Will mine handle?

[OJ1988]

I have poured through the make it handle thread, but I am looking for something a little milder.

My truck will serve as daily driver status, as well as parts hauler.

I have tried to maintain an overall stock exterior appearnce, other than ride height. I am hoping i can carve some corners with this set up.

Here is what I have done,

Front

A Arms and spindles replaced with 74-87 parts.
Tierods all new later pieces, new balljoints,
All bushings are new poly urathane
CPP 1.25" sway bar, with shorter mounting brackets.
CPP Shock reinforcing brackets
Pro Comp Toxic shocks for lower app
CPP 3" drop coils with 1/2 coil cut off

350 engine in 6 cyl mounts, so the wieght is farther back

Rear

CPP 5" drop springs
CPP rear shock relocation mounts
Pro Comp Toxic shocks for lower app
CPP Long Adj Panhard bar

Rear mounted Blazer tank

Wheel are 17x7.5" FJ steelies

Tires are 235/60/17 Nexen

At this point, I am guessing the wheel and tire combo is my limiting factor. I would like to go with something a little wider and stickier, but options are very limited.


I am not looking to burn up the auto cross, but would like to be able to hit the on ramps with enough force to scare some of the rice burners with camber issues out of the way!

Any thoughts? suggestions?

[SCOTI]

It will handle better than a stock set-up but prob won't ride very well w/such short springs up front. As you indicated, the small contact patch of the wheel/tire combo will be your current limitation.

Alignment plays a large roll in how well everything works too.... Set the alignment up w/neg camber (-.5-ish) & as much caster as they can dial in.

[OJ1988]

Thanks, not to concerned about ride. Had stock sprins with 2 coils cut before, and heated rears, blown shocks all around, so ride will be much better than before!

I don't mind a firm ride, spent most my time in camaros.

Agree about the alignment specs. I posted a week or so ago to get alignment recomendations, but didn't get much response.

Thanks for the tips.

[BMERDOC]

Here is a spec sheet from the last time I aligned mine. You'll notice the specs call for a maximum of .45 degrees, If you want improved handling, like Scoti said, it should be over .5 negative. IIRC, anything under 2* should be fine. You'll notice the front camber spec is 2-3* positive. I'd like to see 5* or more positive and 6 to 7 would be great. I don't have enough C10 performance alignment experience to tell you how what max is possible from shimming but I'd give up some neg camber for more caster. I believe most tubular control arms are engineered to have more cater built in. Caster will aid in steering return to center which will aid in "flickability". Positive Caster also aids in high speed stability.
If you look at the rear the my thrust angle is .34*. My trailing arm bushings are cracked and worn and my new poly bushings arrived yesterday from Jegs and I'll install them to see how close that gets me to 0. The closer you can get to 0 the better the truck will track and respond.

[BMERDOC]

I noticed a mistake but I can't edit my post. I said that the camber spec calls for a max of positive .45. While thats true, Camber should always be negative so I never reference positive, just like I wouldn't refer to negtive caster because it should always be positive. The negative maximum for camber is -.15*

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by BMERDOC

I noticed a mistake but I can't edit my post. I said that the camber spec calls for a max of positive .45. While thats true, Camber should always be negative so I never reference positive, just like I wouldn't refer to negtive caster because it should always be positive. The negative maximum for camber is -.15*

From what I remember, the OE spec for camber was +.5 minimum.

My thought has always been if you can get away w/+.5 & not have excessive tire wear, you can easily do -.5 w/no excessive wear (& get better handling as well).

[BMERDOC]

I don't think any car should have any kind of positive camber. Look at these two spec sheets and notice the allowable negative camber and positive caster. Both cars are factory cars and wear tires well for vehicles that handle well. As long as the truck is aligned with numbers more closely matching these specs the truck will handle better. Bolting up performance pieces are fine but having the right alignment is like icing on the cake!

Note: The corvette pic is hard to read but the file is big so you can do a "save as" and blow it up if you want but the camber spec is -.09 to -2.1 and camber spec is 6.9 - 8.1.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by BMERDOC

I don't think any car should have any kind of positive camber. Look at these two spec sheets and notice the allowable negative camber and positive caster. Both cars are factory cars and wear tires well for vehicles that handle well. As long as the truck is aligned with numbers more closely matching these specs the truck will handle better. Bolting up performance pieces are fine but having the right alignment is like icing on the cake!

Note: The corvette pic is hard to read but the file is big so you can do a "save as" and blow it up if you want but the camber spec is -.09 to -2.1 and camber spec is 6.9 - 8.1.

I'm not challenging your information as I don't think they should have +camber either. In the 60's-70's, the 'bean-counters' input said w/positive camber the vehicle will push in a corner & be awkward. That in turn would cause drivers to enter turns @ slower speeds thus being safer.

The spec sheets posted would be an apples to oranges comparison since the lower COG & tire technology of an 03 BMW or 5th gen Vette is way different vs. a 63-87 GM truck. Definitely shows there's a bunch of potential for the alignment to make a significant impact when installing updated parts or making suspension tweaks.

[BMERDOC]

I didn't think you were, I was thinkin of the Bean Counter chassis tuners as I was typing too. I also would agree that a C10 is not an M3 or ZO6 but as OJ1988 puts on fatter tires, lowers it and stiffens it up he can easily see what to shoot for by having some factory alignment specs to go by.

[OJ1988]

Thanks guys. I've been really wondering about alignment. I never could find a guy willing my align my camaro to non stock specs, most wouldn't even touch it.

I am going to look into wheel/tire options, but Im real happy with what I have. I should be able to road test soon! I'll see if I can or want to push it beyond the tires limits.

I am open to suggestions as well.

Taller springs and drop spindles are probably in the future.

I would like to make some brackets to align the track bar better, but not sure if that will be worth it.

I need a steering box upgrade as well. Still have stock manual box. A type ii ps pump and quicker box would be great.
Posted via Mobile Device

[OJ1988]

Oh, and I have shorter than stock polyurathane bumpstops in all four corners.
Posted via Mobile Device