Alignment specs
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305
Transmission: Auto
Axle/Gears: Stock
Alignment specs
Ok so I have looked in the FAQs and read multiple posts on this and I can't find a simple answer, and it seems to vary by car and even tire size.
I need to get my alignment re-done tonight and I wanna give them the numbers to use.
All I want is stock or slightly better (without killing my tires).
So far I have found this that MIGHT be what I am looking for:
Caster +5 +5 (max and equal)
Camber -1 -1
Toe 3/32 (total, 0.05*per side)
Anyone have the numbers handy or can confirm I found good numbers above?
(STOCK 92 RS running 245/50/16's)
Thanks.
I need to get my alignment re-done tonight and I wanna give them the numbers to use.
All I want is stock or slightly better (without killing my tires).
So far I have found this that MIGHT be what I am looking for:
Caster +5 +5 (max and equal)
Camber -1 -1
Toe 3/32 (total, 0.05*per side)
Anyone have the numbers handy or can confirm I found good numbers above?
(STOCK 92 RS running 245/50/16's)
Thanks.
#2
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1991 Chevrolet Camaro RS Red
Engine: 305 V8 TBI
Transmission: TH-700R4
Re: Alignment specs
this is straight out of the haynes manual in chapter 11
suspension and steering systems.
front wheel alignment
1986 and earlier
caster ...................3.00-degrees
camber...................1.00-degree
toe-in.....................3/64-inch
1987-1990
caster.....................4.7-degrees
camber....................0.30-degree
toe-in......................0-inch
1991 and 1992
caster.....................4.80 degrees
camber....................0.30-degree
toe-in.....................0-inch
these are right off of page 11.1 in the haynes manual for 1982-1992 chevy camaros.
suspension and steering systems.
front wheel alignment
1986 and earlier
caster ...................3.00-degrees
camber...................1.00-degree
toe-in.....................3/64-inch
1987-1990
caster.....................4.7-degrees
camber....................0.30-degree
toe-in......................0-inch
1991 and 1992
caster.....................4.80 degrees
camber....................0.30-degree
toe-in.....................0-inch
these are right off of page 11.1 in the haynes manual for 1982-1992 chevy camaros.
#4
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Tennesse
Posts: 2,820
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 1991 RS Camaro
Engine: L03 (want LS1)
Transmission: 700R-4 (and T56)
Axle/Gears: 4th Gen 3.23 posi
Re: Alignment specs
I run numbers similar to the ones you posted Rich. Little less camber and toe though. Mine's around -.5 and I can't remember the toe. Might be the same. My casters' 5.5 I think. I should have more caster than that with the mounts I have though.
#5
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 RS
Engine: 350 TBI
Transmission: WC T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 Posi
Re: Alignment specs
I had my caster set max positive. I love the feel on the highway. Also you want negative camber, something like -.5*. This well help with the horrible edge wearing of the stock alignment specs. Toe in will help with wandering.
#6
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Tennesse
Posts: 2,820
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 1991 RS Camaro
Engine: L03 (want LS1)
Transmission: 700R-4 (and T56)
Axle/Gears: 4th Gen 3.23 posi
Re: Alignment specs
I like the feel of maxed caster. Mine's pretty high. The camber's nice as well. I think mine's toed out though. Better turn-in when entereing turns. Helps with cornering. Wondering's a pain, though.
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305
Transmission: Auto
Axle/Gears: Stock
Re: Alignment specs
well I went back today and they showed me the numbers they did the first time, They were all very close to what is posted from the haynes manual above (so a little on the conservative side which is fine by me, I can't be arsed to get a THIRD alignment to get slightly better steering)
They told me the only thing "off" was my "center" on the steering wheel so they adjusted that.
The dude was tinkering for 40 mins so I think the original numbers were not accurate and they re-did all of it cos there was a BIG difference after the second alignment, like there SHOULD have been after the first one!!
It feels nice now, and I don't have to turn the wheel 1/8 to the right to drive straight! LOL
My turning radius feels MUCH tighter too...
PS - I drove an 05 mustang this weekend and I'd say mine steers just as well, but slightly heavier which I like anyway....and I have fatter tires.
"sports" cars have no business having really light steering!
Thanks for the input guys.
They told me the only thing "off" was my "center" on the steering wheel so they adjusted that.
The dude was tinkering for 40 mins so I think the original numbers were not accurate and they re-did all of it cos there was a BIG difference after the second alignment, like there SHOULD have been after the first one!!
It feels nice now, and I don't have to turn the wheel 1/8 to the right to drive straight! LOL
My turning radius feels MUCH tighter too...
PS - I drove an 05 mustang this weekend and I'd say mine steers just as well, but slightly heavier which I like anyway....and I have fatter tires.
"sports" cars have no business having really light steering!
Thanks for the input guys.
Trending Topics
#8
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 RS
Engine: 350 TBI
Transmission: WC T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 Posi
Re: Alignment specs
Hehe, we have a 1999 Honda Civic, 2001 Honda Odyssey, and a 2005 Hyundai Elentra and my 91 Camaro w/ brand new quick ratio steering box turns lighter than all of them
Beware, if you set yours to the stock specs (from the Haynes manual) you will smoke the outer edges of your front tires in just a few months time.
Beware, if you set yours to the stock specs (from the Haynes manual) you will smoke the outer edges of your front tires in just a few months time.
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305
Transmission: Auto
Axle/Gears: Stock
Re: Alignment specs
Do you like the camaro that light??
I feel like I am driving a toy when the steering is so light
I feel like I am driving a toy when the steering is so light
#10
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 RS
Engine: 350 TBI
Transmission: WC T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 Posi
Re: Alignment specs
Why wouldn't I? It was quite hard to turn when I got it but is now quite easy to turn with all the work I've done to it. Easy like a Caddy, but still only a little over 2 turns lock to lock and not a single degree of play. Makes me feel like I'm driving something right off the lot.
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305
Transmission: Auto
Axle/Gears: Stock
Re: Alignment specs
Personal taste like everything else I guess.
I feel completely disconnected from the road with light steering.
I feel completely disconnected from the road with light steering.
#12
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Tennesse
Posts: 2,820
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 1991 RS Camaro
Engine: L03 (want LS1)
Transmission: 700R-4 (and T56)
Axle/Gears: 4th Gen 3.23 posi
Re: Alignment specs
I prefer the steering of my friends 97 Volvo or my sister in laws new Jetta. It's heavier than the Camaro, but not heavy enough to make steering hard at low speeds.
I know a guy with an 89 RS in California that sat his allignment to GM specs and he has the issue with the outer edge of the tire wearing too fast. Might want to have it set so that it has a little negitive camber.
I know a guy with an 89 RS in California that sat his allignment to GM specs and he has the issue with the outer edge of the tire wearing too fast. Might want to have it set so that it has a little negitive camber.
#14
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 IROC - Z
Engine: 5.0 TPI
Transmission: 700r4
Re: Alignment specs
I had my car aligned back in june and i noticed that the outer edge of both front tires are worn really bad and don't know what they spec'd it at I cant find the paper he gave me what should it really be I am using bigger tires than stock
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Alignment specs
I have a strong guess the reason for those specs back then is to try and negate the massive amount of compliants dealerships were getting over the production run of these cars about the front end climbing on itself and jerking at low speed parkinglot manuvers. The added toe out will help the ackerman stay closer in tact at full lock but will cause inside tire wear...so...the positve camber and 1 to 2psi of tire pressure more will give a center and outside edge wear to even things out on a factory tire but will render a shorter tire life span- they didn't car- it was a bandaid fix to complaints on a poor geometry design.
Last edited by Vetruck; 02-04-2011 at 11:47 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post