Severe alignment issues - 90 SHO

[boat]

Recently purchased, the moonlight blue 90, has a lot of history here.

I took it in to one of the best SHO mechanic's I know, at the local Ford dealer, he was known here as SHO N GO (Chuck), for an alignment.

He spent hours trying to get the 3 degrees of negative camber out of it, and was unsuccessful. He was able to align the rear, just not the front.

How do I begin to deal with this? I just put new tires on the car and didn't realize just how agressive the alignment was setup. The car is setting on Tokico's and Intrax on all 4 corners, and has a nice smooth solid, not too harsh of a ride. Feels good.

I looked at SHOSource and saw the Ingall's adjustable plates, but it only varies plus/minus 1 degree.

Not sure if the tops of the strut tower have had the welds broken or not, kinda like 500 miles away from the car right now. I'll have to double check this when I return on Tuesday.

Can this be solved with just a matter of breaking the welds on those top strut plates?

Any other way of fixing this?

 

[kevinspann]

I think the only way to get that much camber is to break the welds, and maybe even slot the holes in the strut tower.

It is -3 deg on each side?

 

[jayro]

Start by making sure the welds on the plates are loose. After that you may need to get some adjustable strut mounts. You could also check on the LCA's. Whern I switched mine from the SLO to the SHO ones it gave me less camber.

I am suprised you have that much negative camber with the setup you have. Are the Intrax cut? Maybe it's a Gen 1 thing.

 

[boat]

Not sure..

It is -3 deg on each side?

Thanks. I am not sure if the Intrax are cut or not. The car does sit pretty low. But also, doesn't ride like a chuck wagon either. I have some front LCA's on the 93 in the garage which still look to be in really good shape. I believe these are the SHO front LCA's.

Start by making sure the welds on the plates are loose. After that you may need to get some adjustable strut mounts. You could also check on the LCA's. Whern I switched mine from the SLO to the SHO ones it gave me less camber.

I am suprised you have that much negative camber with the setup you have. Are the Intrax cut? Maybe it's a Gen 1 thing.

 

[jayro]

Thanks. I am not sure if the Intrax are cut or not. The car does sit pretty low. But also, doesn't ride like a chuck wagon either. I have some front LCA's on the 93 in the garage which still look to be in really good shape. I believe these are the SHO front LCA's.

If it sits low then I bet they are cut. My GenII has koni's and uncut Intrax....is it alot lower than mine? Though it may not be a good comparision since mine is a Gen II and has some weight reduction done.

 

[SHOspazz92]

That is the perfect amount of Negative camber. I'll never run anything less on my car again. Then again....I don't DD mine. =)

-Sam

 

[rubydist]

you could always jack the strut towers apart to the location they should be and install a good strut tower brace to keep them there.

 

[RonPorter]

I've drilled the welds on a few SHOs now. With lowering springs, none of them have been able to get any more than -1.8 - -1.9, with only one of them getting -2.0. And the subframe has to be juggled a bit to get both sides even.

Time for the adjustable plates.

 

[TimboSHO]

I'm pretty sure the welds are broken. I'm sure moving the upper plates would have gotten a little of the negative out, but usually on a lowered SHO, I haven't gotten less than -1.5 on either side. I have yet to try adjustable upper mounts (I have some moogs sitting on my toolbox at work). I don't think the springs were cut, but they did sit about an inch lower than the brand new intrax on my 89, so I'm really not sure.

 

[boat]

So, what is an acceptable amount of camber +/-?

I guess I am a little confused on how this alignment is so agressive. This is tokico's and intrax. Not coilovers. I know that has been stated, but its just so confoundedly confusing as to how it could be that much out.

My blue 94, I have Koni's and Eibach's, with the welds broken, never even with the gen 3 subframe swap, even before hand, the alignment was adjustable, and it was not anywhere near this out of whack. I do realize this in some ways is apples to oranges, but I would think it really shouldn't be that different.

I don't have the adjustable plates on the Koni's and Eibachs, and these are different ones than what I got with the 94.

Are there any other components of the front suspension that effect alignment? I know it has been suggested using the adjustable mounts, and SHO specific front LCA's gen 1/2. What about outer tie-rod ends?

 

[jayro]

It is my understanding that tie rod ends effect your toe, not your camber. The thing is that you say the car is sitting lower than other cars that you have seen running Intrax. It being lower is what is effecting the camber. From looking at the front suspension, it would seem that lowering the car changed the angle of the LCA relative to the subframe. This causes it to push the bottom part of the strut assembly out further than originally designed giving you more negative camber. Are the struts mounted correctly in the knuckle. If the coils are not cut, did someone cut/move the locating tabs up higher on the strut? I have actually thought about doing this on my SHO to lower it and gain more negative camber while maintaining strut travel.

I would thing that anywhere upto -1.5* camber would be okay. Just make sure you rotate the tires etc.

 

[boat]

That's kinda what I thought on the outer-tierod ends.

As a matter of fact, when Timbo and I were putting on my 94-95 knuckles, I noticed that the locating tabs, or the tabs the pinch bolts go through, was mostly gone, still a small piece of it was there. But the way we mounted them, looked like they were in the normal place they should be, or at least where they had been. Not sure if we could have lowered the knuckle on the strut. I don't remember there being much of the strut sticking out the bottom of the knuckle, at least nothing that looked out of the ordinary.

It is my understanding that tie rod ends effect your toe, not your camber. The thing is that you say the car is sitting lower than other cars that you have seen running Intrax. It being lower is what is effecting the camber. From looking at the front suspension, it would seem that lowering the car changed the angle of the LCA relative to the subframe. This causes it to push the bottom part of the strut assembly out further than originally designed giving you more negative camber. Are the struts mounted correctly in the knuckle. If the coils are not cut, did someone cut/move the locating tabs up higher on the strut? I have actually thought about doing this on my SHO to lower it and gain more negative camber while maintaining strut travel.

I would thing that anywhere upto -1.5* camber would be okay. Just make sure you rotate the tires etc.

 

[rubydist]

in my experience, you can compensate for an extra degree or so of negative camber by running a little extra toe-in. the extra toe-in compensates for the negative camber's wearing the inside of the tire, so it evens it out (as long as its not too much out)

2* or so is fine, if the toe is set appropriately.

 

[VortecGT]

I'm running -1.9 degrees negative camber on both side. Did the alignment almost 10k ago and no problems thus far. I did have to cut the welds and slot the holes on both sides to achieve this. As everyone else said your toe will have the most effect on tire wear so I am within factory spec on that aspect.

 

[notbange]

3 degrees on both sides or just one? Maybe a bent strut if only on one side.

 

[vortex2450]

Do yourself a favor, invest in ingalls adjustable strut mounts and Ingalls RCAs and be done with it. SO much easier to work with and I can tell you that both the mounts and control arms offer ALOT of adjustment.


-Josh

 

[TimboSHO]

So, what is an acceptable amount of camber +/-?

Are there any other components of the front suspension that effect alignment? I know it has been suggested using the adjustable mounts, and SHO specific front LCA's gen 1/2. What about outer tie-rod ends?

On a Taurus? 1.5% is pretty standard, and generally won't wear tires unless the ball joints are bad. On a GM W-body, they come from the factory with that on front and rear, but will eat the tires. Those need to be set close to 0 (and are easily adjustable).

The only thing that will effect camber is the strut, where it is mounted to the body and the knuckle, the knuckle and the lower control arm. That's it. The tie rod end will only effect toe in.

Are the struts mounted correctly in the knuckle. If the coils are not cut, did someone cut/move the locating tabs up higher on the strut? I have actually thought about doing this on my SHO to lower it and gain more negative camber while maintaining strut travel.

We mounted the struts in the knuckles the same place that the old knuckles were (took off the wilwoods and put 96 brakes on). The lower part of the locating tab where the bolt goes through had been removed. I wouldn't recommend raising the strut in the knuckle, because then you would have no locating tab in the slot in the back of the knuckle. I've never heard of the bolt loosening itself, but I wouldn't feel confident with a pinch bolt to hold it with no locating tab.

Not sure if we could have lowered the knuckle on the strut.

We could have, but wouldn't have due to safety.

in my experience, you can compensate for an extra degree or so of negative camber by running a little extra toe-in. the extra toe-in compensates for the negative camber's wearing the inside of the tire, so it evens it out (as long as its not too much out)

2* or so is fine, if the toe is set appropriately.

This is true, but you will still be wearing tires faster. 2 deg is only fine if it's a taurus. Any other car will eat tires that way.

Do yourself a favor, invest in ingalls adjustable strut mounts and Ingalls RCAs and be done with it. SO much easier to work with and I can tell you that both the mounts and control arms offer ALOT of adjustment.


-Josh

He's got adjustable rear control arms (BMR... heavier duty than ingall's). But I think some adjustable strut mounts might be the only way to go in the front.


Mike- were they able to get any of the negative camber out of the front? I thought the welds were broken, because it looked like they had both been moved inward (towards the center of the car, creating more negative camber). I'm sure moving them out would get you a little more positive, but I don't think any more than a degree....

 

[boat]

No, they were not. They told me I needed an adjustment kit for the front. When I saw that the Ingall's adjustable strut mounts only adjust plus or minus 1 degree, it made me think that wasn't enough.

I've been gone for the last 5 days, and no where near the car to look at it. Going to look tonight

Mike- were they able to get any of the negative camber out of the front? I thought the welds were broken, because it looked like they had both been moved inward (towards the center of the car, creating more negative camber). I'm sure moving them out would get you a little more positive, but I don't think any more than a degree....