Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi,

Getting the car aligned tomorrow. Right now it's has a lot of camber (top pointing in to the motor). It drives straight with my calibrated eye adjustment of the toe in.

My current setup up front...

Stock K member / A arms / Struts
1995 spindle / hubs / ball joints
MM A arm bushings

What would I ask them to do if this car is going to weekend car and autoX racer. I assume anything we can get would be better than stock?

Thanks,

Charlie
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,653 Posts
What you do is set it to 4-5 degrees caster, 1 or 1.25 degrees negative camber, and 1/16th inch total toe in if you're using rubber A-arm bushings or zero toe if using urethane or delrin. Then when all is said and done, you take a tape measure and record how far each strut top is from its fender edge. When you go to events, loosen the camber adjustment, put it ALL the way in, and lock it down. When you're done with your event, you loosen them again, and draw them back out to whatever measurement you recorded after your alignment.

If it's really just a weekend event car and you're only driving it at events and short distances inbetween, set it at 2.5 or 3.0 negative camber, and leave the rest as mentioned. The camber won't eat tires too fast if you set your toe to zero.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
What car is it? I'll assume it's a Fox? If it is, how are you getting that much camber? That seems impossible for that setup, but they are notorious for poor tolerances...

Anywho. I asked the same question not too long ago and received the best answer "All the way in, and all the way back".

I'm running pretty much the same as you on a Fox RR car and I can't even get to 3 for camber without replacing the LCA's. Top of the shocks hit the inside of the hole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,133 Posts
What car is it? I'll assume it's a Fox? If it is, how are you getting that much camber? That seems impossible for that setup, but they are notorious for poor tolerances...
True -- every car will be different. Still, you're going to be very lucky if you can get -1.5 degrees of camber in a Fox (less for an early Fox,) without changing things:
  • Caster/Camber plates -- a must if you want to adjust camber/caster at all (OK, it can be done with the factory plates, a tiny bit.)
  • Slot the mounting holes for the C/C plates on the inner fender.
  • Slot the mounting holes on the strut to change the spindle's angle relative to the strut (this will move the top of the wheel/tire closer to the strut.)
  • Longer A-arms -- this can have a BIG effect!
  • Different K-member -- again, it can have a big effect.
I'm running pretty much the same as you on a Fox RR car and I can't even get to 3 for camber without replacing the LCA's. Top of the shocks hit the inside of the hole.
Heh -- When I put together my front end, I ended up with -6.5 degrees of camber. :eek: I had:
  • Griggs K-member -- moves the A-Arms out 0.75"
  • SN95 A-arms -- 0.75" longer
  • CC plates pulled all the way in.
We had to pull the plates all the way out and slot the inner fender holes to the outside to get the camber back to something reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
SN95 A-arms -- 0.75" longer
The SN95 A-arms are actually 1.25" longer than Fox A-arms (measured from pivot axis to ball joint).

--Vince
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,133 Posts
you only want a 1/16th of an inch toe in? ford recommended a 1/4 inch didnt they? i toed mine in more than a 1/16th and loved how it feels.
More toe in will improve stability, but getting too much will hurt front end grip and heat up the tires more (not an issue on the street.)

Running zero toe or a little toe-out will improve turn-in and can inprove grip, but it can lean to instability under braking.

Ford spec's a relatively large amount of toe in for a couple of reasons:
  1. They want the car to understeer at all costs. A car that oversteers from the factory is the kiss of death for that car -- look at the Corvair.
  2. The factory rubber busings, under heavy braking, deform and the tires gain more toe-out. Get too much and the car will be unstable under braking, darting from side to side. This is a big no-no for a factory car, so they dial in a lot of static toe-in to insure the car remains stable under braking as it loses toe.
Now, if you're running polyurethane or (better yet, ) Delrin A0arm bushings, you can dial a lot of that toe out. I run zero toe, generally and just live with any instability under braking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
The SN95 A-arms are actually 1.25" longer than Fox A-arms (measured from pivot axis to ball joint).
You sure those aren't the Fox Thunderbird arms?
I am not 100% sure about the earlier T-Birds, but the '87-'88 Turbo Coupes use the same length A-arms as the SN95 cars. I think all of the T-birds used the same A-arms, but I'm not sure.

I am positive about the SN95 and Turbo Coupe A-arm lengths.


--Vince
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts
From my digging around for info on my '83 T-Bird this is what I found:

83-86 Fox T-Birds use 86-93 Fox Mustang LCA's in the front
87-88 T-Birds use the SN95 Mustang LCA's in the front.

Darren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
From my digging around for info on my '83 T-Bird this is what I found:

83-86 Fox T-Birds use 86-93 Fox Mustang LCA's in the front
87-88 T-Birds use the SN95 Mustang LCA's in the front.

Darren
Thanks.

--Vince
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
About 3/4's of the way down the page are the OEM Fox Mustang alignment specs.

http://1985mustanggt.com/Suspension.htm

That being said, I run -2.8 camber, as much caster as I can get, and my toe is set at zero. I have no abnormal tire wear. For a car that sees more street and less track duty I would back-off the camber to -1.8. For a car with rubber A-arm bushings I would add 1/16 to 1/8 of toe-in.

--Vince
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts
Read what I posted. The 87-88 T-Birds use the SN95 arms which are longer than the Fox arms. Below is take from this post http://forums.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=781854

Control Arms
All fox arms are the same length 79-93
SN95 arms are 1.33" longer than fox
T-Bird arms are the same length as SN95 arms.

K-members
79-86 have control arm mounting positions 1/2" per side further inboard than 87-93. 1" total narrower track width than 87-93.

mix and match (all compared to 87-93 stock track width)
79-86 stock K-member + fox arms = 0.5" per side, 1" total narrower track width
79-86 stock k-member + SN95 or T-Bird arms = 0.83" per side, 1.66" wider track
87-93 stock k-member + SN95 or T-Bird arms = 1.33" per side, 2.66" wider track
79-86 Schneider modified k-member (additional 0.5" beyond the 0.5" already build into the narrow 79-86 k-member) + SN95 or T-Bird arms = 0.33" per side, 0.66" wider track as compared to stock 87-93.

Spindles
94-95 SN05 spindle adds 0.118" (3mm) of track width per side when replacing a fox spindle.
96+ SN95 spindle adds 0.315" (8mm) of track width per side when replacing a fox spindle.

I can tell that on my 83 T-Bird I installed both the Griggs Fox control arms and the Griggs SN95 control arms and the Fox units were definitely shorter than the SN95 units. I ended up using the Fox arms to keep the wider tires under the fenders. I also have the Griggs front K-menber, Griggs coil overs, and '96+ SN95 spindles on the T-Bird with Cobra front brakes. I was battling all kinds of clearance issues and this was the combination that worked best in my application.

Darren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
SN95 arms are 1.33" longer than fox
After this was initially posted the prints were reviewed and it was determined that the SN95 A-arms are actually 1.25" longer than the Fox A-arms.


--Vince
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top