like good handling. They were intended for octogenarians in Florida, not todays sophisticated car buyer :)

I do not think that the GM electric PS was the same as 'Magnasteer' My '97 Deville has magnasteer, (with hydraulic pump ) and pretty mushy steering. But the system does firm-up the steering and improves the straight-line tracking remarkably.

But, as you say, it would be much better to engineer the system with less assist and more decent road feel, so expensive gizmos are not required.

Imo many North American buyers like mushy, vague, overassisted steering, especially in the past. A co-worker liked the vague looseness of her Cavalier. She borrowed a Mazda 3 and simply hated the sharp, precise handling, with lots of road feel. For her, it was way too sensitive to steering input... meaning she really didn't have a clue :(

I have also come across loyal Cadillac folks who deride my Deville and having a firm ride and feel which is too European for them. That car is so mushy, soft and quiet, it's like driving an isolation booth. What more do people want? If they want to feel less of the world, I suggest Valium and Novocane.

Other examples come to mind...... back in the '80's I was a big fan of the North American car industry and has a couple of '80's Mustangs. I was astonished to drive an '84 Toyota Supra. In every way, except for straight-line speed, it was a far more sophisticated, refined and smooth car, with far better handling and chassis dynamics. It made me mad to think that Ford and GM were heaping their primitive Mustang/Camaro stuff on loyal buyers when the Japanese obviously had better products.
I got rid of the Mustangs, but still have the Supra.

Anyways, times change. I think the people who prefer the traditional luxury feel are coming to their senses or dying of old age. I still have several luxobarges in my fleet, ('77 Mark V, an old Fleetwood etc.) But I do nto expect them to provide anything like good handling. They were intended for octogenarians in Florida, not todays sophisticated car buyer :)

Yeah, magnasteer is definitely a different beast.

Your collection sounds great! It's good to have different types of handlers if you have the room & the dough. To be able to go back and experience "old school" handling and then quickly jump in something more refined is a real treat.

But getting back to my alignment issue - I don't believe in setting up alignment to "compensate" for anything, save the affect of speed on the suspension compliance itself(setting static toe such that the front wheels will track straight ahead at speed, etc). All my cars' alignments were dead center of spec on all parameters, tire pressures spot-on, and body shops found no out-of-square. So definitely, road-crown compensation is "built in". :(

. All my cars' alignments were dead center of spec on all parameters, tire pressures spot-on, and body shops found no out-of-square. So definitely, road-crown compensation is "built in". :(

Here's a thought. Electronic alignment equipment is sensitive enough that placing someone in the drivers seat is enough to throw the alignment off slightly, in some cars. Therefore, aligning the car with nobody in it results in an incorrect alignment when a driver is in the car.

A good alignment shop will put a person in the driver's seat to more realistically duplicate real-world load and conditions.

Another possibility is to rotate the tires. I have corrected a couple of 'pull' problems simply by switching the tires back to front.

Based on past experience, I am convinced that bad or mushy handling is deliberatly built-in to many cars, especially American ones.... where good road feel has been specifically minimized.

I have an American designed and built Honda Accord Wagon, and my mother has a Japanese designed, NZ built Accord sedan from the same year.
They are very similar, (the body shell and engine for mums car came from America), but have a noticeably different driving dynamic.
My car is softer and the steering is considerably less precise.

I have an American designed and built Honda Accord Wagon, and my mother has a Japanese designed, NZ built Accord sedan from the same year.
They are very similar, (the body shell and engine for mums car came from America), but have a noticeably different driving dynamic.
My car is softer and the steering is considerably less precise.

Yes, the same thing happened with the early VW Golf (Rabbit in the US).

These first appeared in 1975 in the US (I think). The early ones had Europe-spec suspension and steering, and the enthusiasts loved it. After a couple of years, the US models got US-spec. mushy, imprecise steering and softer suspensions. At the time, Car and Driver magazine derided this as the "Malibuization" of the Rabbit.

Here's a thought. Electronic alignment equipment is sensitive enough that placing someone in the drivers seat is enough to throw the alignment off slightly, in some cars. Therefore, aligning the car with nobody in it results in an incorrect alignment when a driver is in the car.

A good alignment shop will put a person in the driver's seat to more realistically duplicate real-world load and conditions.

Another possibility is to rotate the tires. I have corrected a couple of 'pull' problems simply by switching the tires back to front.


I did the tires thing - actually most shops, nationwide and mom & pop, recommend switching the fronts L to R.

I've thought a lot about your second suggestion - it's just too bad that there's someplace else I need to be sitting when the car is at the shop: my chair at work! :grinyes: That wouldn't have applied to the 81 Buick - somewhat larger but much heavier than the 05 Malibu and 08 Kia, but definitely a thought in the latter two cars.

But seriously if I can get at least half the day off I will consider being the 187lb test dummy in my own car for the alignment. And don't worry, I sit real still. In fact, I tend to fall asleep in auto seats more readily than in my own bed. LOLOL!

Yes, the same thing happened with the early VW Golf (Rabbit in the US).

At the time, Car and Driver magazine derided this as the "Malibuization" of the Rabbit.

No, you don't get it - the proper term for what they committed is BUICIDE! LOLOL!

No, you don't get it - the proper term for what they committed is BUICIDE! LOLOL!
ah-hahahahahahahaha....... that's good! :)

Some of the problem may be due to the fact that you are supposed to align the car with something in the driver seat to compensate for the lack of driver. What is probably happening is that when they align the car, it is where it should be. When someone sits in the seat however, the camber changes. Try having them align it with you or an approximate weight of you in the driver seat. We have a fake butt that we can weight with 100/130/175/200 and not many complaints.

Some of the problem may be due to the fact that you are supposed to align the car with something in the driver seat to compensate for the lack of driver. What is probably happening is that when they align the car, it is where it should be. When someone sits in the seat however, the camber changes. Try having them align it with you or an approximate weight of you in the driver seat. We have a fake butt that we can weight with 100/130/175/200 and not many complaints.

Heck, even a 100lbs in the driverseat is better than none at all. I'll bring it up the next time I bring a car in for alignment.