Close



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 29 of 29
  1. #26
    FEP Senior Member Patrick Olsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Where the Navy sends me...
    Posts
    680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    Installing c/c plates has nothing to do with driving the car hard. It has to do with having the car drive and handle well. Ford really didn't know what they were doing in these respects when they designed these cars. Installing c/c plates will help fix some of their design issues (inadequate positive caster being the main one).

    From the photos of your strut towers, it appears that the strut mounts installed are really the ones fro ma 1990-93 Mustang. See how far back in the center hole that strut is located? The 1990-93 mounts do this to add positive caster.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    From 1979-93 the camber spec for a Mustang changed from +0.25 to -0.6 degrees. These are all for the same car. Yes, there were changes to the car, but mostly what changed is that Ford realized that people weren't going to drive the car like a grandma. The amount of camber in the alignment is heavily a function of how hard the car is cornered. Over the years Ford realized this along with learning how much negative camber and positive caster that a strut car needs. As a point of comparison, the 2005 Mustang has 7 degrees of caster, while the 1979 model had 1 degree!
    So, did Ford make actual physical changes to the strut towers to accomplish the less grandma-ish alignment specs as the Fox-body progressed through the years? Was the center hole enlarged or relocated? Was the strut top mounting bolt pattern shifted? Or did they just use different strut top mounts?

  2. #27

    Default

    Pat,

    In 1990, Ford definitely did move the center holes and c/c plate stud holes in the strut tower. This of course required a new caster plate. I'm not sure if the 1979-89 cars ever had a different caster plate geometry, but I suspect not. I do know that multiple changes were made over these years to the FCA mounting hole locations in the k-member. This allowed Ford to make changes in both camber and caster without making a new caster plate or moving the strut top position.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  3. #28
    FEP Power Member 85stanggt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    2,285

    Default

    Figured I'd update this.

    I have been forced into using the 85 as a temporary daily right now, as the transmission in my usual daily is having some issues and I'm waiting for parts.

    I put new tires on since the old ones were pretty wiped, and I got a great deal on TireRack for new ones. At the same time, I decided to get the alignment checked. Yes, I know I was told to take it to a "real" alignment shop, but funds are kinda tight right now, since I'm getting married at the end of the month.

    Fortunately, the guy at this Firestone was cool and seemed to know what he was doing. Plus he liked the car. I asked him to try to hit -1 degree camber while aligning. He didn't think he could at first, but the final alignment sheet looked great. He got -1.1 on the driver's side and -1 on the passenger side with my stock plates. He spent quite a bit of time. The car was up and down on the lift trying to get the camber done. The passenger side is maxed out, but he said he could go more on the driver side (that's the side that originally started this thread).

    The driver's side plate is a little past the middle now. Passenger side is all the way in. He got the toe smack in the middle. Caster is non-adjustable without plates. Driver's side is 1.8 and passenger is 1.7. The new struts that were put in must be a little different driver vs passenger side, that's the only change to the front suspension in a long time.

    The car does drive different with the camber at -1. It feels great and handles better. It also now doesn't wander as much to the ruts in the road. The steering is a little heavier, which Jack said would be a function of more caster, so not sure why that feels different since the caster didn't change from before. Car tracks true and straight. Overall very happy.

    I'm hoping the added negative camber wears the tires more evenly, since this Mustang would always chew up the outside tread before anything else. Now at least it may be a little more balanced.

    I can post up the alignment sheet if desired. It's nice when you get a tech that cares.
    1985 Mustang GT Convertible
    Stock and original @ 213k, except for dynomax ultraflos.

  4. #29
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    There is a crapload of play in struts where they are mounted to the spindle. Correct procedure is to load the spindle with weight before tightening the strut to spindle bolts.

    My 1986 with the struts centered in the towers went from +6 camber to -1 just with spindle bolt changes. Ultimately I had to use camber bolts to get my car where I wanted it. -2 with the struts centered so I could max out caster.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •