Settling in with Hotchkis...

[myk]

So I thought I'd drop by today and see how the Charger was doing at the alignment shop.  The car's aligned, but they're telling me that during braking there's a "scuffing" noise brought on by a "toe-setting issue" that they need to resolve.  I took the car out for a spin and sure enough-as soon as you start braking, whether it's light or heavy, there's a rubbing/screeching/squealing noise from the front tires; it's sort of the same sound you'd hear if you took a turn too fast and the tires were trying to grab for traction.  Their problem is that the car's aligned and tracks straight but the noise is there. 

I left them to figure it out, but I'm trying to explain the issue myself.  What could be causing this noise?  They told me they set the alignment to stock '69 specs, but...correct me if I'm wrong, however I'm thinking the stock specs are wrong for the Hotchkis setup.  They then asked what settings they're supposed to use and I told them that I had heard the alignment numbers for a 2000 Mustang GT have been successfully used.  They scratched their heads at that one and said they'd look into it. 

Anyone have any ideas?  I also have another question.  They set the front ride height so that the car is sitting at an even height all around.  Before the Hotchkis stuff the car was sitting lower in front that gave it a slight rake.  If I decide to play with the ride height later by adjusting the torsion bars, will I have to get the car re-aligned?  Another thing I noticed: the Hotchkis "lowering" springs actually sit a bit higher than my old stock springs.  Will this settle down after some miles? 

Why can't 'modding cars be as easy as building Lego's... 

[WHITE AND RED 69]

The screeching noise is that your alignment is totally off. Throw the stock specs in the trash cause it does not apply to your car anymore. It might be going straight but the tires do not like the angles they are set to.

If they set it to stock, your caster and camber settings are not giving the tire the contact patch it needs. Stock specs would be a 0 to -1 caster, you need as much positive as it can take. Aim for 5 to 5.5 degrees of positive caster. They also have you set with positive camber...not good with this setup and your tires. Tell them to go with -.5 to -1 degree camber for both sides with a 1/16 toe in setting. These settings are perfect for street driving.

With the above settings they should be able to drop the front end a bit more to your liking. But if you do adjust the torsion bars another inch or less, it is not critical to get another alignment. I adjust mine all the time depending on what I'm doing with the car. Just keep the adjustments minor and remember how many turns on the adjusters you did.  

The leaf springs will settle another inch over time. Mine sat high and did settle.

[myk]

Boy am I glad you showed up.  Yes you're completely correct; looks like the settings for stock-ish and Hotchkis are completely different.  Right now the Charger is at:

camber= +.3
caster= +3.6
toe= .13

Hotchkis is saying:

camber= -1
caster = +9
toe= 0

Is it possible to dial in that much caster?  That seems like....a lot.  Are there any negative consequences to having that much caster?  In any case, I'll get back to the shop and see what they say.  Keep in mind that these guys are "old school" and they called the Hotchkis setup bizarre lol.  I guess I should've taken the thing to a speed shop but these guys have done right by me so I gave them the job.  Thanks for responding, sir...

[WHITE AND RED 69]

No problem Myk    Even with just a set of modern tires the stock alignment specs get thrown out of whack.  

9 degrees of caster ain't gonna happen unless you have a full blown race car. Just try to get somewhere around +5 degrees and it will all work out.    

I'm curious to hear what you think about the setup once it's all done.

[bill440rt]

Good read. My car goes to the alignment shop this coming Monday. 

The Hotchkis upper control arms come with an instruction booklet with suggested alignment specs in it. I'll be bringing that along.

I'm curious to see what your alignment finally specs in at.     

[ws23rt]

This has me waiting too.  Especially the part about modern tires vs the old school kind.--I wonder if that's about O ring type tires vs balloon tires?

[myk]

No problem Myk    Even with just a set of modern tires the stock alignment specs get thrown out of whack.  

9 degrees of caster ain't gonna happen unless you have a full blown race car. Just try to get somewhere around +5 degrees and it will all work out.    

I'm curious to hear what you think about the setup once it's all done.

Hmmmm....John at Hotchkis seemed sure that I could get 9 degrees of caster, but I imagine that the 5.5 you're mentioning is better than what I have right now...

Good read. My car goes to the alignment shop this coming Monday. 

The Hotchkis upper control arms come with an instruction booklet with suggested alignment specs in it. I'll be bringing that along.

I'm curious to see what your alignment finally specs in at.     

The manual doesn't give a specific value for caster, it only says "as much caster as possible."  Camber on the other hand is listed as "-1."  John from Hotchkis provided the "zero" toe number.

How does caster get adjusted anyway?  As it was previously mentioned, is it possible to only get a limited amount of it?

[fy469rtse]

Myk, in the old off set washers to top arms, say looking at the left front top ball joint back compared to bottom , angle of your spindle, angled back at top that's castor
You hotchkis front now is equal to a modern front end
Almost zero camber , and as much castor as you can get ?
Will make it handle great,
You can't use the old manual for any refferance now , tell em to set it up as if they were doing a viper 
You would have already felt a difference

[garner7555]

https://www.google.com/search?q=caster+camber+and+toe&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gI8WVeqYLMmqgwTA34CoBg&ved=0CB0QsAQ#imgdii=_

Check out some of these diagrams and I think you will better understand how castor is adjusted.  (you tip the upper control arm toward the rear of the car).   

[bill440rt]

No problem Myk    Even with just a set of modern tires the stock alignment specs get thrown out of whack.  

9 degrees of caster ain't gonna happen unless you have a full blown race car. Just try to get somewhere around +5 degrees and it will all work out.    

I'm curious to hear what you think about the setup once it's all done.

Hmmmm....John at Hotchkis seemed sure that I could get 9 degrees of caster, but I imagine that the 5.5 you're mentioning is better than what I have right now...

Good read. My car goes to the alignment shop this coming Monday. 

The Hotchkis upper control arms come with an instruction booklet with suggested alignment specs in it. I'll be bringing that along.

I'm curious to see what your alignment finally specs in at.     

The manual doesn't give a specific value for caster, it only says "as much caster as possible."  Camber on the other hand is listed as "-1."  John from Hotchkis provided the "zero" toe number.

How does caster get adjusted anyway?  As it was previously mentioned, is it possible to only get a limited amount of it?

Really? 
On page 10 of the instruction booklet that came with my Hotchkis upper control arms it states:

Recommended Street/Sport Specs:
Static Camber = -1* (negative)
Caster = +5* (positive)
Total Toe = 1/8" Toe IN

Recommended Race Specs:
Static Camber = 2.5* to -3* (negative)
Caster = +5* to 7* (postiive)
Total Toe = 0 Toe

What exactly does it mean when you state your alignment shop is "old school"? Sounds like they may not be familiar with these parts if they are calling this setup "bizarre".

I found a front end shop (as a referral) that all they do is front ends and alignments (modern, classics, exotics, etc). When I explained to them what I had, they were very familiar with what needed to be done.
It goes in this coming Monday. I'll report back with the specs on mine once done if that helps you. 

[myk]

Hmm....I don't think I had that manual.  I had a guide that's exactly like the one that you download from the site and it didn't mention any of those specs.  Wait a minute.  Why are they telling me 9 degrees when their own manual and specs list 5 to 7 degrees?

When I mentioned old school, I mean that they did not understand the purpose of re-orienting the UCA's and all of that stuff-they're OEM factory types who are perfectly happy to run factory pieces, but we all figured that the Hotchkis stuff shouldn't be an issue since it's all bolt-on pieces.  

Thanks for posting that 'info; I'll head out there again and see if I can get this project finished...

[1974dodgecharger]

what Hotchkis saids myk and man please post some pics of the new setup!!!!


Did you like it when you first saw it all settled in?  First time I dropped my car on the ground after install I said, 'YES that looks so much better'!!!!

I set my specs to what hotchkis said in the manual it had no issues getting all the specs dialed in.

[myk]

what Hotchkis saids myk and man please post some pics of the new setup!!!!


Did you like it when you first saw it all settled in?  First time I dropped my car on the ground after install I said, 'YES that looks so much better'!!!!

I set my specs to what hotchkis said in the manual it had no issues getting all the specs dialed in.

Did you use the "street/sport" specs or the "race" ones?

[1974dodgecharger]

street/sport for me at -1 camber your gonna get some inner tire wear which means gonna need new tires if you drive a lot and I do...I have a bald spot developing already on mine and I think I got 15k to 18k miles on tire.  For the race version its like neg. 2.5 or something?  now way I would have to buy new tires every 6 months....lol

what Hotchkis saids myk and man please post some pics of the new setup!!!!


Did you like it when you first saw it all settled in?  First time I dropped my car on the ground after install I said, 'YES that looks so much better'!!!!

I set my specs to what hotchkis said in the manual it had no issues getting all the specs dialed in.

Did you use the "street/sport" specs or the "race" ones?

[c00nhunterjoe]

1 degree negative is too much for a street cruiser. The tires will have a distinctly visable negative camber and eat the inner edges off the tires. Stick to -.5 camber, +5 caster and -.05 toe in. More then 5 degrees caster will put too much angle on the ball joints and can cause bump steer/ death wobble along with premature wear on the joints.

[1974dodgecharger]

1 degree negative is too much for a street cruiser. The tires will have a distinctly visable negative camber and eat the inner edges off the tires. Stick to -.5 camber, +5 caster and -.05 toe in. More then 5 degrees caster will put too much angle on the ball joints and can cause bump steer/ death wobble along with premature wear on the joints.

none here....and I run -1...well one side is -.9.  No bump steer either with my hotchkis upper control arms no death wobble and trust me I know what that is...its fcking scary...imagine the death wobble on the highway and a semi pass you...holy cow the bump steer.

[myk]

Thanks for the input guys.  I just hope these guys can get over their dislike for the parts and get the setup to work.  If not I've found a couple other places who claim to know what to do with performance suspensions...

I am thinking about the -1 camber setting and tire wear though; I'm not sure I like the sound of that...

[1974dodgecharger]

how can they dislike it?  I don't get it?  Im not a super mechanic by any means, but I installed everything myself minus the welding part I had my friend do that for me.  They have to be doing something wrong......

[HPP]

They told me they set the alignment to stock '69 specs, but...correct me if I'm wrong, however I'm thinking the stock specs are wrong for the Hotchkis setup.  They then asked what settings they're supposed to use and I told them that I had heard the alignment numbers for a 2000 Mustang GT have been successfully used.  They scratched their heads at that one and said they'd look into it.  

Stock specs are the core of the issue with your squealing noise because they are designed to be compatible with 4" tread width bias ply tires. Once you widen the contact patch and start using radial tires, the specs should change. Radials will tolerate a much wider range of angles than a bias ply, so you can put more aggressive specs in place which will make it perform better. And yes, 2000 Mustang specs will be more in line with what Hotchkis recommends. I have recommended these before because some alignment shops will only put specs on a car that are in their computer and they will not do anything outside of that. If your shop is old school, they should be willing to dial in anything you want since they aren't computer dependant, but if they don't get the logic behind it they may struggle to do it.

Hmmmm....John at Hotchkis seemed sure that I could get 9 degrees of caster, but I imagine that the 5.5 you're mentioning is better than what I have right now...

The manual doesn't give a specific value for caster, it only says "as much caster as possible."  Camber on the other hand is listed as "-1."  John from Hotchkis provided the "zero" toe number.

How does caster get adjusted anyway?  As it was previously mentioned, is it possible to only get a limited amount of it?

With the stock arms, caster/camber is shared by the eccentric washers and must be compromised between the two to get either. Also, if you lower the car, then that further limits how much of each may get dialed in.  However, with the Hotchkis arms, they are built with additional angle in the ball joint area to make extra caster possible without giving up as much camber capability. I believe they have an additional 4* built in, so add the 3-5* you get with the eccentrics, so yes, 9* may be possible.  The prevailing thought about caster in performance alignment is that your caster should be equal to or slightly greater than your spindle axis inclination. This is so that you can maintain better tread/surface contact during body roll and steering manuevers.  Some modern cars are up in this range.

1 degree negative is too much for a street cruiser. The tires will have a distinctly visable negative camber and eat the inner edges off the tires. Stick to -.5 camber, +5 caster and -.05 toe in. More then 5 degrees caster will put too much angle on the ball joints and can cause bump steer/ death wobble along with premature wear on the joints.

-1* is aggressive for a street car, but not unrealistic with a radial. Working in combo with the caster and body roll, it should work out well, but if myk has larger t-bar and s-bar rates with lower body roll, he could cut it in half. I think Hotchkis also recommends no greater than 1.12 t-bar rates, so they are expecting a percentage of roll with their set ups which also lends itself to higher caster numbers. Also, the mopar ball joint will tolerate a lot more angle than 5*.  most late model oval track set ups utilize an OEM mopar ball joint design in their applications precisely because it is so strong and tolerant. Howe, Afco, and a number of other specialty suppliers offer rebuildable, Teflon lined, and various other trick parts inside the basic mopar style upper ball joint now days because of the oval track demand.

Speaking of which, the "modern" trend for performance suspension is to go with softer spring rates to allow more suspension motion. This greater range of motion requires slightly different setting to accommodate the changes in toe, camber, and caster that occur as a car brakes into a turn, transitions through all three segments of a turn, then accelerates out of it. With older, higher rate suspension rates to limit some of this motion, you can also dial back some of the angles involved, but, this is occurring at rates significantly higher than what most mopar guys would ever be running because of the limitations in torsion bar sizes we have available to us now days. Back in the days of 1.3 to 1.6 diameter torsion bars, things were a bit different. Newer alignment set ups actually are more compatible with the T-bars rates that are available now days.

[bill440rt]

OK, just got back from the alignment shop on my end this morning.
I took the car for a short test drive after the alignment. I did not push the car in the short drive on rural streets, but I could tell a difference. Handling was excellent, no squealing or anything from braking as you experienced, myk. No bump steer felt at all, and the road was quite bumpy. The Hotchkis Fox shocks were also a notable improvement vs the KYB's.
They were on my car at least 3-1/2hrs dialing it in right. 

Final specs are:

Camber = -0.5*  L/R
Caster = 4.8* L, 5.1* R (the tech did not want to go any further on the left side because he already extended the heim joint quite far and did not want to go any longer. .2* difference from spec they felt was a minimal difference.
Toe = .15*


Hope that helps you some, myk. 
   

[bill440rt]

Myk, any updates on your front end alignment?   

[1974dodgecharger]

I just want pics myk, lol

[myk]

Pbbbbbbb.....Ok a busy work week and worrying incessantly about the car has kept me quiet, but I finally got a chance to drive the car, WITH the recommended alignment specs provided from Hotchkis and you fine gentlemen here.  I also had them lower the front end to where I had it before.  Final specs, according to the shop's printout, are this:

camber: -1.0
caster: +6.1
toe: 0

The shop can't stop talking about how amazed they are as to the car's responsiveness, tightness and overall handling.  They remark that it's unfortunate that the steering ratio isn't quicker than it is, and that the steering still has that over-boosted feel, but if you "point, the car turns right now."   I wish I could have installed the Firm Feel stage 3 box along with the torque boxes I had originally planned, but losing the 'trans in my Z28 has pushed those 'mods until later this year.  

Now as to my personal impressions?  First of all, San Diego roads SUCK.  

Secondly, I really hate to be a stick in the mud, but I'm not feeling a VAST, "OMG" improvement over what I had previously, which was a recently (less than 5K miles) rebuilt stock front end with the Hotchkis sway bars (front and rear), MP frame connectors and the Hotchkis/Fox shocks.  In my own opinion the car with just those 'mods was very flat, stable, easy to control and very responsive, which made it a blast to drive on the level of my lightly 'modded '98 Mustang.  So here are my additional questions:

-is the performance benefit and feel of the UCA's, strut rods, tie rods, torsion bars and rear leaf springs, something that don't make as much of an impact as the pieces I already had on the car?  

-Are the benefits of the newest parts that I've installed something that I won't feel until I'm TRULY pushing the car beyond typical driving?  I guess it didn't help that I drove the car home through rush-hour traffic and couldn't really play with it, and I didn't get to flog the car like the shop did, as they obviously noticed a huge difference in the car. I will say this:  I didn't feel ANY bumpsteer at all which was surprising, although again I have to say it wasn't THAT bad before the 'mods.  

-did I handicap my modifications by not installing the Firm Feel Stage 3 steering box along with everything else?

Another issue: I was so focused on the front end that I didn't even bother to read the print-out regarding my rear end alignment.  The rear reads as follows:

camber: -.3*
toe: -.6
thrust: +.2

I thought rear ends were exempt from any sort of alignment measuring asides from thrust angle?  It's not as if I can adjust the rear end, right?  Will I have to get Hotchkis' thrust angle kit to correct my car?  And this -1 front camber?  I dunno about that one-I'm starting to think it's too radical for me, even though I thought I wanted this car set up for uber-handling above all else.  

For now I will say thanks to all of you for contributing and helping me through this process.  The successes that my car and I are enjoying are because of everyone here.  Additional thoughts and comments are welcome, and I'll try to crawl under the car and get some pictures for you, '74 lol...

[1974dodgecharger]

Lol......

[myk]

Sooooooo I got to play with the Charger a bit this evening on some twisty roads and what not.  Nooooooooow I think I get it...