BS on changing tire alignment specs from stock.

[toolmanmike]

Yes I have aligned my Satellite. Manual steering car. I have played with the caster and camber quite a bit. Stock suspension I started by adjusting the right side caster as high as possible, I think it was 3.75 caster and -1/4 camber. I adjusted the left side to match less 1/4 degree caster. The car drove great and straight. I liked everything about it except the parking lot maneuvering. After several hours and several test drives repeated. I found that right side 3 caster 0 camber. Left side 2.75 caster 0 camber. My car drives great, parking lot maneuvering is ok
Caster Has a great influence on cornering and straight line stability. Castor trail or mechanical trail helps with bringing the wheel back to center.
I believe that our cars can drive ok using that chart, but cars are individuals just like us.. Play with the numbers and road test to see what fit your car and driving style.
Also with our B bodies having torsion bars, make sure you set the ride height to where you want it before you have it aligned.
Remember there are other angles in play that need to be checked during a proper alignment
S.I.A. And included angle are diagnostic angles.

Thanks for chiming in Scott. 0 camber with a 1/4° caster spread. Is that for road crown? With new and tight steering linkage do you set toe at 0 or a smidge in?

 

[gtxrt]

stop in at the shop asked what was my exact specs. he said .2 degrees negative camber. .1 degree negative caster and 3/32 toe in. I asked about positive caster. he said for a manual steering that is where he likes it. he asked me why how does it drive. i said not that hard to steer even with manual steering, the steering wheel is dead on center, it does not pull at all even on the side roads and handles nice around curves. then he said good bye. lol

 

[Kern Dog]

stop in at the shop asked what was my exact specs. he said .2 degrees negative camber. .1 degree negative caster and 3/32 toe in. I asked about positive caster. he said for a manual steering that is where he likes it. he asked me why how does it drive. i said not that hard to steer even with manual steering, the steering wheel is dead on center, it does not pull at all even on the side roads and handles nice around curves. then he said good bye. lol

I don't see why you think that is funny enough to laugh about.
Who cares what HE likes to set the alignment to? He isn't the one that will be driving them. Maybe if you drive extremely careful, don't go over 55, rarely encounter moderate winds, never take a corner fast enough to make the tires squeal and obey all speed laws, you might be okay.
Good luck with the car.

 

[Scott Engelhardt]

Yes the caster split is for road crown. Some cars require 1/2 degree less on the left side to hold the crown. I set my toe at .1 degree toe in

 

[gtxrt]

ok will change my opinion somewhat. on manual steering for me I do not want to go crazy on positive caster for steering effort so 1/2 to 1 degree positive caster and no more than a 1/4 degree negative camber I could live with. on my Newport I will try the same camber but more caster at about 2 degrees positive. Not sure where the Newport is at but like the RT it drives very nice now. for me am not interested in going around curves at great speeds but am interested in going fast in a straight line and both cars now at 110 mph drive very stable at that speed before the alignment the RT was very unstable. like I said in my first post this is my opinion only.

 

[Scott Engelhardt]

I am lucky enough to have an alignment machine and a very flat bay in my shop, within 3/8 of an inch. Nice for alignment but have to squidgy that floor to remove the water.
I also have a customer that will let me use his equipment to make sure I am good.

 

[Jonas Nordstrom]

I did drive stock for many years, then changed a lot of suspension/steering parts + a modern alignment.
Now my charger is more fun to drive than all modern Normal/sport-cars I have tried. (Havent tried the new Challenger though.)

 

[Mopar Miki]

Well I see many of us have been all wrong with the modern alignment specs.

If the stubborn old schoolers had the opportunity to compare what they think is optimum driving/handling barge [their car] by driving the cars and barges we built for ourselves and others they would not be thinking like they do.
Try night and day differences in my happy line of customer's cars

 

[gtxrt]

took the car out yesterday the car handle great around curves took my hand off the wheel at 80 mph and nice and steady at 95 mph. 67 RT manual steering came from the factory with more rate for rear springs and torsion bars. now with wider radials tires and gas shocks with a fresh close to specs alignment. if you can't negotiate a curve at high speeds with this car you either need driving lessons or get one of them tesla self driving cars.

 

[Speedbird]

Reporting back on post 10 and 33 while my clothes are in the dryer going round and round.
As stated, I replaced the original UCAs due to condition with OE style that came with ball joints and bushing preinstalled.
(Thought I was being smart.)
Having replaced an A body UCA years ago I should have suspected that I might have to make adjustments to an aftermarket one.
The A body one was bent because I was run into two traffic islands at 45 MPH by a bus. Bent two cop rims and an upper. No other damage.
So be warned.
I did want the OE look on the RR and will save the originals along with my other spares.
With the repos I as only able to get +1 camber and + 1.5 castor on the left. Any more castor and the camber got worse.
I gave up on the right side due to the left problem and the right side was worse anyway that I tried.

With the offset bushings.
I've obtained -.5 degree camber and +2 degree castor on both sides.
Note that the right side.
The aft adjustment is all the way in and if I bring the forward out anymore I think the camber will get worse. (More positive).
I'm calling it good and will drive it soon as is. Doing this on the floor isn't fun.
Being a four speed and just for normal street use, I would op for stability once moving if that's a choice.
Tire wear is also important to me. So, I hope this works out.
I've driven manual A bodies for years with no issues but can't recall the specs on them or on this B body.
Been a few years.
I was able to the this B body within the street specs per the Skosh chart with no issues and original arms.
A helpful guide to quarter window installation. 66/67 Chargers

 

[gtxrt]

going to put the front tires on the back now because before the alignment the camber was 1.2 negative and wore the inside of the tire a little within 1000 miles.

 

[cudak888]

“Get off my alignment lawn, you caster and camber kids!”

Jokes aside, anyone *really* interested in the science of B-body front end geometry ought to check out Chris Birdsong’s video:



It is a bit long-winded and focuses heavily on improving roll center, but is very well explained.

-Kurt

 

[Rennkafer]

going to put the front tires on the back now because before the alignment the camber was 1.2 negative and wore the inside of the tire a little within 1000 miles.

-1.2 camber will not wear your tires noticeably within 1000 miles. Been driving on tracks (autocross and road courses) for 40+ years so it's a rare thing when I have a car (including my street cars) with less than -2 degrees. My Coronet is currently at -1.8, I have over 1000 miles on modern performance tires with it set that way, and no sign of excessive wear.
You have/had another issue...

 

[gtxrt]

-1.2 camber will not wear your tires noticeably within 1000 miles. Been driving on tracks (autocross and road courses) for 40+ years so it's a rare thing when I have a car (including my street cars) with less than -2 degrees. My Coronet is currently at -1.8, I have over 1000 miles on modern performance tires with it set that way, and no sign of excessive wear.
You have/had another issue...

no worn parts, if it wasn't camber most likely was the toe settings.

 

[moparsaver]

“Get off my alignment lawn, you caster and camber kids!”

Jokes aside, anyone *really* interested in the science of B-body front end geometry ought to check out Chris Birdsong’s video:



It is a bit long-winded and focuses heavily on improving roll center, but is very well explained.

-Kurt

Chris Birdsong… He’s a good dude, and a member here.

 

[AR67GTX]

no worn parts, if it wasn't camber most likely was the toe settings.

Or a combination of the two - higher neg camber combined with too much toe in will increase scrubbing of the inside shoulder. If you run a lot of negative camber keep the toe in to a lesser setting -1/16” max.

 

[Rennkafer]

no worn parts, if it wasn't camber most likely was the toe settings.

Yes, toe absolutely wears tires fast. Camber (with correct toe) will eventually, but it doesn't do it quickly at reasonable amounts (like 3 degrees or less)

 

[Geoff 2]

Wheel alignment. It's horses for courses. Some folk like to chuck their cars around corners to the car's limit.
I used to be like that, but as I have gotten older, I am more interested in driver comfort/convenience. Happy to sacrifice a few mph in cornering speed if the ride is more comfortable/relaxed.

My car has p/steering so I have 4* pos caster, 1/2* neg camber & 0-1/10" toe in. It drives & corners nicely & the 4* caster gives some steering return on tight corners. 4* of caster would make the car heavy to steer with man steering.

 

[Kern Dog]

Years back, I had this car:

At this ride height, it drove okay but was a little squirrely as speeds increased. It had manual steering. I lifted it another inch for some fun off road...

At this point, the upper control arms were almost touching the bumpstops. I knew very little about aligning cars and even less about alignment curves. This was a front disc 73 Duster. Take a look at this chart mapped by Bill Rielly:

He aligned the car to 1.17 degrees and zero camber at the static ride height. Just raising the car 2 1/4" (the numbers with the - minus symbol) resulted in 3.3 degrees of NEGATIVE caster and .895 of NEGATIVE camber. The Duster was easily 2 1/4" above stock height here. Who knows what it was aligned to before I did anything but once I lowered the car back down to this point:

It steered and handled SO much better. This was approximately an inch below stock. Look at the difference in the three pictures...the difference in the space above the front tires is immediately obvious. 2 1/4" above stock is a difference of more than 4 degrees of caster, an inch below stock adds 1.7 degrees. At the taller ride height, the car required constant corrections to keep the car going straight. Yeah, steering effort was really easy but at great cost. This was back around 1997-1999. I was making a home movie using this Plymouth as a "hero car"...

I had a stunt car that was used for the abuse. You can see the stunt car through the window in the next picture.

I jumped these cars and learned a bit about how to patch them back together to make another run.

 

[cap67]

My opinion for entertainment purposes only. My 67 RT with manual steering even if it had power steering. if you bought a new RT or GTX back in 1967 the car would handle better than most mid size cars back then. just think if they had radial tires and gas shocks handling would be a great deal better. fast forward today a lot of talk about changing alignment specs for better handling and changing parts and adding things for better handling but hurting the ride of the car and harder to steer with negative camber or positive caster. just putting my RT back to close to stock specs like camber from negative camber to near 0 camber the car rides a lot better not hitting the bumps as hard still handles very nice. I like my classic cars for the characteristics of what they were when I first started driving them. yes put on the radial tires and gas shocks but anything more If I want modern handling better gas mileage better brakes better AC more comfortable I will just hop in my new challenger.