• The intent of this Restoration Reference forum is to provide a collection of technical, accurate details to help others in their restorations. These Reference Articles can include photos, descriptions, diagrams, part numbers, concours rules, etc.

    PLEASE ONLY POST VARIFIED INFORMATION. This is a technical forum and the information needs to be as accurate as possible. Please don't post things you've heard second hand or think you remember reading somewhere.

    You may reply to an Article, but only if it serves to give more information or clarify a detail in that Article. These should be a presentation of fact more than a discussion. Off-topic responses will be deleted or moved.

    Thanks!
  • Welcome to the CaliforniaSpecial.com forums! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all our site features, please take a moment to join our community! It's fast, simple and absolutely free.

    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

    Please Note: If you are an existing member and your password no longer works, click here to reset it.

Front End Alignment

p51

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,025
Location
NorCal
Just FYI:

My steering was slightly "twitchy" at highway speeds. It almost seemed as if I had too much slop somewhere in the steering linkage (maybe a worn part, etc). But I checked that and it seemed that everything was as tight as it could be (for 1968 power steering technology). So I thought I'd check the alignment. The alignment was within the original Ford spec...

Original Ford spec:
Caster angle degrees
Limits: -3/4 to +1 1/4
desired: +1/4
Camber angle degrees, Left and Right
Limits:+1/4 to +1 3/4
Desired +1
Toe in , inch 3/16

But after doing a bit of research on the web I came across some different specs (from Dazecars.com) which have been mentioned/suggested on different mustang forums as better specs for use with radial tires:

Spec from Dazecars:
Please align to these specs “1967-1970 Mustang, Falcon & Cougar Performance Alignment with or without UCA 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

So, I did an alignment to these specs. Specifically:
Caster: +3.5*
Camber: -0.25*
ToeIn: 1/8"

The steering is much better. The feeling of excess play is gone. It comes pretty close to feeling like a modern car. One note, evidently as you increase the caster angle on a manual steering car, turning the steering wheel at slow speeds becomes more difficult. But with power steering there is very little difference.

Just thought I pass this on....
 

dalorzo_f

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
1,886
Location
Brisbane Australia
The original specs were done with bias ply tires in mind. Altering the settings for radials is a common tweak that results in improvements as you note...

In general, more caster applies more centering force to keep the wheels tracking true... negative camber also helps maintain true tracking (dependent on suspension and chassis alignment, but that gets pretty complicated to really determine) and reduces body roll.

An interesting write up on the three aspects of an alignment here:

http://www.ozebiz.com.au/racetech/theory/align.html
 
Top