Alignment finally done, but ?

-

Kent mosby

FABO Gold Member
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2018
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
1,282
Location
Idaho
I had an alignment done on the Scamp today. I gave them the Skosh chart and asked to get 3* of caster if possible. My front end is stock rebuilt from Doctor Diff. A Newish Flaming river 16:1 manual steering box. Qa1 strut rods. PST 1.03 torsion bars. Viking 2 way adjustable shocks. I do not have adjustable upper control arms except for the bolt. No offset bushings either. The left rear leaf spring has 2 Bergman spacers in it as it was crabbing earlier and when I measured from the frame as well as I could it was off. This also centered the wheel in the wheel well.

This car is just for cruising around and next year a few trips down the strip. No road course or racing. The car now rides very straight going down the road and steers easier than before.

After I got home I noticed that they have positive camber. I may be wrong but I thought we should have some small negative camber. As it is, the steering is easier with the 16:1 and positive camber. What do you make of the settings I have? Should I keep the spacers in the back. I don't understand where that comes into play in the alignment numbers.
IMG_2776.jpg
 

Attachments

  • alignment.pdf
    641.3 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:
I had an alignment done on the Scamp today. I gave them the Skosh chart and asked to get 3* of caster if possible. My front end is stock rebuilt from Doctor Diff. A Newish Flaming river 16:1 manual steering box. Qa1 strut rods. PST 1.03 torsion bars. Viking 2 way adjustable shocks. I do not have adjustable upper control arms except for the bolt. No offset bushings either. The left rear leaf spring has 2 Bergman spacers in it as it was crabbing earlier and when I measured from the frame as well as I could it was off. This also centered the wheel in the wheel well.

This car is just for cruising around and next year a few trips down the strip. No road course or racing. The car now rides very straight going down the road and steers easier than before.

After I got home I noticed that they have positive camber. I may be wrong but I thought we should have some small negative camber. As it is, the steering is easier with the 16:1 and positive camber. What do you make of the settings I have? Should I keep the spacers in the back. I don't understand where that comes into play in the alignment numbers.
View attachment 1715976091
The rear shims will affect Thrust Angle only. Looks like yours comes in at 0.1 and that is pretty low, good. More shims one side or the other will make the rear end run out to the side of the front end, dog tracking, dog legging, crooked, or whatever anyone wants to call it. Everyone has probably seen a vehicle going down the road like that at some point in time, especially something that has been in an accident or slid or bumped into a curb or parking block.

The rest of the angles look pretty good for now but as Rmoore said, keep an eye on tire wear. If the outside edges start wearing more it will need to get adjusted more negative on the camber. I doubt that will be necessary where yours is now. On these cars the camber will go a little bit more toward negative as the front end rises while accelerating hard.

Editing to add that if the car would be used mostly for hard cornering, such as autocross racing, more negative would be wanted.
 
Since you asked for 3 degrees he focused on giving that to you. When he got that 3 deg pos caster, IF either side rear UCA cam eccentrics was adjusted all the way inward, that's the lowest camber you can get. IF not, he got lazy

But since you initially had +5.2/4.3 positive caster and -1.9/-1.6 camber... I would guess that if you went with a caster adjustment between +5.2/4.3 and +3 you could get to -1.2 or 0 camber.

Of course I'm not there seeing things in person. There might be other stuff going on.

But looking at the initial readings, I would have:
  1. moved the right side rear eccentric outward until I got to -1/2 deg camber. My guess/hope is that would give a Caster reading from 2-3 deg positive.
  2. Then I would go to the left side and do the same thing. But that side would not have caster to match. Should more positive than right side
  3. So I would move the left side rear eccentric outward more, then move the left side front eccentric inward.
  4. There would be back and forth doing that until on the left side until it matched the right side.
That's perfect world. And you would get closest to 3 deg positive caster while having -1/2 camber

Imperfect world... In step #1 if your Caster reading went to like -1 to +1 postive caster and/or you didn't have enough adjustment in the rear eccentric to get to -1/2 deg camber... well then somethings gotta compromise or you gotta try messing with adjustable strut rods or something else.
 
Last edited:
Depending on which tires you're using, I would also check for feathering of the rubber with that toe-in setting. Personally I prefer a toe in of less than 1/8"....more like 1/16". You got almost a 1/3".
 
Depending on which tires you're using, I would also check for feathering of the rubber with that toe-in setting. Personally I prefer a toe in of less than 1/8"....more like 1/16". You got almost a 1/3".
It says .30 degrees. With a 25 inch tire that calculates to .130 inches, combined. I will measure in inches later this weekend to double check.
 
Years ago I worried more about tire wear & on a daily driver I still do.. But most of these old cars are gonna need new tires due to age long before we wear them out....

Steve's (AutoxCuda) info is correct... As usual..
 
Radial tires are so forgiving, that'll never hurt a thing. I prefer a little positive camber because it gives the car a better presentation than tires leanin in at the top. For just cruising around and the occasional blast down the strip, I'd say you're good.
 
Looking at your printout, it looks like you found a good shop/alignment tech who took the time to equalize and set the alignment to as close to the center of the specs as possible. Good alignment was done. Of course we have no idea what condition your car is in . Totally stock ? Aftermarket tires and wheels ? Modified suspension ? Ride height ? These factors all affect the alignment and in some cases just how much adjustment you may have available to the alignment tech.
Mopars use of eccentric bolts to set camber/caster specs limits the ability to set each setting independently. So camber and caster is always a compromise to find the best of both possible using just one means of adjustment.
Since the alignment is set with the car static ( not moving) The suspension is in a neutral position. That means as the vehicle rolls down the road, the road has surface varies with dips and humps, curves etc. The suspension reacts to these changes by rising and compressing, swaying etc. The alignment is in constant flux. By setting the alignment in the center of the specs, you have at least some hope of the alignment staying in spec for more time than an alignment set at the limit of the specs. That almost guarantees that the alignment will be out of spec when you are driving.
In an ideal world we would be driving on roads like the Autobahn in Germany where the road is super flat, made for speed with minimum surface changes.
The toe is also greatly affected by any clearance stack in the tie rods. Cars like Mercedes Benz normally use a tool called a spreader bar. This pushes the front tires apart, simulating the force of the front tires toeing out when going down the road causing inside edge tire wear. Radial tires tend to track straighter than bias ply tires so you should be good.
Any play in the front end will cause all settings to change more when driving.
 
Last edited:
Looking at your printout, it looks like you found a good shop/alignment tech who took the time to equalize and set the alignment to as close to the center of the specs as possible. Good alignment was done.
Mopars use of eccentric bolts to set camber/caster specs limits the ability to set each setting independently. So camber and caster is always a compromise to find the best of both possible using just one means of adjustment.
Since the alignment is set with the car static ( not moving) The suspension is in a neutral position. That means as the vehicle rolls down the road, the road has surface varies with dips and humps, curves etc. The suspension reacts to these changes by rising and compressing, swaying etc. The alignment is in constant flux. By setting the alignment in the center of the specs, you have at least some hope of the alignment staying in spec for more time than an alignment set at the limit of the specs. That almost guarantees that the alignment will be out of spec when you are driving.
In an ideal world we would be driving on roads like the Autobahn in Germany where the road is super flat, made for speed with minimum surface changes.
The toe is also greatly affected by any clearance stack in the tie rods. Cars like Mercedes Benz normally use a tool called a spreader bar. This pushes the front tires apart, simulating the force of the front tires toeing when out going down the road. Causing inside edge tire wear.
Any play in the front end will cause all settings to change more when driving.
They did take right at an hour to do it. 2 guys. One looked to be learning. I previously asked if they could do it and they assured me they could. When the guy checked me out he said they allow for 2 hours with classic cars. Cost was $119.00 I thought that was fair for what they did.
 
They did take right at an hour to do it. 2 guys. One looked to be learning. I previously asked if they could do it and they assured me they could. When the guy checked me out he said they allow for 2 hours with classic cars. Cost was $119.00 I thought that was fair for what they did.
That's not bad for today's prices. I'd file that shop under the "use again" file.
 
Have you tried any curves/ corners "somewhat agressively, how does it handle and how is wheel return?
 
Radial tires are so forgiving, that'll never hurt a thing. I prefer a little positive camber because it gives the car a better presentation than tires leanin in at the top. For just cruising around and the occasional blast down the strip, I'd say you're good.
For modern radial tires I agree to a point. I remember the fiasco with the early Firestone 500 steel belted radials (among others) that had belt migration problems. Regardless of what the book said to set the toe, we used 0 or 1/32" toe in to help keep those belts from coming out the sidewall. Having 1/2 degree of negative camber isn't even visually noticeable IMO, but helps in cornering and emergency handling.
 
For modern radial tires I agree to a point. I remember the fiasco with the early Firestone 500 steel belted radials (among others) that had belt migration problems. Regardless of what the book said to set the toe, we used 0 or 1/32" toe in to help keep those belts from coming out the sidewall. Having 1/2 degree of negative camber isn't even visually noticeable IMO, but helps in cornering and emergency handling.
I agree and I almost consider that positive it's such a small amount. The Firestones were nothin but POS tires right off the bat. I've seen them separate literally sitting on the storage shelves....even come on on the truck already separated.
 
Yeah, the originals were pretty bad....even the supposedly "new and improved" ones were junk. I think they made some brand X ones too for other tire companies and they had the same problem. Can't remember who they were now.....wasn't a big company and they recalled them pretty early on. It was mainly the steel belted radial tires. The cloth (aramid?) belted radials didn't do it.
 
Yeah, the originals were pretty bad....even the supposedly "new and improved" ones were junk. I think they made some brand X ones too for other tire companies and they had the same problem. Can't remember who they were now.....wasn't a big company and they recalled them pretty early on. It was mainly the steel belted radial tires. The cloth (aramid?) belted radials didn't do it.
Remember seven around two wrapped by one? Talk about a joke.
 
Remember seven around two wrapped by one? Talk about a joke.
WOW, you just gave me a slap of nostalgia lol.
I remember those on one of dad's old Mercury's, but I'm too young to remember if they were worth a hoot.
 
Have you tried any curves/ corners "somewhat agressively, how does it handle and how is wheel return?
You inspired me to take it for a trial. I went down Riverview, Mountain road with many tight turns. The steering is tight and true. It returns back without a problem. It did not seem to oversteer or understeer but followed where I put it. Then I did full acceleration on the freeway onramp. Only up to about 85 but it pulled straight. Hard braking was straight as well. My brakes are front disc and rear drum. They seem to work well enough. they are not modern car by any means but good for me. At high speed there is no wander like there was prior to the new steering box and alignment. I could turn the wheel 30-45* without much turning of the tires at speed.

All that being said, It was fun to drive. I just have to get used to the 16:1 ratio vs the wandering boat I had.
 
!!!MAN!!!

............Maybe you ought'a let us in on this magic front end shop............
 
!!!MAN!!!

............Maybe you ought'a let us in on this magic front end shop............
It was Perfection Tire in Post Falls. I did ask them many questions before bringing it in.
 
I started my career in the tire and service industry in he early 70's. The first company I worked for was a large independent. We carried all the major brands and a few smaller ones. Radial tires were just being introduced on a large scale to the US market. Out of all the tires we sold including Armstrong, BF Goodrich, Dunlop, Firestone, Goodyear, Kelly-Springfield, Michelin, Pirelli, Seiberling, Uni-royal and a few others, only Michelin tire did not have a major separation problem. They just had weak sidewalls and were not repairable after a flat because of inner liner damage to the sidewalls. Nobody had success during the early years of radial tire construction. Firestone got the most news attention but it was an industry wide problem. The second major news covered Firestone recall was not a tire manufacturing problem but a combination of overloaded tires due to the vehicle manufacturer ( Ford) recommending too low of an air pressure on a Firestone tire that Ford engineers spec'd to Firestone for OEM production.
These were OE on the Explorer and Ranger 4X4 pick-ups.
Fact is that the Ranger which was much lighter than the Explorer had a Ford recommended 35 Psi recommendation. Almost zero problems. The Explorer always carried a 26 PSI recommendation And as the Explorers weight increased through out the years of first generation Explorer's production, the pressure recommendation did not change and most people just don't check their tire pressure very often if at all.. There were several soft tire recalls going on at the same time but the Ford/Firestone story grabbed the news.
Goodyear actually had several recalls on different sizes of LT-truck tires going on at the same time, but didn't draw much attention.
Tire quality has increased so much in the last 40 years that the highest quality tires of the seventies don't match the performance of many of the economy tires of today. And the retail prices have not increased that much. A top quality tire of the seventies was in the $100. price range. Economy tires started at $15 !
Fact. Retired in 2010. I worked for the big tire companies in the 80, 90 and 2000's. well over 100,000 tires sold and serviced in that time period of all brands. Not stories vaguely remembered or heard second or third hand.
 
Last edited:
-
Back
Top