Measuring ride height
I've seen the "Skosh" chart that provides recommended Camber, Caster, and Toe numbers when using radial tires, but this is the first time I've seen mention of the ride height no longer being ideal. What you're saying makes complete sense though. So would the preferred ride height for best handling be higher or lower than the factory bias ply numbers? And by how much?
I’ve mentioned it before in some of the more technical threads on handling.
As for the ride height for ideal handling, it’s lower and by a lot. The best camber curve happens when the control arms are roughly parallel to the ground. By the factory method of measuring that would be an A - B of 0, which is a 1-7/8” drop. There’s more to it than just that camber curve of course, the lowest CG is also usually best for handling, same for the roll center. You do have to watch other things though like bump steer, and the amount of available travel left.
Now, that 2” drop may not be the best height for handling on
your car, because in order to lower your car that much successfully you need much larger torsion bars, you need to ditch the factory bump stops, you’ll likely need shorter shocks, and at least offset UCA bushings to pull of a decent alignment, but probably more like tubular UCA’s to get good numbers.
But lower by any amount that your particular set up will tolerate will be an improvement. Mopar Muscle did a geometry analysis on a 1” drop for their article about using FMJ spindles if you want to take a look at some actual numbers. The article is about the geometry differences between using 73+ A body vs FMJ spindles, but they did a full geometry plot for both the stock and FMJ spindles on a car lowered 1” from factory. The numbers are pretty good even at that height. Now, you’d still need some other changes, larger torsion bars etc, but nothing as radical as what would be needed for a 2” drop.
Swapping Disc-Brake Spindles - Mopar Muscle Magazine
