Author Topic: Ride Height vs Camber  (Read 3296 times)

Offline Strawdawg

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
    • Vortex Buicks
Ride Height vs Camber
« on: July 17, 2010 - 12:06:12 PM »
When ride height is decreased, what effect does this have on camber?  Does camber change toward the negative side, or the positive side?




Offline cowboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1615
  • Denmark
    • CowboyCars.dk
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2010 - 12:07:20 PM »
 :popcorn:
MoPar's for Cruizin, Racing & Pro-touring: www.CowboyCars.dk

1930 Plymouth Hot Rod wannabe - 1957 DeSoto Fireflite Sportsman - 1967 RaceCuda  -  1968 Barracuda  -  1971 Challenger R/T Conv.


Offline 71Challenger426ci

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2010 - 03:29:19 PM »
Negative camber  :working:
WHAA!! YOU SAID PRO TOURING??

Offline Strawdawg

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
    • Vortex Buicks
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2010 - 06:36:12 PM »
that was what I visualized, but, I was hoping I was not thinking properly

Offline 71Challenger426ci

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2010 - 11:24:32 PM »
HAHA..... WHY IS U TRYIN 2 LOWER YOUR CAR OR WHAT
WHAA!! YOU SAID PRO TOURING??

Offline Strawdawg

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
    • Vortex Buicks
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2010 - 04:18:14 PM »
car is jacked up a couple of inches in the front.  But it has several degrees of negative camber.  Adjustment cams are set for max positive camber......lowering ain't gonna help....so, I guess a front end overhaul is the next course.

I was just hoping that I was wrong and that bringing it down to stock ride height would stop it from running on the inside edge of the front tires :grinyes:

Offline 71Challenger426ci

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2010 - 12:19:40 AM »
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A JOB 4 A SET OF A-ARMS
WHAA!! YOU SAID PRO TOURING??

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2010 - 09:04:56 AM »
Moog Problem Solver, offset upper control arm bushings may bethe answer. $60 for a set of four from Rock Auto.

Offline Strawdawg

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
    • Vortex Buicks
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2010 - 09:54:28 AM »
I have a set of the Magnum Force regular arms already, but, either the problem savers, or the adjustable uppers may be the  better answer. 

I am hoping that like everything else that I have found on the car, it is simply original bushings in both the upper and lowers that is the problem.  Ball joints look okay.

Offline 71Challenger426ci

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2010 - 05:17:59 AM »
GO WITH HOTCHKIS A-ARMS
WHAA!! YOU SAID PRO TOURING??

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2010 - 08:41:01 AM »
Sounds like you need to get it down where it is supposed to be, then evaluate what is going on. Is there an engine in it? Why is it higher than stock ride height now? Are the magnum arms on it currently? Is it in driveable condition? Has it had an alignment or are you just eyeballing everything?

Offline Strawdawg

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
    • Vortex Buicks
Re: Ride Height vs Camber
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2010 - 09:55:38 AM »
this is a '73 318 car that someone prior stuck a 440 in...still has the original tb's, etc.

The car was badly rigged, but was being driven when I bought it a few years back.  I finally started working on it last summer and have sorted out most of the wiring (under dash ammeter fire and rat damage), brakes, fuel system, etc.  Now I am getting to the suspension. 

It is drivable...I actually got it inspected and registered  earlier this month.  But, I would not drive it at any speed, even if the prior owner did, due to its tendency to go where it wants to rather than where it is aimed. 

I figured the ball joints were gone, but I don't get any significant play in them.  Bushings, from what I can see, don't look good.  I tightened the steering box and that took a lot of play out, but.....

I checked the ride height and it is close to 3 1/2"---I suspect that it has been cranked up for two reasons.  First, to try to keep the front end from bottoming out on the 318 bars and secondly, to try to get some ground clearance under the home built exhaust.  I have to put 2x4's under the ramps of my lift in order to get it on or off without hanging up the mufflers.

Just looking at the front end of the car shows tires to be obviously tilted in at the top.  If you don't believe your eyes, then the scrubbed off inside edge of the tires will confirm them.  My angle finder says the same thing...no need for an alignment when the adjustment cams are turned to give maximum positive and it has excessive negative camber:)

No, I have not yet installed the Magnum Force uppers.  That is next.  I hope that provides some hope....then I have to do the bottom half and install some 1.0" tb's along with everything else required.

My main concern is the badly implemented frame rail repairs that have been performed somewhere in the past just behind the arms.  It may be that the rails are twisted inward and that is the root cause of the problem. 

Old cars that one does not know the history on can be fun. :)

I looked at the Hotchkis stuff, and it is nice.  On the other hand, one can do a lot of good for a lot less money by picking and choosing.  Given that I have been retired a number of years, and have three other old cars to maintain, I figured to be wiser than normal with this one.  My son can buy the Hotchkis stuff if he wishes when he gets the cars... :grinyes: