'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Topic: '83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber (Read 5690 times) previous topic - next topic

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

June 30, 2016, 03:55:22 PM

As the title suggests, I went through completely overhauling the front suspension and upgraded the brakes earlier this year, but ended up with some extreme positive camber, and I am just now getting around to trying to sort this mess out. Some specs follow.

'83 Tbird Heritage 5.0
Original K-frame
Original (I assume) Lower control arms
'88 TC salvaged spindles
'88 TC new replacement struts
'83 new strut mounts

All this added up to uncorrectable positive camber for some reason. I think I may have missed a step somewhere, even though I researched the swap/upgrade exhaustively.

The earliest aerobirds had short lower control arms identical to the Mustangs, as I recall, but I do not recall reading that I would have to swap lowers to the longer later aerobird style.

Do I need to obtain the later, longer lower control arms? Replace the K-frame? Sacrifice a chicken? Or is this not my fault for missing some detail, and something weird is going on?

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #1 – June 30, 2016, 05:05:22 PM

From what I remember even the factory style strut mounts are left/right oriented so make sure you got that correct. If that is correct then I would suggest that you post up the alignment specs as that will help to determine how far out of whack it is. If everything is installed correctly and you still have the positive camber then you have three choices. One is to simply slot the struts and bring the camber in that way and this will get rotten food thrown at me but its been done and will work if this is not a track car. Second, would be to try the SN95 lower control arms which are identical to the 87-88 turbo coupe lower control arms. This will push the bottom of the tire out and may fix the problem. Last but not least is getting a set of Maximum Motorsports caster camber plates and see if that will fix the issue.

My whole problem with this is that if the only thing you changed to upgrade to the larger spindles to get the 11" brakes was the spindle, strut, and strut mounts then the problem lies in the parts and/or how the parts were installed not the K-member, lower control arms or anything else that was on the car prior to the new parts being installed.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #2 – July 01, 2016, 07:50:54 PM

I did the 11 inch brake conversion on my 84. I ended up with extreme camber also. I ended up ordering MM caster camber plates and was able to get it aligned. I however believe the 11 inch conversion isn't meant to be because I now notice a lot of sway/sawing on the highway.

this is the thread I made about my experience.
http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/showthread.php?39158-Help-Please-11-inch-brake-upgrade-gone-bad&highlight=camber

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #3 – July 01, 2016, 09:16:35 PM

The wandering you are getting can be three things...tires, steering components worn, or bump steer. Too many of us have done this conversion and had excellent results so I would suggest some investigating.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #4 – July 01, 2016, 10:08:48 PM

Wider tires also follow cracks and deformations in the road much more the. Skinnier tires. When I went from 195/60's to 235/60's it was a big difference.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #5 – July 02, 2016, 09:50:21 AM

I'm following this closely, as I just upgraded my front brakes( booster, MC as well )... I'm also having camber issues. I have ordered CC adjustable plates from MM and hope this will correct my problem. On another note it seems now the drivers side is a little lower than the passenger side? That wasn't the case before the swap. Will post more after plates are installed.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #6 – July 02, 2016, 05:23:15 PM

You guys will have to take me at my word for this, and it being the Internet, I know how far from reality some claims can be, but I am a competent mechanic that has made most of his way through life turning a wrench. I definitely don't know everything there is to know about cars, and I never will, but at 40 years of age, I still love figuring this kind of stuff out and fixing it.

So, I am confident that the components are assembled properly. I really can't say that this car had proper alignment when I got it. It sort of drove straight, but ate tires like crazy. I bought a set of half-used Eagle GTs for it, marking probably the first time in years that the car hasn't been rolling on four completely mismatched tires, and promptly took it in for an alignment. (I don't generally do allignments, as I dont have the equipment, and it's a better use of my time to pay a tire shop $60 to do it than it is for me to run around my car with a measuring tape, plumbbob, and string tied to jack stands for two hours.) The alignment shop let me know it was way out of spec, with a ton of negative camber on the passenger wheel, and ridiculous caster as well.

I put it on a lift for inspection. Both control arms looked good, with no apparent signs of stress or bends. They were also both suspiciously holding on to black rattle can paint, and had ball joints which were obviously fresher than the rest of the front end components. The passenger spindle was clearly bent, so that is when I went ahead and installed the later turbo coupe spindles and upgraded brakes. I did not touch suspension or steering parts at that time, and only set the toe to "eh, it goes sort of straight" specs, then gingerly drove it for a while. I am uncertain if the camber was super positive at that point, but I am inclined to guess that it was. I do know that the caster improved drastically, as the wheel actually became centered in the the wheel well, where it was previously closer to the rear of the fender than the front.

Fast forward a bit, and I am ready to replace the steering, suspension, and whatever else is substandard. I had some trouble finding strut mounts through my usual sources, but eventually found some at Oreilly. Now, this is interesting, and if I understand Aerocoupe correctly, this might be an issue. The strut mounts, ordered for an '83 Heritage 5.0, were sold to me as a one part fits both sides kind of deal. If they were left/right specific originally, then maybe that's the issue? I will have to look the originals over closely, but the new mounts I received looked pretty symetrical, and of course the camber problem is identical on both sides of the car, so I obviously did not receive two lefts, or two rights.

I otherwise came to the same general conclusions as ways to correct the issue; caster/camber plates, slotting the strut mount holes (yuck), or slightly longer control arms to push the wheel back out.

I will examine things a bit further now that I know I didn't miss some obvious fact like my early car needing the control arms replaced for the 11" brake swap. Also, as much as I hate running string all over, I may need to do that to figure out how the track width is matching up front to rear, so I know whether to move the bottom of the wheel out, or the top of the wheel in.

Thanks for the help so far, everyone!

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #7 – July 02, 2016, 05:35:20 PM

ISTLCRUZ, I would be very interested to hear your take on the MM caster/camber plates when you get them. I am almost inclined to buy them just for the advantage of having an easy to set adjustment point. The stock arrangement leaves much to be desired, in my opinion. Also, let's be honest, they just look cool. Heh.

As for the height issue, did you by any chance not get one of the springs situated in the correct orientation on the control arm?

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #8 – July 03, 2016, 02:53:33 AM

87-88 cars use longer control arms and have a tighter turning radius. 83-85 us basically Mustang width and control arms and 86 use a unique kmember. My guess is that it has to do with the 83 vs 87-88 apindles. I'd think it would be easy to measure if you had both on a bench.

Most of the 11 86-87 cars I've owned ate front tires like crazy and alignment shops all told me it was in spec.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #9 – July 05, 2016, 11:25:41 AM

Well I did a lot more digging on this as it was killing me over the holiday weekend and I found this reference to the spindle change:

[COLOR="#0000FF"]All 1984 1/2-and-later V-8 Mustangs were originally fitted with gas-charged front struts. When Ford fitted 1987 Mustangs with revised struts and spindles, the Fox cars gained 1/2 inch additional suspension travel and more camber for improved tracking at speed. (The spindle revision produces the camber; the strut increases the travel.) A front stabilizer bar was always standard Mustang equipment.[/COLOR]

They say more camber but do not specify if it is positive or negative and I cannot find anything to back this up. It is still very bizarre that this is an issue on the Fox Birds when this is the first thing you do to a 10" brake Mustang to go to the larger 11" brakes and better brake pad compounds that the V8 calipers offer. I know several folks here have swapped up to the TC or V8 Mustang spindles and have not had issues.

I will do some more research on the left/right thing on the strut mounts if time allows today or tomorrow.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #10 – July 05, 2016, 12:51:33 PM

The strut mounts are not side-specific for these cars. One part number fits both sides.

It's been so long since I messed with an 11" spindle/brake upgrade on one of these things, that I'm having a hard time remembering if I had this issue or not. I know I've done it a few times.

Caster/camber plates should help.

You could also slot the spindle attachment holes on the struts. Slot the lower one out, away from the strut body, or slot the upper inwards towards the strut body (depending on how much room you have there) and put some more negative camber in by pulling out on the lower part of the assembly and then tighten it down. This should allow adjustment up top when trying to set the alignment. I've done this numerous times on several cars.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #11 – July 07, 2016, 04:31:56 AM

Well, I measured a bit, and darned if it doesn't seem like the original control arms are around 3/4" shorter than they need to be to get to around zero camber. So, I did a little reconnaissance at the local self-serve yard today, and their are several SN95 Mustangs there. I'm going to grab some control arms off one of them, and throw them on the 'Bird.

But first, I need to replace the broken flexplate on my '02 F-150 that I bought when I got irritated with the Thunderbird for developing - get this - a cracked flexplate. Huh. Seems like my destiny somehow revolves around failed flexplates this year.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #12 – July 07, 2016, 05:13:06 AM

3/4" is also the difference between 83-86 arms and 87-88 arms. Doing a flex plate sucks, but at least they aren't too expensive.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #13 – July 07, 2016, 08:33:43 AM

There is a thread floating around with a bunch of K-Member/suspension measurements. IIRC, the 87-88 FLCA mounts were moved inboard, as the overall track width didn't increase. This doesn't mean that the geometry of the strut axis to the wheel axis wasn't altered over the 10" brake stuff.

The overall length of the 87-88 arms is the same as the 94-04 Mustang arms.

Be mindful of fender clearance, if you push the whole lot out with longer arms.

My 83 is running stock LCA with 94-95 spindles. Fender clearance is limited with 245/45 tires.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #14 – July 07, 2016, 11:21:24 AM

I know this is not the same as what is being dealt with in this thread being that it is on a Mustang and going from Fox to SN95 spindles but the issue is similar and I just wanted to show that the CC plates will most likely correct your problem thus negating the need to swap LCA's. When installing 94-95 or 96-04 Mustang spindles on a Fox Mustang with Fox length LCA's you will get positive camber according to Maximum Motorsports. I took this straight off their site:

[COLOR="#0000FF"]•1994-04 spindles were designed for a car that has longer front control arms than those of a Fox chassis Mustang. When installed on a 1987-93 Mustang with Fox length control arms, they will cause the camber setting to immediately become more positive: by 1.7 degrees with the 1994-95 spindle, and 1.3 degrees with the 1996-04 spindle. This happens because the bottom of the spindle, where the ball joint attaches, is pulled inboard nearly 3/4" by the shorter Fox control arm, from where it would be located with a 1994-04 length control arm and k-member.
•The increased camber adjustability provided by Maximum Motorsports Caster/Camber Plates will allow proper alignment for a street-driven car.
•To gain additional negative camber, as needed for a competition car, there are several options: One mounting hole in each strut can be slotted horizontally, allowing the top of the spindle to be tipped inboard, causing more negative camber; new mounting holes may be drilled in the strut tower, to allow moving the Caster/Camber Plate assembly inboard; or the longer 1994-04 front control arms may be installed.[/COLOR]

Just thought I would through this out there as when I did my swap to 11" brakes I has CC plates on the car so I never had the issue.