Hey guys

I lowered my '69 Bee about 1.5" on the front by cranking down the t-bars. The entire front suspension is stock except for 1" torsion bars. The rear is lowered a similar amount using dropped spring hangers.

I had the car aligned when it was first assembled and put new tires on. Now, about 2000 miles later, the insides of the front tires (like 3-4") are completely warn out. There is visible negative camber.

On certain older roads, the car gets pulled all over the road, where my other vehicles, and my dad's 70 Coronet with stock ride height, don't seem to notice too much. Its actually white-knuckle scary sometimes.

Did I simply get a poor alignment, or is negative camber just what happens when you lower the front this much via the t-bars? Do I perhaps need some adjustable upper control arms to compensate for running the front end this low?

Thanks for any help!
Paul

Poor alignment and/or worn parts. Or worn since alignment

What were your specs on the printed out alignment sheet.

Parts were new at the time of the alignment, and seem to still be nice and tight from my examination.

I am almost 100% sure that I tossed the alignment sheet in the trash, it was a number of years ago that it was aligned. Sadly, I don't drive the car as often as I should and only put 2000 miles on in like four years.

Based on your suggestions, assuming the components are OK, it sounds like lowering via the torsion bars would not be the cause of the wear? I just don't want to buy two new tires, and pay for an alignment and have the same thing happen again.

Is there anything I should be telling the alignment guy?

Thanks!

If you lowered it without getting an alignment, I would expect unusual tire wear. However, depending on the ability of the alignment shop you took it to, they may have set it incorrectly or not at all. Many of us have come across shops who set toe only and call it aligned since so many late model vehicles cannot set caster and camber. Without a spec sheet, we're just guessing. Of course, if you take it in to have it redone, you can probably get a before and after reading to know what was wrong.

It is also possible they set things, but forgot to tighten the upper arm bushings and they took a set with too much negative camber as you pulled away.

I'd ask for 2005 Mustang GT specs, which are -.75* camber +7* degrees caster and .15* toe in. They won't be able to hit them, but it gives them a target to shoot for and when they fail, then they will have to talk to you about it and you can decide to approve the results with may be a compromise between 0 to -.5* camber and as much positive caster as they can get.

Don't take this the wrong way, but based on the question you are asking, and the fact you commented you can "see" some negative camber, I would guess one or both, you have a lot of negative camber, or your toe in is way off. The negative camber by itself does have a few very nice upsides, but also a few downsides, like gross tire wear for a daily driver. If you want to be more precise with your next alignment, which should be next before making any other changes/fixes, throw a few bags of ballast/sand/etc in the drivers seat when aligning.

PS on the 1" TB's

Thanks for the specs, and the advice for a follow up conversation with the alignment place! I will check if the UCA bolts are loose, to check out that theory too, thanks!



Yeah... maybe I'm remembering the camber poorly based on the worn out tires. Ill take a look again tonight more critically.

I will definitely go for an alignment before worrying about replacing parts!

Do you think some iron weight plates on the drivers side floor would be close enough position wise?

Thanks guys!

Yes that would better then nothing, in reality, most here don't even bother with ballast, but nobody here can make the case it hurts to use ballast.

Negative camber does NOT result in accelerated tire wear on the inside edges unless the toe setting is wrong. I have 287,000 miles on a 2007 Ram 1500 that has been lowered since new, has .75 degree of NEG camber and gets regular tire rotation. The tires wear even.
Also...The belief that a slight change in ride height requires a trip to the alignment rack is being overly picky IMO. I have raised and lowered torsion bar Mopars plenty of times without blowing $75 on an alignment, even with my 70 Charger with tires that are $250+ each! To all the guys that suggest the alignment: Do you also go in for an alignment if you raise or lower the rear of the car? You know that this affects caster too, right?

"Negative camber does NOT result in accelerated tire wear on the inside edges unless the toe setting is wrong."

Yes it does, but the point where you and I maybe disagreeing is, we don't know how much negative camber the OP has, and my suspicion is, if its enough he can see with the naked eye, and the part I was trying to be delicate/PC with, based on his his depth of understanding, he might have a number of degrees of negative camber, and that, with any reasonably wide tire, WILL have significant inner tire wear issues, and as I also mentioned in my first reply, an unfavorable toe setting will add to his worries.

edit, if he only has a gross negative camber setting issue, he is going to be sadly disappointed if its dialed back and loses all his crisp turn in and front end cornering grip.

My Ram has a 305 40-22. Wide enough to be a problem?
No.
This picture is with the 265-40-22s that were on it when I bought it in 2007. I've had the truck aligned 3 times to the same settings. I run Nitto 420 tires and have never had a tire run to cords on the inside with tread on the outside.
My Charger has .75 degrees of neg camber and after 10,000 miles, I changed the tires only because they were 10 years old. The front treads have about 70 % remaining and even enough to have you think that they were on a solid axle trailer.

Well, okay...If a man is running 2 degrees of negative camber with a wide tire, you would certainly wear the inside edges out faster if the middle and outside edges never touch the pavement.

First thing I'd do is take a look at the clearance between LCAs and their bump stops. Should have about 1" because once the LCA hits that bump stop, there's no suspension and things get weird when cornering.
Visible neg camber is usually 2-3 degrees with my eyes. I've run 1.5 neg on the street with several cars with wide tires and no problems. I like 1/16"-1/8" of toe-in depending on tire.
In my days with BMW, we were told to put about 150# in the LF seat to do an alignment. They're more sensitive than old Mopars, but I always thought it was a good idea to duplicate running conditions. By the same token, I've dropped the noses of many a Roadrunner - though not drastically after learning the lesson in my 1st paragraph - and never had a problem afterward.

Hey guys

I must have looked at too many Googled pictures of extreme negative camber vehicles this morning. Taking a look at home, I realize that I cant actually see anything... I mean, you guys are talking about fractions of a degree here, so even if it were several times that, I still wouldn't be able to see it.

The car does handle really well on most roads, there are just a few stretches of road in particular around here that throw the car around really bad... hopefully using the previous recommendation will get me where I need to be and not destroy my tires.

Thanks again for all the help. Looks like the alignment shop is the only place that can tell me whats up now. Whether its camber or toe that is causing the wear doesn't really matter now.

Go to that road or 3 that the car handles bad on, and look to see what the road crown is. Probably a lot of crown compared to the other roads where the car handles real good. Also look for ruts made by heavy semi trucks.

If you have a carpenters L square you hold it up next to the tire and measure the gap between the top and bottom of rim.

The road is massively rutted from endless logging trucks.

maybe something to consider ? with a road like that, i doubt few vehicles would handle as they should.

I would think the same thing, except I drive the road in my other three newer vehicles, and my dad drives in his '70 Coronet and none get thrown around like this car does.

What are the differences in tire width, sidewall height, construction, and alignment between all of these?

We already know there is an alignment issue with your hot rod. If you have extra negative camber and a toe out problem (likely) it is entirely possible that your poor spec combined with a short sidewall and wide tire is tramlining your car to a much greater degree than the other cars that are more properly dialed in.

On hard pavement (tarmac) following the truck ruts type wander is usually due to toe out. The wear certainly could be too much negative camber or a combination. On loose pavement might be other things as well but the basic characteristis will be the same.

For unpaved logging roads, even without ruts, these cars will handle great with minimal or no lowering. For sticky tires on smooth grippy pavement, sure lower is a help. But one advantage of these cars is how well they handle crappy roads.


So my suggestions are along the lines of TC@HP2's, figure out what is different. Also:
Bring the ride up to stock spec or just a little lower (using the Chrysler shop method which will be more when measured at the K frame). Exact decision will depend on ground clearance which will depend on tire and wheel combo.

On the rear, change the spring hieght with the spring eye rather than short shackles. How low or high will depend a bit on how much weight is typically carried. Beckman's "Rallycuda" uses superstock springs 'cause the fuel cell has 30 gals in it. The MA Green brick also used SS springs, but they were dearched because it was being setup for track not rally (and had a normal fuel load).

I moved the ride hieght up on my own car last year as I was goin' to be using it on backroads. Whether I go through the trouble of lowering it for this weekend's autocross is still up in the air. [It will automaticly sit lower due to the difference in tires and wheels.]