power to manual alignment specs.

[chrgdrt]

Guys that have gone from power to manual steering did you change you alignment or did you stay with the specs you had?

I know we all shoot for as much + caster as we can get with stock parts but the spec for manual steering call for 0 to -1* caster.

Thanks, Gary

 

[72bluNblu]

The factory specs are garbage regardless of the steering box. It's a bias ply vs. radials issue. There is no way in hell I would run negative caster with radial tires, period.

That said, the more positive caster you run the heavier the steering will be with the manual steering box, and it is a noticeable difference. I would still run +3 to +4* of caster if you can get it. Most people probably wouldn't want more than that, but it depends on your suspension anyway. If you have stock UCA's you'll probably have a hard time getting to +3* caster anyway. If you have the Moog k7103 offset UCA bushings you can probably be in the +3* to +4* range, and really that shouldn't be that bad for steering effort. The only way you'd be able to get more than that is with tubular/adjustable UCA's, and that's where you might want a difference for manual vs power steering. Most modern cars run +7*, +8* or more of caster, and with power steering that wouldn't be an issue. Peter Bergman I believe runs +8* on his Dart with power steering. It's at least +7*. That's a lot for a manual steering box car, you'd definitely feel it. But it's not like it would be impossible to steer or anything like that. I have almost +7* caster on my Duster at the moment, and I have a 16:1 manual box and 275/35/18's up front. With a 24:1 box and narrower tires it would be a lot easier.

 

[chrgdrt]

I have the stock arm with the offset bushing but I think I'm in the +2* to +3* range. Street tires on the front are 235/60/15's and bias ply front runners at the track. I'm planning on using a 24:1 box with the fast ratio arm. We'll see how it works out.
Thanks for the info.

 

[Kern Dog]

"The factory specs are garbage regardless of the steering box. It's a bias ply vs. radials issue. There is no way in hell I would run negative camber with radial tires, period. "

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I guess that you don't care much for good handling?
I run .75 to 1.0 degree of NEG camber with a 275-40-18 tire. No, the insides of the tires do not wear faster than the outside edges.
My caster is just shy of 5 degrees, at 4.6 to 4.7 for both sides. 1/8" toe in. I replaced my tires last summer and the old ones were worn evenly everywhere.

 

[72bluNblu]

"The factory specs are garbage regardless of the steering box. It's a bias ply vs. radials issue. There is no way in hell I would run negative camber with radial tires, period. "

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I guess that you don't care much for good handling?
I run .75 to 1.0 degree of NEG camber with a 275-40-18 tire. No, the insides of the tires do not wear faster than the outside edges.
My caster is just shy of 5 degrees, at 4.6 to 4.7 for both sides. 1/8" toe in. I replaced my tires last summer and the old ones were worn evenly everywhere.

View attachment 1715027797

Calm down, I meant caster and just typed the wrong thing. It's fixed now.

If you've ever read any of my posts you should already know I run -1* to -1.5* of camber on my cars in addition to as much positive caster as I can get, usually more than +5*.

Here's the skosh chart with complete alignment recommendations. It's fairly conservative by modern standards, for radials and a decent handling alignment I generally recommend about -.5* of camber, +3 to +4 caster, and 1/16" toe in (assuming new tie rod ends and steering components).

 

[RustyRatRod]

Actually, that's not quite true. But I do agree 100% with your reasoning not to ever run negative caster.......unless of course, you're running some sort of road course racing.

That said, the main reason was not for the tire difference, though that was a small part, but it was mainly to help give some ease of steering effort at low speed with manual steering. As caster increases, the upper ball joint leans further back (as I'm sure you know). The further back it goes, the more the steering has to pick up the weight of the car, increasing steering effort at low speeds.

The factory specs are garbage regardless of the steering box. It's a bias ply vs. radials issue. There is no way in hell I would run negative caster with radial tires, period.

That said, the more positive caster you run the heavier the steering will be with the manual steering box, and it is a noticeable difference. I would still run +3 to +4* of caster if you can get it. Most people probably wouldn't want more than that, but it depends on your suspension anyway. If you have stock UCA's you'll probably have a hard time getting to +3* caster anyway. If you have the Moog k7103 offset UCA bushings you can probably be in the +3* to +4* range, and really that shouldn't be that bad for steering effort. The only way you'd be able to get more than that is with tubular/adjustable UCA's, and that's where you might want a difference for manual vs power steering. Most modern cars run +7*, +8* or more of caster, and with power steering that wouldn't be an issue. Peter Bergman I believe runs +8* on his Dart with power steering. It's at least +7*. That's a lot for a manual steering box car, you'd definitely feel it. But it's not like it would be impossible to steer or anything like that. I have almost +7* caster on my Duster at the moment, and I have a 16:1 manual box and 275/35/18's up front. With a 24:1 box and narrower tires it would be a lot easier.

 

[Kern Dog]

I always defer to the Mopar Action magazine suggestions for wheel alignment, the one 72Blue posted.
I see that you made a correction. In the original draft, it seemed odd coming from you. Sorry, I should have figured that an error occurred. Your posts rarely have mistakes and the grammar is proper as well.