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 think you guys are too worried about toes, yokes, cambers' and casters, what ever those words mean?? When you are only driving the car 1,000-2,000 miles a year.
The most that will happen is the tires won't wear evenly. The tires will "age out" and ( need to be replaced) before any real damage will show up.
I am looking at caster as a stabilizing setting at highway speeds. My '72 only has 2° & 1.3° L/R. It's feels light in the steering at 55 and I'd like to firm it up. I asked for 2.75° minimum but nothing was done. (I did not return the car for a re-do for other reasons, but I also don't want to have to educate them and use my car as their learning platform.)
I think you guys are too worried about toes, yokes, cambers' and casters, what ever those words mean?? When you are only driving the car 1,000-2,000 miles a year.
The most that will happen is the tires won't wear evenly. The tires will "age out" and ( need to be replaced) before any real damage will show up.
I half agree... The rear can be easily set up close enough with the string frame and level. The front on the other hand could wear the tires pretty quickly but more importantly reduce driving stability and handling. I want the front dead nuts
I half agree... The rear can be easily set up close enough with the string frame and level. The front on the other hand could wear the tires pretty quickly but more importantly reduce driving stability and handling. I want the front dead nuts
Sorry Tom; after 20 years in the alignment business and having specialized in C2-C3 rear and having owned a C3 I disagree. IMO if the rear is bad enough to see with the naked eye it's bad and your picture looks pretty bad to me. If mine came out like that I'd be pretty upset. A vintage car that looks as nice as yours deserves to be done right once and for all.
I think you guys are too worried about toes, yokes, cambers' and casters, what ever those words mean?? When you are only driving the car 1,000-2,000 miles a year.
The most that will happen is the tires won't wear evenly. The tires will "age out" and ( need to be replaced) before any real damage will show up.
Maybe if you are completely unconcerned about tire wear and handling and you drive the car like you're in the Rose Bowl parade. Alignment settings have a huge impact on how the car handles. I think the OP needs to find an alignment shop that is familiar with older Corvettes or do it himself. I did mine with a pair of magnetic bubble-gauge alignment tools from Amazon, a pair of Harbor Freight tape measures, some string & straight edges.
I am looking at caster as a stabilizing setting at highway speeds. My '72 only has 2° & 1.3° L/R. It's feels light in the steering at 55 and I'd like to firm it up. I asked for 2.75° minimum but nothing was done. (I did not return the car for a re-do for other reasons, but I also don't want to have to educate them and use my car as their learning platform.)
I was in the same boat but my alignment guy made a good point - these chassis were just not built with that much caster incorporated in their design. Since you adjust the caster by shimming the upper control arm an unequal amount, if you try to venture too far from the factory spec you will wind up with a (potentially unsafe) very large stack of shims and the bolt probably under a lot more strain than intended, and will also struggle to maintain correct camber. I'm no engineer but it makes a lot of sense. I put aftermarket adjustable upper control arms on mine so I can easily set the alignment wherever I want it - currently at 3.5' and it handles like a dream (any more than that and the wheel starts to look visually offset in the wheelwell and I worried about clearance issues). If someone wants to maintain the factory look, Moog makes UCA shafts that increase the caster.
I am looking at caster as a stabilizing setting at highway speeds. My '72 only has 2° & 1.3° L/R. It's feels light in the steering at 55 and I'd like to firm it up. I asked for 2.75° minimum but nothing was done. (I did not return the car for a re-do for other reasons, but I also don't want to have to educate them and use my car as their learning platform.)
I was in the same boat but my alignment guy made a good point - these chassis were just not built with that much caster incorporated in their design. Since you adjust the caster by shimming the upper control arm an unequal amount, if you try to venture too far from the factory spec you will wind up with a (potentially unsafe) very large stack of shims and the bolt probably under a lot more strain than intended, and will also struggle to maintain correct camber. I'm no engineer but it makes a lot of sense. I put aftermarket adjustable upper control arms on mine so I can easily set the alignment wherever I want it - currently at 3.5' and it handles like a dream (any more than that and the wheel starts to look visually offset in the wheelwell and I worried about clearance issues). If someone wants to maintain the factory look, Moog makes UCA shafts that increase the caster.
Sorry Tom; after 20 years in the alignment business and having specialized in C2-C3 rear and having owned a C3 I disagree. IMO if the rear is bad enough to see with the naked eye it's bad and your picture looks pretty bad to me. If mine came out like that I'd be pretty upset. A vintage car that looks as nice as yours deserves to be done right once and for all.
We agree, I didn't mean the current view was acceptable. What I meant to say was you could probably do the rear at home but get a shop to set the front
>What I meant to say was you could probably do the rear at home but get a shop to set the front<
It is actually cheap and easy to make your own alignment equipment for the rear at home. A bubble level will work fine for the rear camber and the pictures are of a simple toe gauge I slapped together for a few bucks worth of Home Depot black pipe. The key (and most important part) of both is a "slip plate" for the tire to sit on while the weight of the car settles everything. This is also not too hard. You can get a sheet (say 2 x 2 feet) of 1/8" Lexan or polycarbonate, at the building supply, cut it in half, put plenty of grease between the two halves and rest the tire on top of it during alignment. Once sitting on this "sandwich" one good bounce should settle the suspension nicely to take measurements. Toe gauge. Just rest the long section on the level floor and tilt the ends up to the same height when measuring the front of the tire to compare to the rear. Close up of the adjustable end.
When I did mine, I measured the distance between the front rotors and the back rotors and marked the exact center of the car from side to side, then ran a string from front to back of the car along these 2 points - that is the thrust centerline of the car and the point I used for all of my toe measurements. I used a cheap bubble level alignment tool for camber & caster. I also made sure I had just over a 1/2 tank of fuel and threw some weight in the drivers seat just to get everything as close as possible. I'd be curious to put it on a modern laser rack and see how close I got it, but it drives fine and I'd be willing to bet it's within spec or damn close!
I was in the same boat but my alignment guy made a good point - these chassis were just not built with that much caster incorporated in their design. Since you adjust the caster by shimming the upper control arm an unequal amount, if you try to venture too far from the factory spec you will wind up with a (potentially unsafe) very large stack of shims and the bolt probably under a lot more strain than intended, and will also struggle to maintain correct camber. I'm no engineer but it makes a lot of sense. I put aftermarket adjustable upper control arms on mine so I can easily set the alignment wherever I want it - currently at 3.5' and it handles like a dream (any more than that and the wheel starts to look visually offset in the wheelwell and I worried about clearance issues). If someone wants to maintain the factory look, Moog makes UCA shafts that increase the caster.
Factory specs were based on bias ply tires. From what I understand from the C3 alignment guys, radial tires on our cars do better with different specs. I agree that a thick stack of shims under one nut isn't likely the best idea.
