Alignment Numbers can't be reached

[JohnW63]

I just had my 95 SHO aligned, when I had 4 new tires put on it. I'll post a scanned copy of the print out, if anyone wants details.

The issue I wondered about was that he could not adjust the front cambers to get within the posted specs. The info in his system said the range was -1.1 to 0.1 ( Why anyone would want zero camber is another question ! ) The best he could do is -1.4 on each side. What would that indicate ? He mentioned that the spot welds had already been cut and I was at the limit of adjustment. Did the SHO have a different range than the standard Taurus ?

The rest of the info :

Front Caster: Left 4.3 , Right 4.6
Front Camber: Left -1.4, Right -1.4
Front Toe: Left -1/16 , Right -1/16, Total -3/32
Rear Camber: Left -1.5, Right -1.3
Rear Toe: Left 1/32 , Right 1/32, Total 1/16

 

[St Louis SHO]

all tauri = same alignment specs. you car needs adjustable front strut mounts and rear camber bushings to make it correct.

- James

 

[Racer X]

Is the car lowered? Only reason I can think of for excessive negative camber on both sides.

 

[St Louis SHO]

They all fall negative. I see about 5-10 per month (even gen 3 and 4's the same way)

Is the car lowered? Only reason I can think of for excessive negative camber on both sides.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Lowered; weak springs; bad bushings; strut tower migration - all can cause and contribute to excess negative camber.

There are two types of adjustable front strut mounts, and several ways to correct rear camber. James can confirm this, but you can probably get adjustable rear lower control arms for about what it will cost to have new rear bushings installed - and the adjustable control arms will give you an unlimited versus fixed range of adjustment.

 

[JohnW63]

It's completely stock. I know the original owner. He's my father-in-law.

So...

1) Will these settings be a problem ?
2) How much would these options cost ?
3) How difficult are they to perform ?

I have suspected that the passenger side rear strut my be loose at the top. I have heard a bumping sound back there, but only infrequently.

 

[93rev2sev]

IMO, the options listed above are band-aids(not that there is anything wrong with that...my car is covered in band-aids)

Take your car to collision shop after collision shop until you find someone that
A. You think knows his trade.
B. Is willing to straighten your unibody for a reasonable fee.
C. Will promise to align it (to spec) when they are done.

 

[SHOZ123]

IMO, the options listed above are band-aids(not that there is anything wrong with that...my car is covered in band-aids)

Take your car to collision shop after collision shop until you find someone that
A. You think knows his trade.
B. Is willing to straighten your unibody for a reasonable fee.
C. Will promise to align it (to spec) when they are done.

And when you are tired of wasting your time and gas get the band aids.

I had to slot out the front towers and go to the adjustable rear arms, which should have been on the car stock in another world.

 

[JohnW63]

Hang on now !

Everything is within spec , with exception of the front camber, and it's being suggested that I need my unibody straightened ? It's never been crashed. It has just settled. It would seem to me that it would be BETTER to replace what is worn, before twisting my car to make up for it.

Now, I understand that strut towers can sag. I have a 65 Mustang that will probably get a Monte-Carlo bar acrossed the shock towers, but it's 43 years old. Aren't there some measurements that I can make to see IF this has happened on my SHO, rather than assuming it has, and then fixing the wrong thing ?

What is the issue I am preventing by doing all of this ? Does a -1.4 front camber really wear out tires ? I figured the toe was the problem with that. How much would I be spending to gain a few 10th of an inch ?

 

[K-Dawg]

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

[Shoaz]

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

x2

Doesn't look bad to me at all.

 

[Ishodu]

I would be happy with that its pretty damn even.

 

[Howdy_Doody]

Actually a little negative camber makes it handle better.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

x2

Doesn't look bad to me at all.

X3.

As Marcel said, it's pretty even.

Most camber issues on a car that hasn't been hit are almost always due to simple sag in the springs as they age causing the tops of the tires to start tilting inwards.

Quite honestly, -1.4 degrees is pretty good for a stock car on original springs, and really isn't a problem for tire wear as long as you're good about rotations and keeping the toe in check. Honestly, I prefer something in the -1.2 to -1.5 range for handling anyway. If you really are set on getting it back to "in spec", plan on a new set of springs.

FWIW, I run my car at -2.0 degrees all around and have not had any tire wear issues. In fact, I got close to 30K miles out of a set of 240 treadwear tires with that camber.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

It's not so much of someone "wanting" zero camber, more so than industry practices.

Many mechanics/techs are paid based upon set labor-rates. Let's say that the industry standard for aligning a Taurus is 0.6 hours. Using the set labor-rates, the mechanic/tech is paid 0.6 hours for the alignment, regardless of how long it actually takes. Thus in a 3 hour period s/he could theoretically align five vehicles. If s/he can align the vehicle in less than 0.6 hours, lets say in 0.4 hours, then s/he gets paid the 0.6 hours labor for 0.4 hours work, and could theoretically align seven vehicles.

The shop wins (they push more alignments through), the tech wins (makes more per hour worked), and you pay for it in accelerated tire wear.

So the incentive is there to get it within specs, but not to the ideal specifications that would minimize tire wear. That's also why alignment specifications now list ranges (eg. -1.1° to +0.1° for camber), versus exact values with tolerances (eg. -0.5° ±0.6° for camber). Customers are much less likely to question to quality of the alignment if the numbers "fall with the ranges", versus are not at the factory specification, "but within standard tolerances".

As Ishodu states, it's good that while outside of the accepted range, the camber values are balanced front and rear. For a Taurus, what is "ideal" is dependant on how the vehicle is driven (daily driver, tracked, or a mix) and the type of tire you're driving on.

I just had my 95 SHO aligned, when I had 4 new tires put on it. I'll post a scanned copy of the print out, if anyone wants details.

The issue I wondered about was that he could not adjust the front cambers to get within the posted specs. The info in his system said the range was -1.1 to 0.1 ( Why anyone would want zero camber is another question ! ) The best he could do is -1.4 on each side. What would that indicate ? He mentioned that the spot welds had already been cut and I was at the limit of adjustment. Did the SHO have a different range than the standard Taurus ?

The rest of the info :

Front Caster: Left 4.3 , Right 4.6
Front Camber: Left -1.4, Right -1.4
Front Toe: Left -1/16 , Right -1/16, Total -3/32
Rear Camber: Left -1.5, Right -1.3
Rear Toe: Left 1/32 , Right 1/32, Total 1/16

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Given the vehicle has never been crashed and is still on the original factory springs, simply replacing the springs should easily bring it will within specs. I don't think you're going to find anyone else suggest that it needs to be placed on a frame-rack.

While the manufacturer did learn from front suspension problems in the early Mustang/Cougar unibody design and has reinforced the strut tower area, is still suffers the same problem that the early Mustangs did, but to a much lesser degree. Any standard collision repair manual or estimating guide will have the front underhood dimensions if you're that concerned.

Negative camber will have the same effect as excessive toe - it will result in increased inner rib/shoulder wear over time. The fact that the rear camber is near the negative limit, means that rotating the tires won't counter act the accelerated front inner wear very well.


How much you spend is dependant on whether you simply replace the springs versus rebuilding the front suspension (ie. decide to do the struts and bushings while you have it apart), and whether you have the means to do this yourself (ie. the time and tools).

Hang on now !

Everything is within spec , with exception of the front camber, and it's being suggested that I need my unibody straightened ? It's never been crashed. It has just settled. It would seem to me that it would be BETTER to replace what is worn, before twisting my car to make up for it.

Now, I understand that strut towers can sag. I have a 65 Mustang that will probably get a Monte-Carlo bar acrossed the shock towers, but it's 43 years old. Aren't there some measurements that I can make to see IF this has happened on my SHO, rather than assuming it has, and then fixing the wrong thing ?

What is the issue I am preventing by doing all of this ? Does a -1.4 front camber really wear out tires ? I figured the toe was the problem with that. How much would I be spending to gain a few 10th of an inch ?

 

[Shoaz]

Negative camber will have the same effect as excessive toe - it will result in increased inner rib/shoulder wear over time.

I'd say that's a potential problem, but in my experience, and that of quite a few others who have posted over the years, a camber setting of -1.5 degrees won't necessarily result in adverse tire wear.

Personally, I suspect it depends on the specific make and model of the tire that's on the car. I ran BFG g-Force tires for many years with -1.5 degrees of camber or more and had very even wear on the tires, even with several track events on them. I went through several sets of BFGs that way and had no trouble with excessive wear. That was with zero front toe, so that may have helped.

Many of us intentionally add that much negative camber (or more) for handling, so there's been a lot of experience with those sorts of camber settings. While they're "out of spec" according to the manual for a factory setting, it likely won't hurt anything to run that much camber and it will help handling.

 

[rubydist]

My experience is similar to Shoaz' - slightly more toe-in will counteract slightly more negative camber (within a small range) and result in tire wear that is okay.

And, what brand/model of tire is also important. I had some Uniroyals on the back of a Sable once that would cup the inside no matter what I did, and when I put on some 'decent' tires the problem went away.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Your tracking the car is what counter balanced the negative camber wear. Hard or high-speed cornering increases outer tire wear, even with moderate negative camber (-1.25 to -1.75).

I went through my first set of Goodyear F1GS's well below the 24,000 rating - but the SHO was only seeing street/highway driving. And being directional and not able to cross-rotate the rear-to-front tires probably contributed.

I'd say that's a potential problem, but in my experience, and that of quite a few others who have posted over the years, a camber setting of -1.5 degrees won't necessarily result in adverse tire wear.

Personally, I suspect it depends on the specific make and model of the tire that's on the car. I ran BFG g-Force tires for many years with -1.5 degrees of camber or more and had very even wear on the tires, even with several track events on them. I went through several sets of BFGs that way and had no trouble with excessive wear. That was with zero front toe, so that may have helped.

Many of us intentionally add that much negative camber (or more) for handling, so there's been a lot of experience with those sorts of camber settings. While they're "out of spec" according to the manual for a factory setting, it likely won't hurt anything to run that much camber and it will help handling.

 

[Shoaz]

Your tracking the car is what counter balanced the negative camber wear. Hard or high-speed cornering increases outer tire wear, even with moderate negative camber (-1.25 to -1.75).

Track use can change wear patterns, that's for certain. However, in my experience that sort of wear would have been obvious and in this case I don't think it mattered. I had a set or two of the BFGs that weren't tracked that wore evenly as well. The bottom line is that -1.5 degrees of camber will likely not hurt anything, including tire wear.