Less BS about changing tire alignment specs from stock (a.k.a. let's rant about Mopar suspension some more)

[khryslerkid]

How is that? Don't many machines also reference directly off the rim flange?

Once the sensors are attached to the rim the wheel is spun and it reads any runout.

 

[ckessel]

You guys might know the answer to this riddle. My 69 GTX has a lot, and I mean a lot of negative camber on the pass side. You can see it. Drivers side has maybe a little. It’s never been measured since I’ve had the car. I took decades old bias ply’s off as soon as I got it and went with redline radials. I couldn’t tell you how it’d do with bias plys as those were so rock hard it was a harrowing 20 miles at no more than 40 to get the car home.

It drives well I have to say. It’s a totally stock 70k mile car, I don’t push it around corners. It feels fine in this big sweeper out by the industrial park at say 90. I’d have to drive most of an hour to get out where you could really play in turns anyway. Cars everywhere here.

The camber is so much you can see a difference in the sway bar links. Kicked over a bit on that side where the driver one is basically straight. The ride height looks similar side to side, again I haven’t measured so just eyeballed.

Any reason they would have done this on purpose? I’ve thought about trying to even it up when I do the next set of tires, but obviously this works for my use of the car. ??? Do I open Pandora’s box?

Like mentioned by RemCharger, check those bushings. Add to that checking inspecting the sleeves in the K-frame that the lower control arm shafts mount to. Known to crack welds/wallow out giving you issues. Then the possibility of either upper control arm mounts not being where they are supposed to be welded on, maybe a Monday or Friday car, or possibly the frame rail is rolled around at that point. Prior damage that didn't get fixed? Time for some Columbo work investigating.

 

[j-c-c-62]

Nope push a grocery cart fast enough and the wheel will caster shimmy, grocery carts have lots of positive caster.

Is that why they call them "casters"?

 

[Kern Dog]

His picture is shown measuring from the rim, tire bulge is irrelevant in that case, I can't see rim runout being a significant factor here if we are using tape measures. A simple spin test visually will indicate if it is enough to be concerned with IMO.

As jc62 stated you stay away from the tire bulge and measure to the rim itself. I do check runout of the rim because I've had the problem in the past with inferior rims. Once set up on the alignment machine the sensors take in account for any runout.

What I posted is to get you close to specs before finding a good shop with a alignment machine. You can see from the readouts how close I was. I wouldn't accept my settings as final.

Here is what I saw.

Again, I can appreciate the low buck efforts as I too embrace that sort of thing but I see measuring off of a bulge at the bottom and no bulge at the top as being inaccurate. Whatever camber you find here seems to be mixed in with the bulge of the sidewall. Attaching the square directly to the wheel rim edge would eliminate that variable. Framing squares are cheap. You could cut one to fit the rim and use a block of wood to hold it up off the ground enough to clear the sidewall.

 

[j-c-c-62]

Maybe I was seeing updated pics that were not added at the time you viewed.
Regardless, we are all on the same page regarding noted tire bulge.

 

[Unkle Krusty]

I read most of the original thread, but so far not all the replies. Will revisit later.
There are three things preventing us from decent uphill highway speeds. Tukvan is a 77 Camper van. 318. 727. Dana 60. We weigh 6600 pounds. We wander about. The mighty 318 does not have enough giddy up.
Not much we can do about the weight, we are heavy.
Had the steering box fixed, but still not super good. Alignment still to come, and new shocks. They got slaughtered going to the Arctic Ocean. This winter the mighty 318 will be getting some Edelbrock bits. Cam carb etc. we should be good to go, but I think there is more improvement to be had with the steering.

 

[SlinktRR]

Did OP consider putting a BMW steering rack on a b body? That got my attention because of this:



He put an e36 front end (90's bmw 3 series) in a 69 satellite and was built recently. I have not seen that done before, but it appears to handle extremely well. There is another video of this car on a road course.

 

[cudak888]

Did OP consider putting a BMW steering rack on a b body? That got my attention because of this:

He put an e36 front end (90's bmw 3 series) in a 69 satellite and was built recently. I have not seen that done before, but it appears to handle extremely well. There is another video of this car on a road course.

There's a point where one's bringing the plow for the flowerpot too. For a drift car or highly modified autocross vehicle, I get it - but there are less drastic ways to solve this too.

If one's goal is to rack-and-pinion one of these, a coilover K-frame should allow for mounting one without altering the shock towers of a stock unibody. Just the same, that's still both a tradeoff (coilovers) and to an extent, drastic.

If the Borgeson solves the steering feel for just under $700 (I seem to recall them being quite a bit more costly), then that's the route I'll take. At this rate though, I won't even consider it unless I can get behind the wheel of a B-body with one; even still, a B-body with similar tire width to my tires (@Kern Dog - I owe you a picture of these big honking pizza cutters filling my wheel arches).

-Kurt

 

[cudak888]

By the way, this is the modification I made to the alignment plates: Additional M5-threaded standoffs to the ones supplied in the box. This was enough to clear the sidewall bulge.

The slots are still not narrow enough to really support a 15" (or 14") rim with substantial sidewall though. They just barely touch the rim lip. It's enough to make them work, but not ideal.

It's frustrating that a simple adjustment to the product could overcome this, but neither the brand that claims to be US-made and these identical offshore knockoffs have fixed the problem.

I have a really nice pair of small, but thick (about 3mm) metal strips with a set of small holes in them. I think they might have been vertical adjusters for a bike rack - don't remember - but I might cut and install them on the standoffs to push the pads further up onto the rim.

-Kurt

 

[j-c-c-62]

Did OP consider putting a BMW steering rack on a b body? That got my attention because of this:



He put an e36 front end (90's bmw 3 series) in a 69 satellite and was built recently. I have not seen that done before, but it appears to handle extremely well. There is another video of this car on a road course.

For some reason I can't wrap my head around what is the likely disparity in just track width between the E36 and the B body, or all the mods needed to get a proper fit, and then ask myself, why, just to get a R&P? I have huge respect for the Bimmer and have owned a few, 320, 635, and a 735 over the years, and we can disregard my wife's and daughter's Bimmers, all drove/handled great, IMO it was the fine tuning, not the hardware.
Adding a BMW R&P to a B body would be my the last/never choice.

 

[cudak888]

For some reason I can't wrap my head around what is the likely disparity in just track width between the E36 and the B body, or all the mods needed to get a proper fit, and then ask myself, why, just to get a R&P? I have huge respect for the Bimmer and have owned a few, 320, 635, and a 735, all drove/handled great, IMO it was the fine tuning, not the hardware.

I'd bet the tie rod ends on that rack aren't from an E36. It's a drift car to begin with, so there's going to be nothing stock E36 about it past the rack itself.

It's clear just from the thumbnail that the front track width is a good two or three inches wider than a stock B, much less the BMW.

Given the chance, I'd really like to play around with an E39 touring (one with the M54 - the other leaning tower of power), but I just won't let it get around my obsession about getting my fingers on one of these - the British M car before there were M cars:

I have capacity for three classics here, and if I have to make the choice, the Rover 3500 (P6) is going to win out. I absolutely NEED to scratch this itch.

-Kurt

 

[Some Car Guy]

Like mentioned by RemCharger, check those bushings. Add to that checking inspecting the sleeves in the K-frame that the lower control arm shafts mount to. Known to crack welds/wallow out giving you issues. Then the possibility of either upper control arm mounts not being where they are supposed to be welded on, maybe a Monday or Friday car, or possibly the frame rail is rolled around at that point. Prior damage that didn't get fixed? Time for some Columbo work investigating.

I’ll have to jack it up and check it all again. Things were tight when I got the car, but the sway bar end links did slowly die. I do think I remember this being this way though. I walked through the garage yesterday and a really crude side to side check with my hands as a gauge found the pass side tire to be 3/8” more in at the top than the driver. I’ll check bushings when I put the car on jacks for the winter.

The tubes can cause all manner of issues. I had a car with them both all busted out the entire way around.

It could have a manufacturing error, but overall the car is straight as a gun barrel. CA no rust car.

 

[cudak888]

As promised, photos with the 235/75 R15s.

One might notice - I have a thing for quad lights, big meats, and four doors.

-Kurt

 

[T Brashears]

Nothing wrong with four doors!

 

[ckessel]

I agree.

 

[khryslerkid]

Again, I can appreciate the low buck efforts as I too embrace that sort of thing but I see measuring off of a bulge at the bottom and no bulge at the top as being inaccurate. Whatever camber you find here seems to be mixed in with the bulge of the sidewall.

Only someone that has fallen off a roof would think of measuring off the bulge of a tire!

The other two pics I posted shows the measurements are being taken off of the rim, top and bottom, to the square with a steel ruler.

 

[Krooser]

I believe you get the worn parts replaced, the alignment set and enjoy the ride.

When I did front end work at Mopar dealers no one ever complained about the front ends. We liked the easy steering.

Coming from a hot rod and racing background where solid axles were the norm I like old cars to drive like old cars.

 

[Unkle Krusty]

I have ordered four Bilstein shocks for my camper van. Too much $$, but they should last as long as I need them.
The steering is a bit light, but we are not going super fast.
I will check the alignment the old fashioned way. The tyres seem to be wearing okay.

 

[Rennkafer]

Nothing wrong with four doors!

View attachment 1773648

Definitely nothing wrong with 4 doors...

 

[cudak888]

I believe you get the worn parts replaced, the alignment set and enjoy the ride.

When I did front end work at Mopar dealers no one ever complained about the front ends. We liked the easy steering.

Coming from a hot rod and racing background where solid axles were the norm I like old cars to drive like old cars.

Easier said than done, given that the suppliers of modern digital alignment racks continue to include factory settings which - as has been mentioned time and time again here - are not usable for radials. Not unless you want to wind up in a tree, anyway.

Happy Mopar owners having their cars serviced at Mopar dealers isn't exactly a good sample size, especially since - 50 years later - there's no sign of consensus regarding B-body geometry, only fervent schools of thought in direct opposition.

"Easy steering" is a vague (irony not intended) term and has multiple interpretations, as is "old car" steering.

As I mentioned in my original commentary, the 3-turn variable ratio Saganaw side-mount steering box in my '71 Mustang and the other 4-turn Saganaws I've experienced in 1970's-era Fords and Craprolets all meet the definition of "old car" and "easy steering." They're light and can be turned in with little effort. However - in my opinion - I wouldn't call them "sloppy," and in my experience, they are definitive in directionality. You turn the "easy steering" and - for normal street driving - it goes exactly where your brain estimated that amount of steering input would place the car.

I have nothing against this "old car" steering and I like it very much.

The Mopar box can just as easily be called "old car" and "easy steering," but not anywhere on the same level as the Saganaw box. I would absolutely classify the feeling as sloppy, excessively light (i.e., the shaft is not connected to anything light), and extremely vague. This isn't my assessment of a Mopar A or B-body with bias-ply alignment settings (yes, that experience is in my wheelhouse), this is my assessment after nailing down a correct, modern alignment with proper caster and camber.

That type of "old car" steering I can do without.

I'm inclined to believe much of the lore that has been passed down to these days around old car experiences comes with a caveat of single-brand loyalty, so these experiences - even within the same era - are sometimes not representative of the era. Heck, this even applies for late model vehicles. An LX or LD Charger rack doesn't feel the same as some Kia/Hyundai racks of the same era (though similar), and if the regular driver of either were to step into a BMW of the same era, they'd discover a much stiffer beast.

Incidentally, similar side-mount Saganaws were fitted to Dodge B-vans after 1994 and up to 2003 as well. While the springs in them are tuned to provide more resistance, the general directionality and self-centering is on par with the 1970's examples. They may not have the feel of a power rack-and-pinion, but somewhere, someone at Chryco - prior to DamilerChysler - decided that a Saganaw box designed back in the 1960's was fit for a vehicle of the 1990's...and the Mopar box wasn't.

-Kurt