Alignment specs - 2nd Gen F-body [Archive]

View Full Version : Alignment specs - 2nd Gen F-body

dipren443

08-11-2009, 02:54 PM

Should be a pretty simple question. Looking for some specs to shoot for with completely stock suspension.

These are what I was thinking. I am curious if this can be achieved with stock suspension.

Camber -0.5 degrees
Caster 4.5 degrees
Toe in 1/16"

Thanks in advance!!!
Nick

killer69

08-11-2009, 04:47 PM

caster might be a bit tough to get ,but other wise looks about right

dipren443

08-11-2009, 04:49 PM

caster might be a bit tough to get ,but other wise looks about right

I was thinking to just tell them to max out the caster. What might be a more realistic number to shoot for???

Skip Fix

08-12-2009, 06:10 AM

dipren443

08-12-2009, 07:54 AM

It will be tough to get that much caster and have some negative camber, even using some longer bolts for more shims. The rear of the control arm starts getting close to the steering shaft as well. After market arms can get you there.

With -1 camber 3 was about all we could get on + caster.

Alright, I will feed all of this to the alignment shop. The aftermarket arms will not be coming for a bit. I need to collect some more parts before I get there. My coilover brackets will be arriving soon :) Then I need to decide which arms I will run. Thinking DSE at the moment.

John Wright

08-12-2009, 08:03 AM

with Stock UCAs, I agree, you won't be able to get that much caster.

I have the SC&C arms and they are an easy bolt on and you can get alot more caster without having the camber take off in the wrong direction on ya. There are other upper arms out there too, but I don't have any experience with the others.

JRouche

08-12-2009, 07:29 PM

Yeah, SPC adjustable uppers will get you that caster. JR

with Stock UCAs, I agree, you won't be able to get that much caster.

I have the SC&C arms and they are an easy bolt on and you can get alot more caster without having the camber take off in the wrong direction on ya. There are other upper arms out there too, but I don't have any experience with the others.

dipren443

08-13-2009, 05:17 AM

Trust me fellas. If I could throw new control arms on now, I would. I am taking a road trip for the first time since getting the new rolling stock and this alignment will definitely be best effort, not necessarily ideal. I have a set of one off coilover brackets coming for the front and hope to get new upper and lower control arms this winter. :fingersx: Then I will shoot for the stars.

Question, should I shoot for -0.5 degree camber and a little more caster? Or -1 degrees camber and slightly less caster?

Skip Fix

08-13-2009, 01:02 PM

If ALOT of cornering 1 degree of camber can help your tire wear pattern and flatter for better traction. Otherwise go with 0.5 and as much caster as you can get.

JRouche

08-13-2009, 08:15 PM

I wouldnt go more than .5* in static neg camber. And like he said, stuff as much caster in as you can. An aggressive caster gives your loaded tire in a turn some tip in at the top, more neg camber.

So yer thinking yeah, freebie. Well not really, positive caster to a point is a good thing for the turns where your geometry just doesnt produce enough, or any camber gain. But as always, too much of a good thing can be bad.

But with your suspension you cant really get into some heavy pos caster numbers so its kinda self limiting. So get what you can, keep the tires happy and stick with .5* of camber and you may be surprised at how well she handles.

So at that point you feel the car, read the tires. And determine what is wrong, if anything. If the tire wear is good and you arent experiencing any erratic behavior then yer set to drive like it was fun.

But if you do get some odd feelings with the way she handles then time to look at what its doing that you dont like and adjust the appropriate component.

And Im talking about erratic behavior. Like she changes from understeer to oversteer erratically, or darts across the road unnervingly. Then its time to take a look. Not much fun and dangerous.

But if its consistent, and thats the KEY. Consistent suspension behavior. Thats the holy grail.

Cause a guy can drive a consistent but slower car faster and with more confidence and peace of mind than a guy thats always having to stay on top of his twitchy suspension.

Yeah, hes a lil faster but he is having to really DRIVE the thing just to keep up with the constantly changing road surfaces. And besides being tiring and not much fun he will tend to eat the curb or loop it more than a slower suspension that is consistent. JMO. JR

dipren443

08-13-2009, 08:43 PM

I really appreciate all of the input guys! I am fairly knowledgeable with suspension geometry, but I really don't know the limitations of the stock componentry. I have been brainstorming what I will be doing for the front for some time now and I finally have a plan.

However, I am taking the car on a road trip and I just dont want to wreck the tires that I just put on the car. Might as well get as much as i can out of the stock stuff.

Since a few of you are running the SPC uppers, I am curious as to how durable they are. Are they pretty stout? Should I look elsewhere?

Skip Fix

08-15-2009, 05:39 AM

Now if I could only get more positive caster out of my 97 Chevy trucks front end!

noobwrench

08-15-2009, 09:54 AM

http://www.guldstrand.com/alignment.asp and zero toe is a good compromise if you ever plan on autocrossing or racing.

JRouche

08-15-2009, 07:41 PM

Since a few of you are running the SPC uppers, I am curious as to how durable they are. Are they pretty stout? Should I look elsewhere?

They are stout, I have them for a MII suspension. But that doesnt matter, alot of their stuff is interchangeable..

Tech support is great, I have called them three times and a diff guy each time and they were all willing to spend some phone time with me.

The arms are made to some strict standards. For example, I have screw in ball joints, the threads on the ball joint plates were properly machined, cant say that about some of the arms I have seen. Everything looks solid.

One gripe I have. They supplied grade five bolts for the arm to ball joint plate. Hmmm, a lil cheesy IMO. They are bolts in shear, I replaced them with some proper bolts.

Other than that I dont have any complaints. And the ability to adjust a large amount of caster helps. But just the ability to adjust it is nice. And arm lenth +/- 2 inches. I get to play with the various arm setting. I like some adjustability.

Oh, and I only have the upper arms from them. Dont know about the lowers, thats where ALL the load is placed. JR

dipren443

08-15-2009, 07:53 PM

JRouche

08-16-2009, 05:01 PM

I have been leaning towards the SPC parts for cost and adjustability, just wasn't sure how durable they are. I will most likely run the lowers too. They have moved the lower ball joint forward for a little added caster. I will just need to modify them for double shear coilover mounts. :yum:

I only used the SPC uppers, for the adjustability issue. I kept my TCI lowers that were a spring pocket affair. I heavily modified them for the "coilover" mounts. Plasma torch and TIG welding took care of it all. Pics to come when she is done. JR

dipren443

08-16-2009, 05:23 PM

My intentions are to use these for my lowers... I need to ask Tyler if he will sell just the lower pieces to me...

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

The uppers are coming from a vendor that was intending on producing them for 2nd Gens, but isn't going to be able to dedicate the time and resources. I had requested his prototypes and they will be arriving on my doorstep shortly.

To be honest, I don't even know if I really want/need the adjustability of the SPC uppers... I do however like that the SPC lowers have moved the ball joint forward and all of the caster doesn't have to be taken care with the upper. Detroit Speed has done the same with their lowers... I don't know, there are just too many choices :P