When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
After replacement of old, stock parts with new stock LCAs, steering linkages, and an alignment, my steering definitely feels tighter, but two things are strange - the return to center seems to drag more (it doesn't float right back to center, it drags) and the car hops and grinds the treads on sharper turns like parking lots. It did not do either of these before.
Conditions:
Before LCA's, linkages, and alignment: Steering on center - loose, boaty, play Steering return to center normal (fast)
Slow, sharp, turns - no grinding or hopping- smooth
LCA bushings old, ball joins old, etc
Tires new
Struts, strut mounts new
Wheel bearings new
rotors, calipers, pads new
After: Steering on center better, handling solid Steering return to center lags, sometimes does not return fully when steering wheel is let go. Slow to return to center. Sometimes have to steer it a little out of turn.
Slow, sharp turns: significant tread grind and hopping/slipping when in the turn
Thought:
The only thing that really changed was the toe. I wonder if that alone could do this sort of stuff? Or maybe I messed up on converting 3/32" total toe to .2 degrees total toe?
Specs Below (alignment set to "Street Specs" from other thread (pic at very bottom):
Last edited by Tootie Pang; 06-10-2019 at 03:52 PM.
Just finished my front end replacement and while alignment is pending, it feels like the new ball joints and tie rod ends need to loosen up a bit. Wear in.
I’ll watch this thread for experienced answers. Which mine is not.
I'm using the "hard street" alignment on a 92 that I Autocross.
My setup is basically 100% rebuilt suspension+steering.
Toe in should be 0.05 degrees.
I also get a slight clunk/roughness at low speed full lock turns, but nowhere else.
I honestly think that's normal.
But tire rubbing with a 245 or smaller tire means something went wrong.
My steering doesnt return to center because I have a very tight New RedHead box.
If u box is stock, it should easily return to center.
These are stock size 245/50R16 BFG Comp 2. It's not tire rubbing (at least I'm pretty sure), it's the tracking in slow, tight turns- hop hop hop
McLovin, is that 0.05 deg of total toe in or per side?
I think I found an error. For the street specs I attached, Total toe is supposed to be 3/32" which means 3/64" (0.046875) per wheel. At 25.7" diameter (12.85" radius), I used the calculator below.
The toe in per wheel should be 0.2 deg and 0.4 deg total. I am set at 0.2 total, about half of what the street settings say.
But, despite that, McLovin, you are recommending LESS than that at 0.05 deg (total or per side).
Service manual specs are Camber 0.3, Caster 4.7, Toe 0.0. Maybe I have too much toe in?
Could this make that much difference?
Last edited by Tootie Pang; 06-10-2019 at 05:38 PM.
Ok, no tire rubbing means nothing is completely wrong as I have the same tire (the a/s) on my 92.
3/32 should be 0.05 degree toe in on each side.
I can go 90mph+ and it tracks perfectly straight.
Although 0.1 isn't a deal breaker for a street car.
I remember talking to an old GM engineer here that said 3rd gens had garbage factory alignments due to customers complaining about low speed turning.
I think this low speed "clunk/hopp" is what they were talking about.
I honestly think it's just a quirk of our cars
If both our cars do the same thing, it's probably normal.
I've been hammering on my 92 at the AutoX and it hasn't done anything weird steering wise.
Just finished my front end replacement and while alignment is pending, it feels like the new ball joints and tie rod ends need to loosen up a bit. Wear in.
I installed all this stuff on mine.
No adjustment for caster is allowed on our cars with factory control arms.
I set camber by using a yardstick as a straight-edge, and holding a bubble-level against the yardstick.
I set toe in at 1/16".
This was done by using a tape-measure, and measuring from a reference point on the trailing edge of the front tires, and comparing to the leading edge of the front tires. Front number 1/16" less than the rear number. Tracks straight as an arrow when WOT in 5th gear on the interstate. That's good enough for me.
Handling felt WAY DIFFERENT after I got it all together. And thank goodness for that, because everything in the front end was completely worn out. With the new parts, everything was much tighter. Maybe a little "notchy" feeling when going lock-to-lock. I've driven it about a thousand miles since I did all the work. I'd say it feels a little more "broken-in" now than when the work was just completed.
I still have a little slop in the steering because of the factory steering gear and steering shaft. Otherwise, steering is very positive and predictable these days. "Return-to-center" is very normal-seeming.
Its not a race car. Max speed is probably around 110 if I could find a flat place without traffic where could just hold it on on the floor and let the speed build. It runs up to 90 without too much drama. Anything after that is slow to come, and the whole ride feels pretty sketch because of all the other noises the car makes.
What you describe is a factory inherent defect in the cars since when new. The steering geometry has a poor Ackermann design. What this translates to is the car looses toes when turned to full lock- a better world would be to gain toe. At 12* turn (full lock is close to 35* and much worse) the inside tire should 12.5* when the the distance between front wheel centerlines is considered. We only get dynamic 12 and 12 which does not have Ackermann (Ackermann is the proper gain in inside wheel angle compared to outside wheel angle paths of direction in a circle.) Becuase of this the car equates to a "dynamic toe in" condition which makes the front of the car lift the chassis (we refer to this as "climb"). It can only climb so much before the weight of the car and slip of the tire contact patch relies itself and then repeats.
When your car had older worn parts such as the old strut mounts, this allowed for flex and decreased this feel. Putting new parts back in makes it come to notice as you turn to full lock in tight parkinglot maneuvers.
Informative as always Dean. Thanks for the insights.
What do you make of that chart in the first post? (I've copied and pasted it below and you've probably answered that question before)
I have the same issue with turning on tight turns....I have wondered if it's cause I have the incorrect idler arm with 2+ inch drop versus the correct factory drop.....
My 85 handled better than my 92 with upgraded parts....go figure....that idler arm....hmmmm....
So I discovered I miscalculated the total toe and had double the 3/32 total toe. I backed each tie rod adjuster off about 1-1/2 turns and the car feels way better. Still fine tuning it.
For that relay rod and idler arm, my new one was the same geometry as the old one so I simply marked the bolt locations. That method seems to have gotten it close and everything looks pretty even when I eyeball it going back and forth.
Toe-in should be around 0.05 INCHES on each side, not DEGREES. Major difference. 2 × .05" = .100"; 3/32" total = .09375". Pretty much the same thing.
That chart Skinny posted is very similar to what I've found to work well; my recommendations are close to the "hard street" setting, with slightly less toe-in. I like .030" or 1/32" each side. Also you may want some amount of caster and/or camber split, depending on how high the road crowns are in your area on the roads you use the most. (as much as about ½° more of each on the left) The more caster you crank in, the more noticeable the effect of the crown. But you won't go far wrong using that chart as a starting point.
Note however, that to add positive caster, the top of the strut moves REARWARDS; which makes the wheel tend to rub the fender just in front of the door. Can't be helped. You just have to learn to drive around the tendency. Which is greatest when the wheel is in a "rebound" situation, i.e. when the body is lifted up off of the wheel, compared to normal static sitting level. Going out of driveways is a typical situation that makes it happen.
Dean's description of the "hopping" sort of action in tight low-speed turns is spot on. It's another of those minor nuisances that just can't really be helped, without MAJOR surgery and changes. The idler arm is irrelevant to that.
I agree, 1½ turns on the adjusters sounds like ALOT of change. ¼ turn is significant. ½ turn is probably close to .100" on each side.
Last edited by sofakingdom; 06-17-2019 at 07:14 PM.
OK, if you want to say caster is "adjustable" on these cars by whatever minute fore-and-aft gap there is between the slots in the strut-mounts and the studs on the base plates, and/or the gap between the fender-holes and the studs for the strut-mount base plates I'll agree to that much.
An infinitessimally-small amout of fore-aft caster-play is indeed present. So, I amend my remark: Caster is not meaningfully adjustable on these cars.
As compared to the significant adjustment (long slots) available for camber.
Maybe y'all have different strut mounts. This is what the factory-pattern mount looks like on my 1988 Sport Coupe. Plenty of camber adjustment. Essentially ZERO caster adjustment.
Unless I'm overlooking something, this is how much you've got to work with for caster.
You can see that the long groove in the strut mount is slightly wider than the stud that the mount rides on. You've got that much "adjustment" available for caster.
My car was toeing in pretty hard. I did about 1-1/2 turns on each adjuster to bring the toe out. Thanks for the tips. FWIW, it does not hop during hard turns now that I backed the toe out a bit. I'll keep messing.
OK, if you want to say caster is "adjustable" on these cars by whatever minute fore-and-aft gap there is between the slots in the strut-mounts and the studs on the base plates, and/or the gap between the fender-holes and the studs for the strut-mount base plates I'll agree to that much.
An infinitessimally-small amout of fore-aft caster-play is indeed present. So, I amend my remark: Caster is not meaningfully adjustable on these cars.
As compared to the significant adjustment (long slots) available for camber.
Maybe y'all have different strut mounts. This is what the factory-pattern mount looks like on my 1988 Sport Coupe. Plenty of camber adjustment. Essentially ZERO caster adjustment.
The castor slot is in the body UNDER the mount plate. It's not "infinitesimally small". You should probably look at the cars a little more before you start posting things like they are facts.
I don't know the range in degrees, but the slots have about 1" of adjustment. As I said, it is adjustable and it is limited.
Right: the CAMBER adjustment is the slots in the strut mount; CASTER adjustment is slots in the strut tower itself. Makes an "x-y" sort of pattern.
There's enough slot length to move the caster from the factory's stupid-a$$ setting of 1° or whatever it is, to at least 4½° in every one of these cars I've ever seen. Most of em will go closer to 5½°. If you're not happy with whatever you've got, it's a piece o cake to lengthen the slots.
While I've got all y'all smart fellers setting me right on this business of caster, tell me if my shade-tree method of calculating my caster-value with my iPhone is correct.
If I understand correctly, I can turn the wheels from full-lock in each direction, and using some sort of straight-edge against the edge of the wheel, I use my angle/protractor app on the phone to take the measurement of the CAMBER at each full-lock position. Then I subtract the lesser camber-value from the higher camber-value, and that will give me my CASTER value.
For instance, one lock-position shows a camber of 89 degrees and the opposite lock-position shows a camber of 86 degrees. The difference of the values being three degrees. Therefore, I'm running three degrees caster. Does that sound right?
I'm pretty sure you cannot adjust Caster on stock strut mounts.
You will need the solid mounts from Hotpart,Umi, DS ex.
I 100% recommend solid mounts over the stock rubber garbage.
The solid mounts don't deflect and will actually make your car ride smoother.
All the movement in the stock mount is now put into the strut.
The solid mounts also allow you to lower your car without messing up strut travel.
You also get the ability to run more caster. And these 3rd gens like 5+ degrees.
It's an excellent upgrade for $200.
I’m not understanding why you are suggesting that caster is not adjustable after scooter posted the pic that clearly shows the fore-and-aft slots in the fender.
I was fooled on the availability of caster-adjustment because the fore-and-aft slots are hidden from view by the strut mount.
I haven’t yet applied a caster gauge to the wheel and measured the actual range of available caster-movement. But now that I know those hidden fore-and-aft slots are present, I’m quite confident there will be several degrees of caster movement at the wheel if the strut tower is moved fore-and-aft.
Those slots adjust CAMBER not caster.
Those slots don't run FWD to AFT
It's passenger to driver.(side to side)
Factory mounts give your a car around 4 degrees caster.
Notice how the aftermarket mounts move side and side AND front and back.
Sry, I'm mistaken here.
There are slots that allow some caster changes, but is extremely limited.
You'll be lucky to get more than 4.0 degrees.
Some cars can't get more than 3.0 degrees.
So the adjustment is basically useless.
5+ is impossible Without aftermarket mounts
If you want a few more degrees fore-and-aft on the stock-type mounts, nothing prevents you from just breaking out the chain-saw file, and lengthening the fore-and-aft slots in the fender.
However, be mindful that simply lengthening the slots in the fender does not address the issues of how the increased rake on the strut may twist the upper mount, or how a radical camber adjustment might not play well with other suspension components such as the ball-joints or the control-arm bushings, or the seals on the struts themselves.
Few owners are going to need more adjustment than the factory fore-and-aft slots provide. Anyone who "needs" more adjustment than that is probably playing at much higher level than 99% of the guys who play with these cars as a hobby.
Speaking of playing with these cars as a hobby, I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me whether or not my shade-tree camber-calculation method I mentioned a few posts above will give me a close-enough reading of my actual camber measurement. That said, I'm gonna run out now and drive it.
A camber/caster gauge is a good tool to have.
Around $100 if I remember correctly.
As far as caster goes, these cars like more than stock due to how unoptimised the stock alignment was. Even going from +3.8 to +5.5 caster was very noticeable on the street.
A camber/caster gauge is a good tool to have.
Around $100 if I remember correctly.
As far as caster goes, these cars like more than stock due to how unoptimised the stock alignment was. Even going from +3.8 to +5.5 caster was very noticeable on the street.
I have that tool too.
What did you notice about being able to get more castor? Is it just return-to-center?
Yes, more caster is the cure for the "vague center" feel that the stock settings give. In effect it causes the car's weight to add to the centering. However, it also increases the tendency of the car to "drift" or even "pull" to the downhill side if the roads aren't level (high crown), and seems to make the low-speed tight-turn (parking lot) "hopping" worse. Personally I think it's an acceptable trade-off.
And yes, a rat-tail file, or small grinder bit, makes short work of lengthening the slots in the strut tower toward the rear. Highly recommended if you can't get at least 4½° of caster.
And I should also mention again, increasing the caster moves the wheel closer to the rear of the wheel opening, which makes the tires tend to rub the fenders more. But again, an acceptable trade-off IMO; like the parking-lot hopping, I just adjust my driving to avoid or at least minimize it.
The amount of caster adjustment a particular car will have is based on ride height. The lower the car is, the more adjustment range you have.
I could get up to 7* on my static because of the short distance I ran between the spindle and the strut mount. My car was extremely light weight with also very light unsprung weight- most cars can not pull this off just for the record. I ran mine at 5.5* but I would get a dynamic build to aprox 11* caster at 1.5" travel.
06-10-2019, 12:09 PM
