I don't think it has been mentioned yet. but your REAR toe is miles off...!
Embarrassment is what I get for relying only on my memory of something that I measured quite a long time ago. From this memory I could have sworn that the distance between upper and lower ball joint centres was 360mm, but apparently my recollection was faulty and way off.Measured distance between upper and lower ball joint of wishbones on 147/156/GT front wheels is ≈450mm. In that sense, it is needed additional relative lateral displacement between ball joints of ≈8mm (exact is 7.85mm) for change of camber of 1°.
OK, looking at the vid again, I see exactly what he has done, which is kind of clever lateral thinking (but IMO not without potential problems). I don't think the vid is particularly clear, but this might be due to how carefully I originally viewed it (maybe...). Previously I had failed to see that only two spacer washers had been inserted between the tower and the casting, and not four as I had thought I'd seen (or perhaps had just carelessly assumed..).By use of washers under two holes of strut body (see video clip from YT), it is needed washer of 3mm for achievement of lateral displacement of upper ball joint of 7.5mm what is enough for change of camber of ≈57'. That is consequence of ratio between height of aluminium cast (150mm) and distance of holes with and without inserted washers (60mm), therefore "factor of enlargement of displacement" is 150/60=2.5.
But, probably... it is only theory. Better approach is method with slotted holes, described by John and Alan.
Yes, that is basically what I said (using many more words...).Basic problem with "washer solution" is nonuniform contact between steel strut body and aluminium cast which could cause deformation and maybe failure breaking of cast (aluminium is brittle material ).
Is my prefferred of the two methods, just to be on the safe side...Therefore "slot solution" for change of camber is emphasized as better and safer.
Increasing the inclination of a 'strut' (or a spring, or a damper, or both as a 'coilover' as in this case) typically makes it behave as if it has been softened (in effect, and depending on the particular geometry of the control arms / wishbones relative to the initial strut orientation), i.e. the suspension geometry gains a little more leverage over the strut. In this instance the additional inclination will I think be way too slight to make any significant difference to ride stiffness or handling.One dilemma remains: both of solutions change inclination of dampers (very slightly, indeed) and it could influence on driving conditions. But wrong camber has similar influence.
After 350mm, 360mm, 520mm... I remeasured this distance again and... it is 540mm.I have just now remeasured this (on my spare parts car that has no wheel or brake fitted, so access for measurement is pretty good). The tape measure tells me that the distance between the upper and lower ball centres is 520mm (+ or - just a few millimetres).
I have no idea where I got 360mm from, it just popped into my head as the recalled length. If I think about it at all it doesn't even make sense, it is obviously way too short...After 350mm, 360mm, 520mm... I remeasured this distance again and... it is 540mm.
This means following: use of two washer (2x2mm=4mm) makes 1° 03' change of camber.
Looking at this more closely;One dilemma remains: both of solutions change inclination of dampers (very slightly, indeed)
Left side rear toe is technically toed-out, but it might as well be 0° (it's just so close it doesn't matter). Right side is 0.27° (0°16') which translated to linear mm measured at the tyre faces is 2.9mm toe-in, so near enough 3mm of total rear toe-in, which isn't excessive.I'd be concentrating first on the rear toe....
Currently you have one rear pointing in and the other pointing out...!!
That will be causing the car to crab sideways.
It likely needs the adjustment points on the subframe where the transverse arms connect cleaning up.
Sadly many alignment places are lazy and try to convince people that the rear isn't adjustable... it IS adjustable and yours needs sorting out.
It isn't laziness but impossibility of rear toe adjustment because the alignment crew is stuck by corrosion. It will be sorted in local workshop by use of high temperature and WD40 treatment what will release stuck alignment crew.Sadly many alignment places are lazy and try to convince people that the rear isn't adjustable... it IS adjustable and yours needs sorting out.
I think that is easily than near enough, even if it doesn't agree exactly with my numbers..Btw, equalisation of front cambers needs 2.04mm displacement of a whole sub frame in right direction (i.e. to in).