I guess things have come a long way since my last wheel alignment, they use lasers now and provide printout.
Unless I missed some new fangled "tech" jargon, I think these guys are schmoes... WTH, blank spaces on secondary angles like toe out at turns? BLANK? you are kidding?....especially on a modified car, that is just wrong. How can someone take your money and not check that? It's freaking ackerman test, and it also tells of a possible bent steering arm if the two sides don't match close. WTH again Fancy tools don't mean squat.....Their printout was supposed to impress? Whom? (from an retired, once certified front end person) /
Trying to read the sheet... it's not easy.. Wonder what the car has for front and rear suspensions? They show front caster specs at 1.7 to 3.2 max, but initial was roughly mid 7s, and they show a final change, but hard to read...maybe 6?.7 and 6?.1. Adding confusion, they show min/max caster specs that "may" be for an IFS? rather than OEM Ford beam? So, if it is a beam axle, they could change the caster if it had a 4 bar, but I doubt, (if it is a beam on hairpins or bones), that they would have done any adjustments, because it's too involved. Odd...he.he, that they show a final change on just one side on the camber ...a change of .1 degree...how did they do that, if it's a beam? So, if it has a Pinto based front end, yes, you can do caster/camber easy, but then the "final"caster is WAY too much for IFS REAR END; they show a change on rear toe both sides, that means it's an IRS rear, or...a solid rear axle and they bent the housing tubes, which is unlikely. . .
In the Tardel/Bishop book, Mike Bishop said you could get 3 degrees more caster by moving the split wishbone down 1 hole (1.5") on the frame bracket, 40" back from the axle. (???!!) Other than that, most of the book was correct. Front end geometry is a black science to most. (even on a level floor!)
No info from the car owner yet. Rethinking what this shop shows for min/max caster specs leads me to "assume" that it must be IFS, and likely Pinto based kit frontend. Seeing that they tried to reduce the caster on both sides, but never even got close to "their" max numbers says one thing (if it is an IFS), and that says the top "hats" for the upper A arms were welded too far back on the chassis. Kit Pinto IFS has two long slots on each hat running 90 degrees to chassis rails. This allows in inner pivot shaft of upper A arm to be slid in these slots which moves the upper ball joint to it's proper position to give spec'd caster/camber. If the hats are too far back on chassis, the alignment guy runs out of adjustment while trying to move the ball joint forward, yet maintain spec'd camber. The car would look terrible if they cheated on the camber, trying to get the caster closer to "their" Max specs, so they went with roughly zero camber and left the caster too heavy, as there was no easy solution to be done on the alignment rack. I would bet that many hats are in the wrong spots, on many cars built by a owner or a shop that is not up on these (on a regular basis). . you run a shop...what is your feeling on what this car might have for suspension styles? Independents on F/R, or solid axles on both ends? Something's not adding up .
It was way off on front end, and they show final at 1/16 per-side, but total of both shows wrong addition. New math? The only reason to pick that whole report apart and trying to know which front end....is that "if" it really is IFS PintoM2 rack, with a V8 weight, running a 6+ caster...that is too much for those lighter duty racks in my opinion. The heavy caster magnifies the loads on the steering gear. If manual rack,it will be hard to parallel park. With power rack it may seem just fine, but the loads are excessive, unless it's a heavier duty rack. .
All this speculation and detective work... Maybe the OP could chime in and give us the front suspension specs... Otherwise, what's the point in his thread anyway?
The way I took post one, was that the modern way of alignments are whiz bang science, compared to the old way. Think again,... it is not the expensive tools, it is the human being that uses it correctly, and can tell the customer that something is not right....or all good, not just some printout that is beyond a normal customers ability to decipher it. .
So, the front end is a CE kit based on a '40 axle that is dropped 4" with a split wishbone and reversed eyes on the spring, the rear is a Ford Granada 8". On initial visit they couldn't set the toe in because the tie rod was too long causing excessive toe in. Brought it back after shortening the the tie rod and they got the 1/16" toe in I asked for; that's all I was really interested in. Notice on the printout next to the word FORD it's blacked out, I did that because it said 1986 Tempo, maybe some of the specs. were based on the Tempo?
Yes, that makes sense that the modern shop worker, chose IFS specs from a known IFS car, to apply the specs to a former I-beam car that now has IFS. (They could have gotten the proper Toe-at-Turn spec from a car with the same wheelbase, or used the 35 spec on that one item, if available to them). But, now we know it really is IFS, the caster is just too high IMO. -if it has a manual rack, it will be stiff when parallel parking -if it is power rack, the excessive caster is masked from the driver. My advice, not that you asked, is to routinely inspect the rack during normal servicing, and if you ever feel a tick of steering wheel play develop many miles from now, then visually inspect it closely . .
My understanding from the Op is that the car still has a beam axle with split wishbones. I used one of those computer alignment machines recently and they have made it so idiot proof that the operator does not have to have any knowledge of suspensions to do an alignment. They even have videos built in showing where the adjustment points are on each car.
Looks pretty good to me on the final. Little bit of toe out on the rear, not too bad. A little wheel base and track off set, not too bad. It should drive pretty good. Ideal front camber IMO would be -1/4 or -1/2 degree. 6 degrees of caster should be fine, I'd just prefer to see the right slightly higher than the left. It may want to drift right, especially on a crowned road. Drive it.
The Jalopy Journal
