DeTomaso Mailing List: June 2001, Message #78

Chance

My car is also .75" lower on the left side.  It has nothing to do with the
springs.  Initially, I reversed my springs to correct the problem.  It made
no difference.  I then purchased adjustable Konis - set them identically
side to side and the situation continues to exist.  While my car is also a
73, I know of other years as well as 71's that have this same imbalance.  I
do not believe the body's uneven construction in the misaligned jig affects
the suspension geometry as best I can tell.  Just don't use the fenderwells
as a guide to ride height.

JT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chance Dorsey" <chance.dorsey@madbear.com>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <detomaso@realbig.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Camber Ramblings


> John-
>
> I've run into this in a similar situation.
>
> Last year sometime I made the change to 17 rims and tires and at the same
> time decided to have my 73 aligned.  My goal during the alignment was to
get
> the rear tires to 0 camber.  However, it was determined during the
alignment
> that there were no more spacers on the lower left control arm to remove,
so
> I had to settle for a pretty significant amount of camber.
>
> After mentioning this to the forum most agreed that the rear section of
the
> car had collapsed in on it self which can happen with these cars.
However,
> one day as I stood admiring my car.  I noticed a prominent sag on the left
> hand side of the car.  Wow, I had never noticed this before.  After
> measuring shock length, I determine that the car was setting .75 inch
lower
> on the left hand side than the right hand side at the shock which can
> translate into a pretty large amount once you get out toward the tire.
>
> So now I've determined that my problem doesn't lie in the rear of the car
> collapsing in on itself but instead on the fact that the sag from the
> springs has caused the camber to be off.  I guess it comes from all those
> years of carrying fuel and a driver.
>
> I like the lowered look on the left hand side of the car.  So I've thought
> about compressing the right hand springs.  But then of course I would need
> extended upper control arms which is probably a good investment
considering
> the cost of replacing a ball joint in the stock ones.
>
> Chance Dorsey
> #5365
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Taphorn <jtaphorn@kingwoodcable.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <detomaso@realbig.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 8:03 AM
> Subject: Camber Ramblings
>
>
> > I'm a little embarrassed that I hadn't thought or recognized this
before.
> I
> > figured I'd share a recent learning.  I just fit new and larger wheels
to
> my
> > lowered car.  As a consequence, it seemed appropriate and wise to raise
> the
> > car's ride height.  This would afford me additional suspension travel in
> the
> > rear before the dreaded tire to inner frame rail interference occurred.
> >
> > Digression:  When checking rear wheel fitment, I removed the shock and
put
> > my old 255/60/15 tire on a stock wheel through it's full range of
motion.
> > If the rear suspension is compressed far enough, the wheel will contact
> the
> > inner frame rail.  Ah ha! No surprise to me that increasing wheel
> > backspacing and tire width makes this episode more common.  Frankly, the
> > geometry of the rear suspension is such that if the rear suspension is
> > compressed far enough, any size wheel/tire combination will hit the
frame
> > rail.
> >
> > I had aggressively lowered and added rake to my car to optimize track
> > performance.  As a consequence, I frequently dragged my lowered floor
> pans,
> > destroyed my front spoiler and compressed my right rear suspension far
> > enough on turn 1 at Texas World Speedway to cause my narrow 255/60/15s
to
> > contact the inner frame rail.
> >
> > Since I'm now fitting taller and wider tires, a new approach is
warranted.
> > After raising the car approx. .75" at all four corners, (It is still
lower
> > than a car with stock spring/shock combo) I rechecked my camber
> adjustments.
> > The front wheels went from .5 degrees negative to .5 degrees positive.
> The
> > rear wheels went from 0 degrees to .5 positive.  I am surprised to learn
> > that the ride height adjustment influences camber so significantly.  I
> knew
> > that some change was inevitable; but, I thought it would remain more
> > constant through it range of motion.
> >
> > Learning:  I know recognize why I could not eliminate my negative camber
> > with stock length upper A-arms on my lowered car   The common
explanation
> on
> > the list had been it was caused by a collapsed wheel house.  A condition
> > that I knew did not apply to my car.  Rather, I submit on cars with
> > adjustable suspension, it is a consequence of lowering your car's ride
> > height.  Lowering generates more negative camber that at some point can
no
> > longer be exorcised with the stock length upper A-arm and removing lower
> > A-arm shims.
> >
> > Practically speaking,  I suppose there are benefits to the suspension
> > increasing negative camber under compression.  High speed cornering that
> > would cause the suspension to compress and induce more negative camber
> would
> > occur in an environment when the tire's sidewall/carcass is more apt to
> roll
> > and therefore, benefit the most.
> >
> > JT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>