New Alignment - does it seem right ?

[jamman]

The car formerly had Eibach Pro lowering springs on it and I changed to FMS B springs and new front Koni's

After the new springs, the front wheels had too much negative camber and the insides of the wheels are showing wear .. Also alot of road noise above 55 mph

Took it in to have an alignment but the computer at the shop only listed 1986 Mustang with no SVO specific specs

He setup the Final settings below and it steers much better with less bup steer but I wanted to check to see if this seems correct.

Let me know what you think:

Initial Settings:
Caster Left ---- Right ---
Camber Left -1.5 Right -2.8
Toe Left .2 Right .2

Final settings:
Caster Left ---- Right ---
Camber Left -0.4 Right -1.3
Toe Left .2 Right .2

[Laredo]

...but the computer at the shop only listed 1986 Mustang with no SVO specific specs....

From a former front end aligment instructor - that's no excuse, he should have looked up the correct specs. They can easily be plugged in manually.

Caster Left ---- Right ---

No caster measurement??? An "alignment" without a caster measurment, is NOT an alignment. Even if it's not adjustable on your car, it should still be checked.

Let me know what you think:

Initial Settings:
Caster Left ---- Right ---
Camber Left -1.5 Right -2.8
Toe Left .2 Right .2

Final settings:
Caster Left ---- Right ---
Camber Left -0.4 Right -1.3
Toe Left .2 Right .2

Still too much negative camber on the right, too much camber split between left/right, and a bit strong on the toe-in. .2 degrees is about 3/32 on a 25" wheel.

Is the right side strut tower pulled out as far as it goes? With the camber being so far off, a competent front end techncian would be also taking measurements on steering axis inclination, included angle, and setback to diagnose for bent parts and/or misaligned pivot points. takes about 5 minutes on an computerized alignment machine.

[gbeaird]

Agreed. While that right camber is nice for an autocross car, it's a bit much for a street car. If it's at full adjustment, I'd be looking for bent chassis/suspension parts.

[jamman]

With both tires have a noticeable amount of wear on the inner 2 inches on the tread ..

I'm wondering is this is throwing off the alignment ...

This car has never been in an accident and has 77K original miles on it ..

The LCA's look good and the ball joint is fine ..

[jamman]

What are the factory specs ?

[Horsewidower]

You've got too much toe-in and your camber is fubar.

Do you have caster/camber plates?

My personal preference is straight up or 1/16th toe in and -.75 camber on each side (street driver). Again that's my preference, YMMV

With the lowering springs, it will take some castor/camber plates and/or some redrilling of the shock tower mounting holes. I've got CC plates and I still need to redrill the mounting slots on one side of the chassis to get to the camber I desire.

The guys have appropriately brought up the issue of chassis damage that may be contributing to the problem, have you checked for that? I know you've stated that it hasn't been in an accident, but pot holes and other road hazards may cause things to bend.

[jamman]

Will worn tires throw off the alignment ??

I've read that it's better to do the alignment with new tires in a few other posts and both tires have noticeable inner wear ..

I see nothing bent and the alignment guy said everything looked fine to him ..

Would pics of the undercarriage help any of you point out something that may be off as I could post some ..

Thanks for all the comments ..

[gbeaird]

A proper machine should be able to work around tire wear. It can't hurt to have new tires, and you probably want to make sure they are the same size side-to-side, but the machine should be working off the chassis and wheels, not tires.

[Laredo]

...I see nothing bent and the alignment guy said everything looked fine to him ...

...Would pics of the undercarriage help any of you point out something that may be off as I could post some ....

Probably not. Unless something is really knocked out of wack, you may not see it visually. That's where a PROPER alignment check with all the angles accurately checked comes into play. Him telling you "everything looked fine" is like a plumber telling you that the pipes in house are OK without ever setting foot in the front door.

Take the car somewhere else. Find out if they have a tech who can get you ALL of the the following measurements:

Caster
Camber
Toe-in
SAI (Steering axis inclination)
Included Angle
Setback
Rear Thrust Angle

If they cannot, go somewhere else. Any front end guy worth beans will know how to get you these angles. Like I said, it's 5 minute check. Then...he should be able to tell you what's likely bent and/or damaged.

If he can't, bring the measurements back here and I'll tell you.

[jamman]

Here is all the measurements from the printout he gave me after the final adjustments were made:

Primary angles:

Front:

Caster Left ----
Caster Right ----
Camber Left -0.4
Camber Right -1.3
Toe Left .2
Toe Right .2

Rear:

Camber Left .1
Camber Right -.1
Toe Left -.1
Toe Right .05
Thrust Angle .1


Secondary Angles

SAI ---
Included Angle ---
Toe Out on Turns ---
Max Turn Inside ----
Toe Curve Change ---
Setback Front -0.2"
Setback Right -0.2"
Track Wdith Diff -1.3"
Wheel Base Diff 0.0"
Front Ride Height ---
Read Ride Height ---
Frame Angle ----

[jamman]

You've got too much toe-in and your camber is fubar.

Do you have caster/camber plates?

My personal preference is straight up or 1/16th toe in and -.75 camber on each side (street driver). Again that's my preference, YMMV

With the lowering springs, it will take some castor/camber plates and/or some redrilling of the shock tower mounting holes. I've got CC plates and I still need to redrill the mounting slots on one side of the chassis to get to the camber I desire.

The guys have appropriately brought up the issue of chassis damage that may be contributing to the problem, have you checked for that? I know you've stated that it hasn't been in an accident, but pot holes and other road hazards may cause things to bend.

I've read in other posts here that with FMS B's and stock Koni's I should not need CC plates to get the proper alignment .. Is that true or do I really need them ??

[Horsewidower]

Well, let me answer your question with a queston (I know I hate it when people do that to me) Can you get it into spec without them? I think you have the evidence.

All of these cars are different. What works on one, may generally work on others, but not always. They were built by humans on an assembly line with (shall we say) generous tolerances.

If you want to avoid the cost of CC plate, you could always drill and slot the offending strut tower to get the out of spec side back into spec.

[jamman]

Well, let me answer your question with a queston (I know I hate it when people do that to me) Can you get it into spec without them? I think you have the evidence.

All of these cars are different. What works on one, may generally work on others, but not always. They were built by humans on an assembly line with (shall we say) generous tolerances.

If you want to avoid the cost of CC plate, you could always drill and slot the offending strut tower to get the out of spec side back into spec.

That is what the alignment guy suggested also on the right front tower ..

[Raven855]

The Eibach Pros and the Ford FMS B kits are the same spring rates front and rear. They both drop the front 1.5". At the rear the B kit drops .75" and the Pro kit drops 1.5". Did you properly index the springs when you put them in? Install them upside down? There should not have been that much difference. Did you get your old konis rebuilt or get new ones?

[jamman]

The Eibach Pros and the Ford FMS B kits are the same spring rates front and rear. They both drop the front 1.5". At the rear the B kit drops .75" and the Pro kit drops 1.5". Did you properly index the springs when you put them in? Install them upside down? There should not have been that much difference. Did you get your old konis rebuilt or get new ones?

Well I noticed a big difference between the Eibach's and the FMS B's .. The Eibach's had were extremely harsh and felt like there were no springs in the car and it sat even lower than the FMS B's ..

Here is a pic of the front springs and the Koni's are new, not rebuilt ..

I am not using CC plates ..