Alignment Question
5th Gear Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4,794
From: S.burbs Chicago
Right Norm, Gt and Gt500 specs are the same. I think even the V6
Take a look at the top of the screen
I have had Camber bolts on the driver side for 2 years with driving hard, and open track events without issues........
But I still agree with you. I wasn't saying I was right for doing it, lol.
Take a look at the top of the screen
I have had Camber bolts on the driver side for 2 years with driving hard, and open track events without issues........
But I still agree with you. I wasn't saying I was right for doing it, lol.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 14
From: Missouri
If it was "within alignment", what were the actual numbers?
Has the car been lowered? (lowering drives camber more negative and toe tends to move toward "toe-out")
How hard do you normally drive through turns and corners? (cars subject to frequent hard cornering should be given camber that's slightly more negative than the factory-preferred spec)
How hard do you generally use your brakes? (cars subject to frequent hard brake use without hard cornering can benefit from camber that's less negative)
I don't see any special alignment specs for the Shelby GT500, which runs 255/45-18 tires on 18 x 9.5" wheels. 275/40's might tramline more.
Your tech is talking about "camber bolts". They're probably an OK solution for a moderately driven daily-driver, but not for a car that gets driven hard any more than once in a while.
If there's any chance that you might want to try autocross or a road course open track day, don't even think of using camber bolts. Get camber plates or Steeda HD upper strut mounts (which have somewhere over a degree of camber adjustment/correction capability built in to the design).
Norm
Has the car been lowered? (lowering drives camber more negative and toe tends to move toward "toe-out")
How hard do you normally drive through turns and corners? (cars subject to frequent hard cornering should be given camber that's slightly more negative than the factory-preferred spec)
How hard do you generally use your brakes? (cars subject to frequent hard brake use without hard cornering can benefit from camber that's less negative)
I don't see any special alignment specs for the Shelby GT500, which runs 255/45-18 tires on 18 x 9.5" wheels. 275/40's might tramline more.
Your tech is talking about "camber bolts". They're probably an OK solution for a moderately driven daily-driver, but not for a car that gets driven hard any more than once in a while.
If there's any chance that you might want to try autocross or a road course open track day, don't even think of using camber bolts. Get camber plates or Steeda HD upper strut mounts (which have somewhere over a degree of camber adjustment/correction capability built in to the design).
Norm
The camber is now set to the "positive" (out of limits), vice factory required "negative" settings. It drives perfectly, handles noticeably better and rides quieter than before.
The O'Reilly Automotive Caster/Camber Bushings Kit is P/N 81260.
Original alignment numbers:
Left Front:
-0.8 (Camber)
6.6 (Caster)
0.02 (Toe)
Right Front:
-0.5 (Camber)
6.6 (Caster)
-0.04 (Toe)
Front:
-0.03 (Total Toe)
Steer Ahead:
0.03
New alignment numbers:
Left Front:
0.4 (Camber)
6.7 (Caster)
0.05 (Toe)
Right Front:
0.5 (Camber)
6.7 (Caster)
-0.01 (Toe)
Front:
0.04 (Total Toe)
Steer Ahead:
0.03
Thread Starter
4th Gear Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,599
From:
You got an alignment to get POSITIVE camber? I know your tires were wearing funny, but something doesn't seem right. You shouldn't have to run positive camber, and it will probably make your car understeer like crazy if you push it at all.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 14
From: Missouri
One thing the alignment and camber kit did is, stopped the car from following uneven pavement surfaces. Rural roads here in Missouri are not even and smooth in many cases. Crooked roads and uneven surfaces, due to patching and so on is common here. The alignment adjustments stopped the car from being hard to control on these surfaces.
I ripped it down a county road this morning, before the local deputies hit the road, layed into curves and over washboard hills. It steers much easier and is a lot more stable than it was before. The front tires now stand up straight, like they should.
Time will tell if the alignment did the trick. I have confidence it did and will come back to give an update on tire wear and so forth.
Last edited by MissouriHoss; Jul 24, 2010 at 08:07 AM.
6th Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,635
From: state of confusion
Toe out can make a car "darty", and the original cross-camber was almost certainly hurting your directional stability as well. Over bumps, the lateral forces developed from tire scrubbing would not be balanced, left side vs right. I doubt it was the only thing responsible, though.
True, but you should not have to resort to positive camber. Especially on a car whose OE-preferred camber spec is -0.75°. Zero camber should be entirely enough (and is at the hairy edge of the OE range) for even the mildest driver.
More to the point, as your tires get wider and the wheels get wider with them, the more closely the alignment settings should be made to the way you as an individual drive. Sounds like your alignment guy understands this at least a little, just took it too far.
It is more directionally stable because it understeers more, not because those settings are better. Your problem has been band-aided. Not really solved.
"stand up straight, like they should" is old-time thinking that is particularly incorrect for most any strut suspension arrangement.
Actually, what you have now is that they're tilted out at the tops. Not perhaps as visibly as the old time straight axle cars of 80 years ago, but almost as far 'out' as they were 'in'. Don't use body sheetmetal to compare "straight up and down" against, as sheetmetal is neither vertical nor straight.
Now you get to keep an eye on the outer shoulders, as +camber plus toe-in plus any cornering at all is going to move the heavy tread loading outward. Not a guarantee this will happen, but if the new-found directional stability leads you to drive the corners harder, you may find that you've traded heavy inside wear for heavy outside wear.
Norm
I got an alignment to check the reasons for uneven front tire wear. The original (factory) alignment was excessively buffing tread off a 4" area on the inside of both front tires. If you think about it, the wider the tire, the more precise caster/camber adjustments must be to wear tire tread evenly.
More to the point, as your tires get wider and the wheels get wider with them, the more closely the alignment settings should be made to the way you as an individual drive. Sounds like your alignment guy understands this at least a little, just took it too far.
I ripped it down a county road this morning, before the local deputies hit the road, layed into curves and over washboard hills. It steers much easier and is a lot more stable than it was before.
The front tires now stand up straight, like they should.
Actually, what you have now is that they're tilted out at the tops. Not perhaps as visibly as the old time straight axle cars of 80 years ago, but almost as far 'out' as they were 'in'. Don't use body sheetmetal to compare "straight up and down" against, as sheetmetal is neither vertical nor straight.
Time will tell if the alignment did the trick. I have confidence it did and will come back to give an update on tire wear and so forth.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; Jul 24, 2010 at 10:40 AM.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 14
From: Missouri
Toe out can make a car "darty", and the original cross-camber was almost certainly hurting your directional stability as well. Over bumps, the lateral forces developed from tire scrubbing would not be balanced, left side vs right. I doubt it was the only thing responsible, though.
True, but you should not have to resort to positive camber. Especially on a car whose OE-preferred camber spec is -0.75°. Zero camber should be entirely enough (and is at the hairy edge of the OE range) for even the mildest driver.
More to the point, as your tires get wider and the wheels get wider with them, the more closely the alignment settings should be made to the way you as an individual drive. Sounds like your alignment guy understands this at least a little, just took it too far.
It is more directionally stable because it understeers more, not because those settings are better. Your problem has been band-aided. Not really solved.
"stand up straight, like they should" is old-time thinking that is particularly incorrect for most any strut suspension arrangement.
Actually, what you have now is that they're tilted out at the tops. Not perhaps as visibly as the old time straight axle cars of 80 years ago, but almost as far 'out' as they were 'in'. Don't use body sheetmetal to compare "straight up and down" against, as sheetmetal is neither vertical nor straight.
Now you get to keep an eye on the outer shoulders, as +camber plus toe-in plus any cornering at all is going to move the heavy tread loading outward. Not a guarantee this will happen, but if the new-found directional stability leads you to drive the corners harder, you may find that you've traded heavy inside wear for heavy outside wear.
Norm
True, but you should not have to resort to positive camber. Especially on a car whose OE-preferred camber spec is -0.75°. Zero camber should be entirely enough (and is at the hairy edge of the OE range) for even the mildest driver.
More to the point, as your tires get wider and the wheels get wider with them, the more closely the alignment settings should be made to the way you as an individual drive. Sounds like your alignment guy understands this at least a little, just took it too far.
It is more directionally stable because it understeers more, not because those settings are better. Your problem has been band-aided. Not really solved.
"stand up straight, like they should" is old-time thinking that is particularly incorrect for most any strut suspension arrangement.
Actually, what you have now is that they're tilted out at the tops. Not perhaps as visibly as the old time straight axle cars of 80 years ago, but almost as far 'out' as they were 'in'. Don't use body sheetmetal to compare "straight up and down" against, as sheetmetal is neither vertical nor straight.
Now you get to keep an eye on the outer shoulders, as +camber plus toe-in plus any cornering at all is going to move the heavy tread loading outward. Not a guarantee this will happen, but if the new-found directional stability leads you to drive the corners harder, you may find that you've traded heavy inside wear for heavy outside wear.
Norm
Until my tech steers me wrong, I'll have to depend on his recommendations. We have been friends for quite a long time and he has been performing alignments on Fords for many years. We'll see how it turns out...
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 404
From: Wisconsin
Finding a shop that knows the ins and outs on alignments is tough. I had done the Koni struts, and steeda springs with Steeda HD mounts, and took it in to an alignment shop. They told me they couldn't adjust my caster without notching something to bring it within spec, and the car does drift to the left slightly.
left
camber -1.4
caster 8.0
toe 0.03
right
camber -1.4
caster 7.2
toe .03
left
camber -1.4
caster 8.0
toe 0.03
right
camber -1.4
caster 7.2
toe .03
6th Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,635
From: state of confusion
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AMAlexLazarus
AmericanMuscle.com
3
Oct 2, 2015 08:06 AM
