New Upper A Arm Troubles

if the part has been made to add more castor

should they align?

?????????????????????????????????!

i.e did you do a valid test?

you believe you did, and at a basic level it seems to make sense

But vendor says NOT via their dismissive attitude
they seem pretty adamant that your test just illustrated what they say about you.

if they had explained why... you wouldn't be in this position, but you could of course be customer 567th to point this out so maybe its wearing a bit thin


the best test would be, can you get the bolts in and set the car up with castor and camber you want. if so Arm is good

given the fact that the factory couldn't get the mounts on the car in the what we now think is the "right place" anyway, will it make any difference?
or were these arms made to cater for the fact that most cars with upper arm mounts that have some peculiarity in positioning, when compared side to side, are "off" in much the same way, which kinda makes you think it was a deliberate move by Chrysler, to make it easier to achieve appropriate settings, given the limits to adjust-ability of the originals, for a car on crossply tyres for a 2 lane highway with camber

or not as the case may be.

our views on this matter are based on non cambered, freeway or race track, running radial tyres and usually with toe camber caster settings that look nothing like the book figures

Its an argument no one can win, for another day.

the manufacturer could have been really clever, applied some not widely known knowledge to the arms design on one side, to cater for something that those of us with only experience of a few cars of the type are not likely to ever spot.

but you can only call "foul" when you can't achieve sensible set-up


Dave