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.
I recognize the new machines are the most accurate for alignment. But my experiences with the operators when I tried to get my FFR Cobra and the Corvette aligned was like I was speaking a different language. If the specs are not in their program they can't do it. Anybody know how to explain how to override the program and manually enter specs into their computer. Maybe their is a section in a manual somewhere?
The equipment does not set the alignment the operator does
However the operator sets the alignment is what the equipment reads....... whether the alignment is good or bad makes no difference because the equipment reads his work
You cannot set Hunter equipment to make an alignment....... you set the alignment good or bad or for street or for track and the equipment reads the alignment as the operator set it.
Was just checking out one of the new alignment machines at a friends shop this afternoon. Amazingly, nothing touches the car, it is all done from cameras in the front. Anyway, he said the specs for my 64 Coupe for example are in his data base and he could perform an alignment if I wanted one. I am surprised the older Hunter machine does not have those specs. My original alignment was done on one of those Hunter machines. Pilot Dan
We just picked up a John Bean system at the shop and everything is done with cameras. It is pretty slick and can be had for around $13,000. The system creates a live 3D model of the vehicle and tracks corrections as they happen. Unlike some systems, you don't need the tires on the car to get a reading which is great when having to make adjustments. A great time saver.
More likely the operator just couldn't find your car in the machine's database and didn't want to 'free hand' the settings. I used to have a fit with my Shelby-ized '66 Mustang...the front A arms were lowered an inch. I'd go to a shop and hand the tech the Shelby alignment specs and they were different than the regular '66 Mustang specs housed in the machine's database. Some guys would do the job and some wouldn't.
Took the '61 vette to the Chevy dealer down the street and the kid threw it on the machine and knocked it out in about an hour and boy was it WAY off.
Last edited by Frankie the Fink; Sep 20, 2009 at 09:17 AM.
We just picked up a John Bean system at the shop and everything is done with cameras. It is pretty slick and can be had for around $13,000. The system creates a live 3D model of the vehicle and tracks corrections as they happen. Unlike some systems, you don't need the tires on the car to get a reading which is great when having to make adjustments. A great time saver.
Dan, what specs do you use with the new John Bean when aligning a 63-67 Vette with late model radial tires such as the 215 70 15's that many of us use with that machine??? I was having a debate with a friend (who just got that machine) and was trying to convince him the original specs were for bias ply tires not radials and he needed to take that into consideration. He did not think so. Thoughts???? Pilot Dan
Dan, what specs do you use with the new John Bean when aligning a 63-67 Vette with late model radial tires such as the 215 70 15's that many of us use with that machine??? I was having a debate with a friend (who just got that machine) and was trying to convince him the original specs were for bias ply tires not radials and he needed to take that into consideration. He did not think so. Thoughts???? Pilot Dan
We just put the unit together last week and, as a result, we have only done one alignment. I will check on that and get back with you. I need to get my '64 aligned, so that will be on the agenda this week.
Dan, what specs do you use with the new John Bean when aligning a 63-67 Vette with late model radial tires such as the 215 70 15's that many of us use with that machine??? I was having a debate with a friend (who just got that machine) and was trying to convince him the original specs were for bias ply tires not radials and he needed to take that into consideration. He did not think so. Thoughts???? Pilot Dan
The originals specs are for bias tires, but in this case that makes little real difference. For radials we set the camber at or near zero, the toe at about 1/16 inch, and as much caster as you can get with the that individual car. It is usually limited to about 3 deg. The original caster specs. were different from PS vs Manual. Manual had less to keep the steering effort down, but that also increases wander.
Last edited by wombvette; Sep 22, 2009 at 06:34 PM.
More likely the operator just couldn't find your car in the machine's database and didn't want to 'free hand' the settings. I used to have a fit with my Shelby-ized '66 Mustang...the front A arms were lowered an inch. I'd go to a shop and hand the tech the Shelby alignment specs and they were different than the regular '66 Mustang specs housed in the machine's database. Some guys would do the job and some wouldn't.
Took the '61 vette to the Chevy dealer down the street and the kid threw it on the machine and knocked it out in about an hour and boy was it WAY off.
Dan, what specs do you use with the new John Bean when aligning a 63-67 Vette with late model radial tires such as the 215 70 15's that many of us use with that machine??? I was having a debate with a friend (who just got that machine) and was trying to convince him the original specs were for bias ply tires not radials and he needed to take that into consideration. He did not think so. Thoughts???? Pilot Dan
PD:
I checked today re: your question on the alignment procedure relative to bias and radial tires for a mid-year Corvette. I was told that there is no adjustment differences between the two types of tires. Hope this helps.
We just put the unit together last week and, as a result, we have only done one alignment. I will check on that and get back with you. I need to get my '64 aligned, so that will be on the agenda this week.
The originals specs are for bias tires, but in this case that makes little real difference. For radials we set the camber at or near zero, the toe at about 1/16 inch, and as much caster as you can get with the that individual car. It is usually limited to about 3 deg. The original caster specs. were different from non PS vs Manual. Manual had less to keep the steering effort down, but that also increases wander.
Thanks for that info, gonna have to give that new machine a try.
I checked today re: your question on the alignment procedure relative to bias and radial tires for a mid-year Corvette. I was told that there is no adjustment differences between the two types of tires. Hope this helps.
Not good info. The original bias-ply tire spec for front toe-in was 1/8"-1/4" (total) in the Assembly Manual, or 3/16"-5/16" (total) in the Chassis Service Manual.
Front toe-in for radial tires should be zero-to-1/16" (total); radials have more self-aligning torque and don't require as much toe-in.
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.