Hotchkis handlebars too much camber

[MAGONSTERZ68]

HELP, Daily Driver real world issue.



68 camaro convertible, lowered 3.5" in front using 2 inch lowering spring, 600lb rate and 2" lowered spindle, used upper spring pad spacer to raise .5 in to get 3.5 drop. (looks killer with 3" drop spring pack out back).
Using Hotchkis chassis max handlebars up front to mitigate F body convertible flex and it did, big time, not to mention same manufacturer subframe connectors.
Also installed Hotchkis upper control arms with offset crossbar to assist alignment issues due to sagging frame AND being lowered but isn't enough.
Need add at least 1 deg more adjustability to bring me to .5 to 1.0 deg of camber to prolong the daily driven street life of the tires.

PROBLEM:
Even with the offset crossbar and NO shims for camber purposes on passenger side (except for a 1/4") stack to get my 6 degrees positive castor i can't get the camber under 1.9 degrees and its wearing out the tire inside. (negative toe 1/8" fyi)

Does anyone make a high offset crossbar that works with Hotchkis UCA?
or
Does anyone make an offset upper ball joint that works with Hotchkis UCA?

[rocketrod]

Can you provide which brand of spindle, coil spring, shock and other front end components you're using that isn't listed in your original post? I would also recommend you address the "sagging" frame issue, which hopefully would be resolved with a new set of subframe bushings.

[dontlifttoshift]

Set your toe at zero. Toe wears tires. Toe out will really wear tires.

[MAGONSTERZ68]

Rocket-

drop spindle was part of ridetech true turn set up (fat man fab?) 2" drop
spring is hotchkis 600lb rate 2" drop
shocks are he Hotchkis Tuned 1.5 Street Performance Series at all four corners
lower control arms are Detroit Speed
stock sway bar
sub frame bushings are billet chassis works std height all the way around
Dont think its a sagging issue front to back, but rather when standing in front of car the horseshoe shape of the engine bay cradle has allowed axial twist of the front clip sub fram arms that extend into the stamped body section, " too much horseshoe "

[MAGONSTERZ68]

Set your toe at zero. Toe wears tires. Toe out will really wear tires.

Donny, right now im toe in 1/8" ill try setting to zero anyway but at 1.9 positive camber on the passenger side and 1.2 on the driver side with zero adjustability left on passenger side it appears to be wearing waaay worse than the driver side. i can live with 1 - 1.2 but 1.9 is a killer and would hate to give up my caster to get back camber.

[rocketrod]

Set your toe at zero. Toe wears tires. Toe out will really wear tires.

X2.....

... Dont think its a sagging issue front to back, but rather when standing in front of car the horseshoe shape of the engine bay cradle has allowed axial twist of the front clip sub frame arms that extend into the stamped body section, " too much horseshoe "

That doesn't sound good. Has the front end been hit/repaired? Do you see any cracks or other visible damage on the frame? I would get the car up on a lift and do a thorough inspection as you may have bigger issues. Assuming the frame is good I would ensure its aligned square to the body....

[MAGONSTERZ68]

X2.....
That doesn't sound good. Has the front end been hit/repaired? Do you see any cracks or other visible damage on the frame? I would get the car up on a lift and do a thorough inspection as you may have bigger issues. Assuming the frame is good I would ensure its aligned square to the body....

Car had plenty of room for alignment purposes without the hotchkis handlebars installed. The 3/8" to 1/4" thick flange was designed to be sandwiched between the crossbar and the frame taking the place of shim packs, as long as it need more shim than the thickness of the flange, there in lies the issue. If i remove the " strut tower " brace there is plenty of room to align so i know the frame is in spec, sagging a bit but within alignable dimension. My frame alignment appears to be spot on within 1/8" side to side and front to rear as when i dropped the front clip and installed solid subframe connectors it lined up well, better than it was before install.

[dontlifttoshift]

Negative toe is toe out. Positive toe is toe in. Either way, you do not want any toe at all.

You have the offset cross shaft the right way, right?

I just redrilled the ball joint mounting holes in another set of control arms to get more negative camber, it may work the other way if you have enough room.

SPC upper control arms seem like the easy button here.

[MAGONSTERZ68]

Negative toe is toe out. Positive toe is toe in. Either way, you do not want any toe at all.

You have the offset cross shaft the right way, right?

I just redrilled the ball joint mounting holes in another set of control arms to get more negative camber, it may work the other way if you have enough room.

SPC upper control arms seem like the easy button here.

ah, gotcha, that being the case im running 1/8 positive toe apparently per ridetech recommendations.
Yes, offset shafts are installed to allow as much positive camber, still not enough to get me near .5 or 1 deg.
ill check n see if uca have enough meat to redrill.

[MAGONSTERZ68]

ah, gotcha, that being the case im running 1/8 positive toe apparently per ridetech recommendations.
Yes, offset shafts are installed to allow as much positive camber, still not enough to get me near .5 or 1 deg.
ill check n see if uca have enough meat to redrill.

Going to call Hotchkis and see if there is a minimum width to cross bar, maybe i can mill down to .750 from 1.00 to increase the available offset.

[dhutton]

OP, you keep talking about trying to get positive camber. You mean negative camber, right?

[btmatt]

above.. get some SPC upper control arms

[dontlifttoshift]

No, he wants positive as it's a daily driver and he feels 1.9* negative is too much.

[79T/Aman]

about just mounting it over the cross shaft, there is a width adjuster on the cross bar.

[dhutton]

No, he wants positive as it's a daily driver and he feels 1.9* negative is too much.

Ok so without shims he is at -1.9 degrees of camber. Thanks.

Don

[TheJDMan]

Actually, "negative" or "positive" when referring to toe is not really a term that I have ever heard anyone use. Also, when describing Castor or Camber a number must be "positive" or "negative" in order to be meaningful.

[krom]

Actually, "negative" or "positive" when referring to toe is not really a term that I have ever heard anyone use. Also, when describing Castor or Camber a number must be "positive" or "negative" in order to be meaningful.

This^^^

[MAGONSTERZ68]

about just mounting it over the cross shaft, there is a width adjuster on the cross bar.

thought about that but was concerned with changing the engineering design installation and damaging the studs maybe even shearing when frame flexes under sustained cornering load seeing how flange was designed to be frictions pinched via bolt compression.

[MAGONSTERZ68]

No, he wants positive as it's a daily driver and he feels 1.9* negative is too much.

correct

[MAGONSTERZ68]

Actually, "negative" or "positive" when referring to toe is not really a term that I have ever heard anyone use. Also, when describing Castor or Camber a number must be "positive" or "negative" in order to be meaningful.

positive toe or toe in 1/8 but will attempt to set to zero this weekend but running 275 35 18 on c5 wheels up front thought some toe in would help track better in heavily grooved roads.