Front End Alignment - BAD NEWS

[JayEstes 173]

Agree.  Beautiful coupe BTW-  that's some awesome paint

[1969_Mach1 335]

Nice paint on the car.  I think it took some time for the alignment because they had to shim the upper control arms.  It's a fix.  But typically not an adjustment method if the suspension parts and shock towers are okay, and the car hasn't been lowered too much.

[larryc94 38]

Something doesn't make sense,  your before spec's don't relate to your tire wear. Those before spec's are in spec for '69 back in '69 for bias ply tires and wouldn't result in the tire wear you have. Even the  toe is not really off except the steering wheel is off center.

The spec's for radial tires are much different as recommended as stated by prior posters in this thread.  If he aligned it to the modern radial tire alignment of -0.5* camber you wouldn't need shims.  You have virtually no caster, on a '69 or '70 shorten those strut bar's and get a min 2* of caster if not more.

 

The guy that did your alignment did a great job if you had bias ply  tires and and we were back in 1969.  I use custom spec's or just adjust to the number's I want not paying attention to if it's red or green.  BTW that Hunter machine he used is a great machine and extremely accurate $40-50K with the rack

 

 There's something else  wrong.  I suspect your idler arm is flexing allowing toe out, or the offset of those wheels are positive and causing a problem.  Not sure what type of wheel that is.  Would be good to know the offset, width and backspace and if they require spacers 

 

Not trying to "rain on your parade" but telling you like it is. I'm speaking from 47 yrs as a automotive professional and have done 100's of alignments 

 

Larry

 

 

[Chelby-Ann 47]

12 hours ago, larryc94 said:

Something doesn't make sense,  your before spec's don't relate to your tire wear. Those before spec's are in spec for '69 back in '69 for bias ply tires and wouldn't result in the tire wear you have. Even the  toe is not really off except the steering wheel is off center.

The spec's for radial tires are much different as recommended as stated by prior posters in this thread.  If he aligned it to the modern radial tire alignment of -0.5* camber you wouldn't need shims.  You have virtually no caster, on a '69 or '70 shorten those strut bar's and get a min 2* of caster if not more.

 

The guy that did your alignment did a great job if you had bias ply  tires and and we were back in 1969.  I use custom spec's or just adjust to the number's I want not paying attention to if it's red or green.  BTW that Hunter machine he used is a great machine and extremely accurate $40-50K with the rack

 

 There's something else  wrong.  I suspect your idler arm is flexing allowing toe out, or the offset of those wheels are positive and causing a problem.  Not sure what type of wheel that is.  Would be good to know the offset, width and backspace and if they require spacers 

 

Not trying to "rain on your parade" but telling you like it is. I'm speaking from 47 yrs as a automotive professional and have done 100's of alignments 

 

Larry

 

 

Believe me your not raining on my parade. That's what this forum is supposed to do! I appreciate all of the feedback to make sure that the new alignment was/is gonna fix my issue before I go and spent $250 for 2 new tires and end up wit the same problem. I felt great watching these guys meticulously go step my step to address my alignment. I appreciate everyone's feedback.

So let me provide some information that may have been missing from my original post based on some questions concerning my set up that may help guide me toward resolving my problem.

1. New coil springs from Virginia Classic Mustang 67-70 Small Block V8/6 Cylinder Item #SU8306.

2. 1" Sway Bar

3. Mustang Steve's Disk Brake Conversion Kit using original spindles

4. 1" Shelby Drop

5. BF Goodrich 245/45ZR17 Tires

6. Rims from a 2013 Factory OEM Mustang Part Number DR3Z1007E Hollander 3906 Size 17" x 7"

7. 2" spacers All the way around.

If by providing this information could provide the correct alignment numbers, that would be great.

THANK YOU

 

[RPM 1,269]

I can't tell if your camber numbers positive or negative? If it's negative, I like your before numbers better which would cause less inner tire wear.  If it's positive, well that's not good at all. Either way, I don't see enough change to make much of difference, or to cause your tire wear. Your caster is pretty much vertical and not close to Daze's or Opentracker's recommendation of 2.0 to 3.5°. You can easily add positive caster by shortening the strut rod and having more shims on the front UCA bolt than the rear.

[larryc94 38]

Well in the previous links form Daze and open tracker have the new spec's.  Here what I use which pretty much the same camber -0.5*-0.7*, caster 2.0*-3.0*. Don't like to to go crazy with caster and stock lower arms by putting the lower control arm in a bind prematurely ruining the bushing and an 1/8" of toe.

What concerns me is the offset of those wheels which seems to be 45mm and the stock wheel is about 25mm, almost an inch difference.

 

You didn't state what idler arm you have, from the pictures it looks like a stock bushing type?

 

Would be curious if your car was driven over a tire scuff gauge, it measures toe while moving.  Some shops have it as a selling tool to show your alignment is off.  What I like is it gives you an idea what toe is moving.  It could be fine sitting still but toe out while driving.

 

With your wheels toe may have to set with more toe, maybe a 1/4"

 

Larry

 

 

[larryc94 38]

His camber before was +0.3 and +0.5 and is dead on +1 both sides  after adjusting to the original '69 spec as the tech pulled up in the machines data base

 

Larry

 

 

[larryc94 38]

Trying to figure your offset with those 2"  (50mm) spacers, looks like  the spacer negates the 45mm offset of the wheel so you have like 5 mm  negative offset instead of the stock of 25 mm positive

[larryc94 38]

With those 2" spacers and those wheels, the point where the load of the vehicle is transmitted is more towards the outside of the wheel.  The stock wheel is closer to the center.

I think what it does is have more leverage by being further towards the outside.  You still haven't told us what type of idler arm you have but your setup like all front ends as you go forward it wants to toe out.  With the increase in leverage of you setup may require more toe in.  I'd start with a 1/4" and watch the tires like a hawk.

  I think your going to have to replace the tires to see.

[RPM 1,269]

On 5/28/2017 at 10:14 AM, larryc94 said:

His camber before was +0.3 and +0.5 and is dead on +1 both sides  after adjusting to the original '69 spec as the tech pulled up in the machines data base

 

Larry

 

 

With the Shelby/Arning UCA drop, you want to use Daze or Opentracker for the alignment specs, NOT original 69 Ford numbers.

[Chelby-Ann 47]

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 1:32 PM, RPM said:

Daze's alignment specs:. http://dazecars.com/dazed/suspension101.html#3

Please align to these specs “1967-1970 Mustang, Falcon & Cougar Performance Alignment with or without Shelby drop”.  

These specifications are in order of importance.

1.  NO more than .25 degrees difference between driver’s side and passenger’s side.

2. +2.0  to +3.5 degrees caster.  

3.  -.5 to 0 degrees camber.  No positive camber, please.  There is no problem having a slight variation from driver’s side to passenger’s side to account for the crown in the road.

4.    1/16" to 1/8” toe in

I will find a shop that will align to these specs and keep an eye on the wear pattern. Thank You All for the feedback. 

[Chelby-Ann 47]

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:44 AM, larryc94 said:

With those 2" spacers and those wheels, the point where the load of the vehicle is transmitted is more towards the outside of the wheel.  The stock wheel is closer to the center.

I think what it does is have more leverage by being further towards the outside.  You still haven't told us what type of idler arm you have but your setup like all front ends as you go forward it wants to toe out.  With the increase in leverage of you setup may require more toe in.  I'd start with a 1/4" and watch the tires like a hawk.

  I think your going to have to replace the tires to see.

Larry

My idler arm is original to the car.

[barnett468 418]

2 hours ago, Chelby-Ann said:

Larry

My idler arm is original to the car.

 

its likely junk then . have someone turn the wheel back in forth 1/2 revolution while you look at the idler arm . if it moves more that around 1/4" up and down, it is worn . if it moves around 1/2" or more it is wasted.

 

.

[RPM 1,269]

I can't imagine any original suspension or steering part being in good condition. I'm happy with my roller idler arm from Opentracker.

[Mike65 512]

14 hours ago, RPM said:

I can't imagine any original suspension or steering part being in good condition. I'm happy with my roller idler arm from Opentracker.

X2 When I rebuilt the steering & front suspension in my Coupe I used the roller idler arm from Opentracker also.

[mustangmike6996 34]

What difference do you notice with the roller idler arm? 

[grendi 16]

a slightly faster response, besides there is less torsion on the shocks.

[barnett468 418]

13 minutes ago, grendi said:

besides there is less torsion on the shocks.

what?

[grendi 16]

4 minutes ago, barnett468 said:

what?

sorry, my bad, i mixed up the idler arm and the spring perches

[RPM 1,269]

15 hours ago, mustangmike6996 said:

What difference do you notice with the roller idler arm? 

I can't really compare them as I changed my suspension design, and the last time I drove it with the worn out stock stuff was 1999. I do know that my steering and suspension are tight with no slop.

[1969_Mach1 335]

I cannot see the specs very clearly.  But, I agree with some others.  The final alignment should have more positive caster for stability at highway+ speeds.  If the car feels like it wants to wander at highway speeds, it's typically because of not enough positive caster.  The increased positive camber in the final alignment might compensate for a lack of positive caster to help stability.

Been a long time since I did alignments, but without knowing the specs I would have aimed for 2 to 2.5 degree positive caster on the drivers side and about 0.5 degree more positive caster than that on the passenger side to compensate for the crown in most roads.  It might be either he couldn't obtain any more positive caster or he is used to aligning newer cars which only have toe adjustments.

If your idler is original to the car, it would be trash by now and you would need a new alignment person if he missed that and still did the alignment.  I don't think you need a roller idler arm for the way this car is being driven.  In my mind, that might be fine on a track car, but just another gimmick on a street driven car.

[larryc94 38]

3 hours ago, 1969_Mach1 said:

 

If your idler is original to the car, it would be trash by now and you would need a new alignment person if he missed that and still did the alignment.  I don't think you need a roller idler arm for the way this car is being driven.  In my mind, that might be fine on a track car, but just another gimmick on a street driven car.

The reason he needs a roller arm as opposed to a bushing is because of his non standard wheel package with wrong, back space and offset.  To get them to work he added 2" spacers. That  lets the wheel put a lot more stress on suspension  components (especially the idler arm)  causing it to toe out under driving 

[1969_Mach1 335]

At what point is it time to look into wheels with the correct offset and eliminate the 2" spacers and possibly solve all the issues?  Aren't  the spacers also bad for wheel bearings?  I certainly wouldn't buy more tires for wheels that don't fit correctly.

Regardless of wheels, spacers, etc., the front wheels on rear wheel drive cars tend  to toe out when driving.  The front wheels on front wheel drive cars tend to toe in while driving.

[Rcodenewf 44]

That is one nice stang...

John

[Chelby-Ann 47]

So I started working on replacing the idler arm and find that the drivers side lower ball joint has about 1/4" of play in it. WOW! Passenger side not so much play at all. Remember the tire wear on the drivers side compared to the passenger. Hard to believe a ball joint would go bad after 4000 miles. So, I cant seem to find a source for a lower ball joint replacement. You know the kind that when you drill out the rivets in the old and you bolt in the new. Any suggestions? Thinking I just have to buy the lower control arm assembly w/ball joint attached. I wonder if the bad alignment added to my lower ball joint failure. I wish I could attach the video. Amazing!