Alignment specs

-
twayne24365

twayne24365

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
331
Location
Maryland
Sorry that this is a little off a body topic, but i just rebuilt the front suspension on my dads 65 coronet and calle my buddy who has an alignment shop, he asked if i knew the specs which i dont... So does anyone know what the alignment specs for that car is?
 
Here's a link to a site where you can download some service manuals for free. It has the 65 Plymouth manual that I used to answer you.

They may come in handy in the future when you need to look something up.

http://www.mymopar.com/index.php?pid=109
 
if you are running radial tires do not follow what the service manual says.. those specs are for bias ply tires and the car will be all over the place if running radial tires..



289d4j7.jpg
 
Not really. My '62 B body is aligned to original factory specs and does not wander around on radials. The steering and front suspension parts are new and the steering box had been adjusted up. It makes the manual steering a lot lighter.

You indeed have to get used the the sensitivity and lack of self-centering force of the steering with the slight negative caster; it certainly does behave differently than a modern steering car with positive caster since the driver has to provide the centering action on the wheel. But it does not inherently wander, and this is in the Appalachian Mtns on curvey roads with road camber varying all over the place.
 
like i said. if you are running radials do not align to factory bias ply specs...


It makes the manual steering a lot lighter

have to get used the the sensitivity and lack of self-centering force of the steering
Click to expand...

in other words it is overly sensitive and wanders.
 
Yea, this is a street strip car and previous to the suspention rebuild was like driving a chris craft in a 3 foot chop, it was actually quit scary to drive, and deffinately dont want that for a second time, i adjusted the tie rods so the wheels were inline and adjusted the camber bolts to where the wheels were level, drove it down the street and back and the camber was way off, the tires were like this. /--\, maybe i didnt tighten the cam bolts tight enough?
 
twayne24365 said:
Yea, this is a street strip car and previous to the suspention rebuild was like driving a chris craft in a 3 foot chop, it was actually quit scary to drive, and deffinately dont want that for a second time, i adjusted the tie rods so the wheels were inline and adjusted the camber bolts to where the wheels were level, drove it down the street and back and the camber was way off, the tires were like this. /--\, maybe i didnt tighten the cam bolts tight enough?
Click to expand...

Adjust the camber bolts so that the rear bolt is all the way in toward the frame, and the front bolt is all the way out away from the frame. That will maximize your + caster, although unless you installed offset UCA bushings it still won't be very much. It should also put the camber fairly neutral, although that depends more on ride height than anything else.

Your tires being tipped in indicates negative camber. A little is good, but if its that noticeable its too much. Is your car lower than stock height? Camber gets more negative with these suspensions as you lower the car.

The second chart is what you want, the original specs are not at all good for radial tires at all, and even worse for modern radials. Ideally for a street car you'd want something like -.5* camber, +3 up to +5 caster, and about 1/16" to 1/8" toe in. You probably won't even get to +3 caster with the stock UCA's and stock bushings though. And if its a manual steering car you'll want to stop around +3 for caster, more than that starts to make it difficult to steer. Not a problem with power steering though.
 
Yea it is manual steering, and nothing done to change ride height.. I try what you said with the position of the control arm, and luckily my buddys shop is about 1/4 mile from my house lol, but just to get it close enought to drive it there... Ill give him a print out of the chart too
 
If the ride height is close to stock adjusting the camber bolts to where I mentioned should be plenty close enough for the drive to the shop. Camber is only a tire wearing adjustment if its really wrong, and over a 1/4 mile won't make much difference.
 
On second thought i did slightly lower the torsion bars to drop the front end, only 1/2" to an inch at the most
 
twayne24365 said:
On second thought i did slightly lower the torsion bars to drop the front end, only 1/2" to an inch at the most
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be a problem. If everything else is stock the camber might be slightly negative, but unless it's sitting on the bumpstops you shouldn't have more than -1* of camber with the stock UCA's and bushings.

And anything less than -1* camber isn't going to wear out your tires anyway. I run my Challenger at -.9*, no abnormal tire wear on it. Only thing that could wipe your tires out in a 1/4 mile is the toe setting, and you'd know it if it was that wrong.
 
abodyjoe said:
like i said. if you are running radials do not align to factory bias ply specs... in other words it is overly sensitive and wanders.
Click to expand...
No, it is not OVERLY sensitive (your words, not mine) and DOES NOT wander. It IS different from modern alignments and takes driver adjustment. You are quite welcome to come here and try it yourself (Afton VA), but don't just project what you want to believe and present it as fact. My '70 Ranchero with PS was similar; perhaps I got used to the way those cars were with those alignments and don't expect it to be like my '09 Challenger.
 
Thanks guys, im a member at fbbo also but never seem to get quick replies, once again thanks alot!!
 
nm9stheham said:
No, it is not OVERLY sensitive (your words, not mine) and DOES NOT wander. It IS different from modern alignments and takes driver adjustment. You are quite welcome to come here and try it yourself (Afton VA), but don't just project what you want to believe and present it as fact. My '70 Ranchero with PS was similar; perhaps I got used to the way those cars were with those alignments and don't expect it to be like my '09 Challenger.
Click to expand...

But you should expect it to be like your '09 Challenger, because it can be. And in fact, the only reason its NOT like that is because you have the wrong alignment.

The self-centering action that your '62 B body lacks is simply a function of the caster specification. That's it. If you set the caster to say, +3*, you would have a self-centering action. And your car would be easier to drive. And there's no reason not to. Caster is not a tire wearing adjustment. It effects how stable your steering is, so more positive caster, more stable feeling. Crank it up too much and it can make the steering effort harder, but that's only really an issue on manual steering cars. I run my power steering Challenger at +5* caster, and its a huge improvement over the factory setting.

The factory alignment specs were determined solely on the capabilities of the bias ply tires. Bias ply's can't handle negative camber and positive caster. Conversely, radial tires NEED negative camber and positive caster to perform correctly. The tires set the alignment specs. Sure, you can drive your car with the incorrect specs, but your car's performance suffers. The only reason the factory alignment specs are what they are is because they were for bias ply's. If the factory was using radials back then, the factory specs would probably be somewhere between "granny" and "typical performance street" on the SKOSH chart. And based on my experience, the caster settings on the chart are conservative, or better matched for manual steering. Additional + caster helps dial down the overboosted factory power steering. I'd run more if I could get it.

289d4j7.jpg
 
nm9stheham said:
]No, it is not OVERLY sensitive (your words, not mine) [/B]and DOES NOT wander. It IS different from modern alignments and takes driver adjustment. You are quite welcome to come here and try it yourself (Afton VA), but don't just project what you want to believe and present it as fact. My '70 Ranchero with PS was similar; perhaps I got used to the way those cars were with those alignments and don't expect it to be like my '09 Challenger.
Click to expand...

You indeed have to get used the the sensitivity
Click to expand...

if you have to get used to the sensitivity (your words)then indeed its overly sensitive.. so while you are getting used to the "sensitivity" what's it feel like?? yea it feels like it wanders. :)

i know what it feels like with a new front end and aligned to factory specs. been there done that. it sucks. its overly sensitive and wanders... doesn't wander like a bad frontend but it wanders..

put an alignment on your car with better specs and you'll be lovin it.
 
72bluNblu said:
Adjust the camber bolts so that the rear bolt is all the way in toward the frame, and the front bolt is all the way out away from the frame. That will maximize your + caster, although unless you installed offset UCA bushings it still won't be very much. It should also put the camber fairly neutral, although that depends more on ride height than anything else.

Your tires being tipped in indicates negative camber. A little is good, but if its that noticeable its too much. Is your car lower than stock height? Camber gets more negative with these suspensions as you lower the car.

The second chart is what you want, the original specs are not at all good for radial tires at all, and even worse for modern radials. Ideally for a street car you'd want something like -.5* camber, +3 up to +5 caster, and about 1/16" to 1/8" toe in. You probably won't even get to +3 caster with the stock UCA's and stock bushings though. And if its a manual steering car you'll want to stop around +3 for caster, more than that starts to make it difficult to steer. Not a problem with power steering though.
Click to expand...

Good info ! :glasses7:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top