Anyone have the front end alignment specifications for a Maverick? I want to see how they compare to the Shelby Mustang specs. ....of course those cars had the upper a-arms relocated lower to improve the camber curve. Might be possible on the Mav as well.
alignment I just aligned mine a week ago and I happen to have printed it out. Here's where I put everything: camber 0* the spec calls for .25* positive. if your building yours to be a cornering machine I'd give it -.5* negative. Much more will wear tires. caster1.1* mines a manual steer car and the factory spec is actually -.5* to make it easy, but I cranked it up for stability toe .2" total This of course is just what I did. Hope this helps.
The listed specs for our cars are for bias belted tires, which used negative caster to make turning easier. Radial tires should have positive caster. After a lot of experimenting (and several pairs of tires) here's what I settled on for mine: Caster = +1.5 deg. both sides Camber = 0 deg. left side, -1/4 deg. right side (helps if you drive on roads with a crown for drainage. Toe = 1/16" in Try to get your rear straight in the chassis for 0 deg thrust. When you do the alignment put something equal to your body weight in the driver's seat or floor area. I've never heard of anyone studying a Maverick's geometry to see if the Shelby drop actully benefits a Maverick.
Barry. That's a lot of caster. Is yours a pwer or manual steer car? I didn't want to go with more than one degree because I want my girlfriend to be able to drive my car once if she isn't afraid of it. I am suprised by how easy my car is to steer even with the little 13" Grant wheel. If I can go with more caster without having to put a breaker bar on the steering wheel every time I'm in a parking lot maybe I will. As far as thrust angle, my car is kind of bent up but it's still only .07* so I guess that's not too bad. the thing that confuses me though is I have -.14" of toe on the left and -.08" on the right in back. Seems to me I must have a bent axle housing?
My car is manual. It steers pretty easily, maybe it helps that I'm 6'6" and 265 lbs. Seriously, it's not bad at all. Rears are designed with some toe built in to keep the back of the car from wondering. The rear can be shifted around some, just try to have the same amount of toe on each side. Your thrust angle is pretty good though, your car must have been bent just the right way.
heheh yeah I guess so. This was the first time I've had a chance to measure the angles on the rear of the car. I've always suspected that this car was hit from the rear pretty hard early in its life and repaired sort of half assed. I'll make it go straight, but I may be one of those guys that spend 20 years doing it! hehe Actually I don't feel bad about how far I've taken my car in the past couple of years considering how hammered it was when I got it.
I hav e a 69.5, with 225X15 tires, and it is a bear to steer when going slow or stopped. What alignment settings will make it somewhat easier, and not wear the tires? Thanks, Earl
A more negative caster setting will make it easier to steer at low speeds, but if you have radial tires it could make the car handle a little squirrely at highway speeds. Radial tires are the reason just about all suspensions developed in the last 25 years have power steering. The suspension and alignment is tuned for good handling at highway speeds at the sacrifice of low speed effort. The power steering takes care of that.
