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.
First to admit, you could fill a library with what I don't know about wheel alignment, but, trying to get my act together before my 4 wheel alignment Tuesday. The suspension is bone stock and all rebuilt with NOS rubber everywhere, rebuilt trailing arms, half-shafts, strut rods, new shocks, etc.. Tires are new radials and OEM diameter. NO power steering.
The first pic is the shop manual specs (I know bias ply tires and all that):
Here are some specs from the Corvette Forum:
And finally, the specs that Van Steel provides for Street Use, I have no clue what "Rake" is:
So, what do I tell my alignment technician that I want ?
The car is gently driven on city streets..
Last edited by Frankie the Fink; 04-08-2021 at 04:39 PM.
Frankie, it is funny that you bring this up......purchased my car in Dec. and it handled terribly. Decided to get the car aligned and I took it too a local well respected alignment shop with the above specs ( provided by Leif) printed out. They got the car on the rack and checked out the rear first. ( they stated you always do the rear first as it has a direct affect on the how the front sets up. I had a great tech that allowed me to be involved with the setup. He appreciated me giving him the specs as he had done a few Vettes but did not have any specs for the 65.
My car was waaayyyy out of wack. Left rear had no shims and was floating around. Fortunately I had purchased a set of stainlesis shims. If you are getting them make sure you get the ones that are slotted for ease of install. (Ecklers) I did not have the correct set so we had to grind the slot into the ones we were using ....a real PITA.
Anyway three hours later I was on the road. The car now drives like a dream. It really tracks effortlessly and I have renewed confidence it its handling ability. BTW my car has reproduction redline radials and no power steering and reproduction bolt on knockoffs. Hope this helps.
Positive rake means the rear of the car sits higher than if the chassis were level with the ground. In racing applications I suspect it has to do with raising or lowering the center of gravity to benefit braking or acceleration.
First to admit, you could fill a library with what I don't know about wheel alignment, but, trying to get my act together before my 4 wheel alignment Tuesday. The suspension is bone stock and all rebuilt with NOS rubber everywhere, rebuilt trailing arms, half-shafts, strut rods, new shocks, etc.. Tires are new radials and OEM diameter. NO power steering.
The first pic is the shop manual specs (I know bias ply tires and all that):
So, what do I tell my alignment technician that I want ?
The car is gently driven on city streets..
Frank, those front specs from the shop manual make no sense. Whoever set the type got the specs for caster and camber reversed.
You want a lot of positive caster, 2* - 3*.
You want near zero camber. If it were my car, I'd shoot for ~-0.5* front camber
You sure have some kind of weird '63 Corvette Shop Manual. I'm only aware of one version for both back in the day and newer reprints. Here's what mine says:
Front caster +1 3/4 +/- 1/2
Front camber 3/4 +/- 1/2
Total toe-in 0-1/8"
rear camber -0* 20' +/-30'
Total TOE-IN 0-1/8"
Alignment is a chassis tuning parameter, and the OE specs are for ''average" driving with bias ply tires.
I have two recommendations - one for touring and one for sport. If you have typical trailer tires you can use the sport setting and definitely go sport with sticky tires like the Avon CR6ZZ. If you have bias ply tires use the OE toe-in recommendations.
TOURING
Front camber 0 deg.
Caster 1.5-2.5 deg.
Total front toe-in 1/16"
Rear camber -0.5 deg.
TOE-IN 1/32" per wheel
SPORT
Front camber -1 deg.
Front caster 1.5-2.5 deg.
Front TOE-IN 1/32" per wheel
Rear camber -1 deg.
Rear TOE-IN 1/32' per wheel
Use the high end of the caster range for power steering although you might not be able to achieve it. Higher caster offers more steering feel, but increases effort, especially at low speed. Use your own judgement where to be in the range based on your strength and overall physical condition.
As far as tolerance is concerned, get as close to your chosen settings as possible and get side to side settings as close to the same as possible, This is especially important for rear toe-in.
Well damn- you made me dig around on my shelves Duke...
My OLD, venerable, much used and abused manual had the weird camber info in the first post here (first picture below)..
My repro reprint purchased in January has the correct info (I presume)..- second picture.
Strange and I have no explanation
Last edited by Frankie the Fink; 04-09-2021 at 10:36 AM.
Frank, those front specs from the shop manual make no sense. Whoever set the type got the specs for caster and camber reversed.
You want a lot of positive caster, 2* - 3*.
You want near zero camber. If it were my car, I'd shoot for ~-0.5* front camber
I also don't understand the toe out on it for the rear suspension. I don't think I ever remember seeing a recommendation for toe out on the rear suspension of a Corvette, at least for the street..
Frank, you want positive caster for the track.....on the street too much will lead to an extremely rough ride when you hit expansion joints, etc. BTDT many, many times when customers wanted to go from 0 or .5 to 1.5-3 in older cars. Unless you are tracking the car, I wouldn't. I would go with close to stock specs. With radial tires, I like close to o camber, o toe, and about max stock spec caster....This applies to all pre-radial tire cars.
Frank
You might make sure the alignment shop knows the difference between degrees and inches. The shop I went to did not and I had to have him call the alignment machine tech guy to show him how to change the equipment from degrees to inches.
Frank
You might make sure the alignment shop knows the difference between degrees and inches. The shop I went to did not and I had to have him call the alignment machine tech guy to show him how to change the equipment from degrees to inches.
That part is OK. Some other well-regarded members recommended “the guy” I’m using.
There's a simple geometric principle and calculation to convert toe-in in inches to degrees and vice versa. If the guy doesn't know how to do it go to a different shop. Unfortunately, you might run out of shops. That's the state of the modern primary education system. It sucks!
Not too long ago I started a thread asking if anyone had a loose trailing and could accurately measure the distance between the bushing and spindle axes. I needed it to calculate how much shim stack I needed to swap from inside to outside to alter a bit of toe out that caused squirrely handing to toe-in.
All modern alignment equipment will change from inches to degrees or metric to degrees with the push of a virtual button. Like the button on an electronic micrometer. I haven't had to 'do the math' for over 30 years.
Some other items you may want to consider. Camber and Toe are the only specs that wear tires, Caster is more about the way car drives and reacts to the road and the driver. It was quite the norm for cars of that era to have 0 Caster which many consider way too little today. While not comparable however interesting my 63 restomod with a Roadster Shop chassis has 8 degrees of caster. Personally, I like a shop that does not use computers instead they use old school clamp on gauges. Lastly, I would use a shop that starts with the specs and then listens to your comments for final adjustments.
All modern alignment equipment will change from inches to degrees or metric to degrees with the push of a virtual button. Like the button on an electronic micrometer. I haven't had to 'do the math' for over 30 years.
Yeah, but in this case the tech didn't know how to change the machine configuration and others have found the same thing and came here to ask how to convert inched toe to degrees toe,
That's why I suggested that if the tech doesn't know how to change the machine or make the calculation...
Well damn- you made me dig around on my shelves Duke...
My OLD, venerable, much used and abused manual had the weird camber info in the first post here (first picture below)..
My repro reprint purchased in January has the correct info (I presume)..- second picture.
Strange and I have no explanation
I think your old shop manual was possessed by the devil. AFAIK it was available in the fall about the time the car was introduced. Mine is mid-March production and the first thing I did was tear out the bingo card in the owner's manual to order a shop manual and got it within a month of delivery... read the whole thing cover to cover. Maybe they corrected some errors on a second priinting.
There are also alignment specs in the AIM that pretty much jibe with what I quoted from my manuals and your later one, Sect. 4 Sheet 6.00. There are actually three sets of specs. "Design" is full fuel and a full load of people and baggage - probably on the order of 400-500 pounds. "Curb" is full fluids including fuel, but no pass. or cargo. "As shipped" is all normal equipment and full fluids except fuel, which is 3 gallons.
Well the binding of the old, errant shop manual let go so its headed for the round file anyway. Perplexing that something seemingly as straightforward as wheel alignment would be so FUBAR'ed...
Took my car to plaza tire and gave them the specs I had. They said they did not need as the machine already had them. So they aligned the rear tires until the numbers turn green and the front the same way. Not sure if their numbers were right or not but it runs and steers good so I guess they knew what they were doing. To make it easy for them, I made sure the front toe tubes would turn easy and removed the cotter pins from the rear trailing arm and hardware turn easy.
04-08-2021, 04:34 PM
1963 4 wheel alignment specs
Maybe they corrected some errors on a second priinting.
