British Rich

Ok so I have looked in the FAQs and read multiple posts on this and I can't find a simple answer, and it seems to vary by car and even tire size.

I need to get my alignment re-done tonight and I wanna give them the numbers to use.

All I want is stock or slightly better (without killing my tires).

So far I have found this that MIGHT be what I am looking for:

Caster +5 +5 (max and equal)
Camber -1 -1
Toe 3/32 (total, 0.05*per side)

Anyone have the numbers handy or can confirm I found good numbers above?

(STOCK 92 RS running 245/50/16's)

Thanks.

Daves03

this is straight out of the haynes manual in chapter 11
suspension and steering systems.

front wheel alignment
1986 and earlier
caster ...................3.00-degrees
camber...................1.00-degree
toe-in.....................3/64-inch
1987-1990
caster.....................4.7-degrees
camber....................0.30-degree
toe-in......................0-inch
1991 and 1992
caster.....................4.80 degrees
camber....................0.30-degree
toe-in.....................0-inch

these are right off of page 11.1 in the haynes manual for 1982-1992 chevy camaros.

Daves03

added an extra post thinking the first didnt go through.

91_5.7_TPI

iTrader: (2)

I run numbers similar to the ones you posted Rich. Little less camber and toe though. Mine's around -.5 and I can't remember the toe. Might be the same. My casters' 5.5 I think. I should have more caster than that with the mounts I have though.

Darkshot

iTrader: (4)

I had my caster set max positive. I love the feel on the highway. Also you want negative camber, something like -.5*. This well help with the horrible edge wearing of the stock alignment specs. Toe in will help with wandering.

91_5.7_TPI

iTrader: (2)

I like the feel of maxed caster. Mine's pretty high. The camber's nice as well. I think mine's toed out though. Better turn-in when entereing turns. Helps with cornering. Wondering's a pain, though.

British Rich

well I went back today and they showed me the numbers they did the first time, They were all very close to what is posted from the haynes manual above (so a little on the conservative side which is fine by me, I can't be arsed to get a THIRD alignment to get slightly better steering)

They told me the only thing "off" was my "center" on the steering wheel so they adjusted that.
The dude was tinkering for 40 mins so I think the original numbers were not accurate and they re-did all of it cos there was a BIG difference after the second alignment, like there SHOULD have been after the first one!!

It feels nice now, and I don't have to turn the wheel 1/8 to the right to drive straight! LOL

My turning radius feels MUCH tighter too...

PS - I drove an 05 mustang this weekend and I'd say mine steers just as well, but slightly heavier which I like anyway....and I have fatter tires.
"sports" cars have no business having really light steering!

Thanks for the input guys.

Darkshot

iTrader: (4)

Hehe, we have a 1999 Honda Civic, 2001 Honda Odyssey, and a 2005 Hyundai Elentra and my 91 Camaro w/ brand new quick ratio steering box turns lighter than all of them

Beware, if you set yours to the stock specs (from the Haynes manual) you will smoke the outer edges of your front tires in just a few months time.

British Rich

Do you like the camaro that light??

I feel like I am driving a toy when the steering is so light

Darkshot

iTrader: (4)

Why wouldn't I? It was quite hard to turn when I got it but is now quite easy to turn with all the work I've done to it. Easy like a Caddy, but still only a little over 2 turns lock to lock and not a single degree of play. Makes me feel like I'm driving something right off the lot.

British Rich

Personal taste like everything else I guess.

I feel completely disconnected from the road with light steering.

91_5.7_TPI

iTrader: (2)

I prefer the steering of my friends 97 Volvo or my sister in laws new Jetta. It's heavier than the Camaro, but not heavy enough to make steering hard at low speeds.
I know a guy with an 89 RS in California that sat his allignment to GM specs and he has the issue with the outer edge of the tire wearing too fast. Might want to have it set so that it has a little negitive camber.

lonesomeloser

Bringing back old thread.

Why the different specs for the different years?

captainchadl

I had my car aligned back in june and i noticed that the outer edge of both front tires are worn really bad and don't know what they spec'd it at I cant find the paper he gave me what should it really be I am using bigger tires than stock

Guest

If you had it aligned like the above specs then the positive camber (should be negative) will render outside tire wear with wider tires. The wider from stock the tire is the more perdominant the wear with the above specs.

I have a strong guess the reason for those specs back then is to try and negate the massive amount of compliants dealerships were getting over the production run of these cars about the front end climbing on itself and jerking at low speed parkinglot manuvers. The added toe out will help the ackerman stay closer in tact at full lock but will cause inside tire wear...so...the positve camber and 1 to 2psi of tire pressure more will give a center and outside edge wear to even things out on a factory tire but will render a shorter tire life span- they didn't car- it was a bandaid fix to complaints on a poor geometry design.

grego93536

Am building a street/track 91, looking for spring rates and realistic alignment specs. Ha e tokico illuminas,245/50 16. Thanks