Anyone using offset upper control bushings ?

[Highbanked Hauler]

 If so how much  + caster could you get ?

[Mike DC]

 
In the stock stamped-steel upper arms?  Probably as much caster as you can get before you start losing decent camber.



 

[Highbanked Hauler]

 
In the stock stamped-steel upper arms?  Probably as much caster as you can get before you start losing decent camber.



 

Stamped steel arms with factory bushings got 3/4 degree caster on the left and 1.25 on the right with  0 camber and .25 toe.  I am putting offsets in it and would like to get + 2-3 degrees. Next thing would be tubular uppers at $ 350..

[Kern Dog]

I have stock UCAs, stock LCAs, stock strut rods....BUT the Moog K7103 bushings allowed me to get just a smidge over 4 degrees of caster with 3/4 of a degree of NEG camber. Forget the aftermarket UCAs if all you need is 5 degrees. My car has never been wrecked, so maybe that is why I was able to get so much. I'd expect that a damaged, twisted or UNparallel set of frame rails wouldn't allow that.

[Kern Dog]

mm

[Kern Dog]

mm

[HPP]

There are a few variables with assembly tolerance, ride height, and component condition that will dictate the final number achievable.  3* should be easy. Some can get upwards of 6-7*. A bodies seem to be able to get more caster than B bodies for some reason.

[Mike DC]

A bodies seem to be able to get more caster than B bodies for some reason.

Maybe it's because the A-body has smaller metal parts combined with the same thickness bushings?  So the bushings would be functionally a bit larger than the B/E-bodies, in proportion to the metal parts.  More room for adjustment.


   

[Highbanked Hauler]

I have stock UCAs, stock LCAs, stock strut rods....BUT the Moog K7103 bushings allowed me to get just a smidge over 4 degrees of caster with 3/4 of a degree of NEG camber. Forget the aftermarket UCAs if all you need is 5 degrees. My car has never been wrecked, so maybe that is why I was able to get so much. I'd expect that a damaged, twisted or UNparallel set of frame rails wouldn't allow that.

    Thanks,   Great looking 70 there man !!! In a perfect world I'd like 6 or 7 degrees caster but 3 or 4 is tolerable compared to what it was after the rebuild which is what I posted. This time I will go with a little negative camber also. I have 2in. dropped spindles going in so I'll see what I get.

[Kern Dog]

Cool, man. Thanks for the kind words and good luck with the car!   

[myk]

I got 6 degrees of caster with my Hotchkis uppers but was it worth the $800?  To me maybe, to most definitely not.

Like I've said before, sway bars and shocks made the largest improvement in suspension performance, and I still had the stock caster and camber settings.  In retrospect I probably would've been alright with just the shock and sway bar upgrades.  Well, maybe the t-bars too...

[Highbanked Hauler]

I got 6 degrees of caster with my Hotchkis uppers but was it worth the $800?  To me maybe, to most definitely not.

Like I've said before, sway bars and shocks made the largest improvement in suspension performance, and I still had the stock caster and camber settings.  In retrospect I probably would've been alright with just the shock and sway bar upgrades.  Well, maybe the t-bars too...

    HAHA,its a never ending story ain't it ?

[myk]

Tell me about it.  Now I'm looking at Baer's T4 brake kit...$$$$$$

[bill440rt]

Good timing with this thread.

I have a set of upper control arms that I am swapping in my '68 this weekend, with the offset bushings installed.

The rest of the suspension is stock too, so I did not feel it was necessary to spring for tubular upper control arms.
I have an appointment for a wheel alignment next week, so I'll keep posted how it goes!  

[Dino]

I'd say this is great timing!  I need all new rubber everything for the front suspension and steering.  I think I'll just get Moog everything, even thinking I should just buy new upper and lower ball joibts as well.   

[oldcarnut]

I know it posted before somewhere but while its here,  what is the desired alignment setup to get with modern tires to tell the shop to shoot for instead of the OEM specs?

[myk]

You can use my settings:

+6* caster

-1* camber

-1/16" toe in

The amount of caster you get will depend on your setup.  I would ask for as much as they can dial in.  Minus half a degree of camber is adequate; I'm in the extreme side...

[oldcarnut]

I wish now I had put in the offsets. I went back everything stock but beefier, heavier bars, and box welded the arms for the flexing.  Just haven't had the car put back together enough to drive and get it all aligned up.  So I can use these specs and tell them to shoot for as close as possible.  Thanks 

[HPP]

If your shop has new guys who don't know how to override the computer, ask for '06 Mustang GT specs.

[Highbanked Hauler]

You can use my settings:

+6* caster

-1* camber

-1/16" toe in

The amount of caster you get will depend on your setup.  I would ask for as much as they can dial in.  Minus half a degree of camber is adequate; I'm in the extreme side...

I spent some of my kids inheritance and got a set of Firm Feel 2 in. dropped spindles and with the offset bushings in the upper control arms  I am hoping  to get a least +3 caster  .5-1.0 neg. camber and 1/8 on the toe .   

[71 SE3834V]

If I install the offset bushings to get the most positive camber increase would I get anywhere close to a normal camber judging by the following pic?
I've had a couple of shops look at this (and Dino ) and we can't figure out why so much negative camber. Might have to start my own thread on this.
Oh, it has all new bushings and ball joints. Adjustment all the way out.

[HPP]

Somebody put A body lower arms in it? A body lower arms are longer by 3/8" compared to B body arms, IIRC.

[71 SE3834V]

Somebody put A body lower arms in it? A body lower arms are longer by 3/8" compared to B body arms, IIRC.

Would you happen to have a measurement or part # for the b body LCA? Are '69's & '71's the same? I'll get my buddy Dino to measure his while his are out.  
As far as I can tell in the 4 yrs of owning this car everything is original. It sat for some 20 yrs and not much done to it. Maybe somebody hit a pothole, bent the arm and it was replaced.   I'll post up the measurement question in a new thread.

[Kern Dog]

B body LCAs have a consistent curve along the bottom edge. A body arms have curves on each end with a flat spot in the center.

[71 SE3834V]

Ok, thanks. I'm gonna post up a pic in a new thread so I don't hijack this thread any further.

[bill440rt]

OK guys, just wanted to give an update on this thread after having my '68 back from the alignment shop after installing these offset upper control arm bushings from Moog.

Let me start by saying the overall feel of the car has definitely improved now. It used to feel somewhat "floaty", and had quite a bit of bump steer, which is pretty common for these cars anyway. Now, road feel is very much improved and bump steer is gone. That is good.

Any bad? Well, if you think you're going to get 5-6* of positive caster, you're not. However the alignment tech was able to get almost 2* of positive caster, which is still a great improvement over stock.
The rest of the suspension is stock design, and I'm running 15" wheels with 255/60 series radials. The car has manual discs from MP Brakes. The offset bushings were the ticket I think for this setup. Combined with the Stage 2 steering box it really has a nice feel to it now, much more stable. No, it's not a road course car but it's street manners greatly improved.

[myk]

Eh, the road course setup isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially when you spend it driving on mostly damaged infrastructure.  As long as you're satisfied then it's mission accomplished...

[HeavyFuel]

My car had an alignment performed yesterday because I also installed the Moog offset bushings sometime ago, but it took me a while to give up on trying to get the settings right on my own.  The car has a slightly lower than spec front ride height as well......not by much, maybe 1 inch. (Edit...just measured...1 5/8" was the measurement,  so about 1/2" lower than spec)

I've got stock upper and lower control arms (lowers are boxed).  I also have the FF stage II box.

The toe settings I did myself using string and a micrometer were surprisingly accurate.....+1/16" each side.  (of course those settings went out the window when they started resetting the camber and caster.)


Camber ended up +1/2* left and +3/8* right......no negative was achievable if any positive caster was to be had.

Caster is +7/8* left and 1 1/8* right.  Thats all they could get if the side to side difference was to be in spec.  One side they could have gotten more, but the other side had issues.


The handling is pretty decent considering I'm still running 14" Magnums and 70 series Coopers.

[Kern Dog]

I don't know how people are unable to get closer to 4 degrees. I have totally stock upper A arms and the offset bushings allowed me to get 4.7 on one side and 4.8 on the other. Before with the urethane upper bushings I was still able to get a smidge over 2.25 degrees on each side. Maybe you guys needed to have the bushings pressed in relative to the position the UCA sits at ride height?
If the offsets are not oriented just right, you give up some of what you are trying to gain.
Caster does help stability a great amount. Another benefit is that it increases steering effort as well. You lose some of that "tires on ice" feeling the stock Mopar steering box often has.

[myk]

Can there be "too much" positive caster?

[HPP]

Yes and no. Modern cars run upwards of 8* positive caster, which may seems like a lot. With a manuals steering car, 2-3* positive can feel like too much. There is a point where geometry and tire size can introduce a wobble with excessive positive caster, but its unlikely any of us can reach that point unless you use a particularly small diameter tire.

I tend to agree with Kern dog that you have to be especially careful when installing the offset bushings to maximize their caster results. While every car and combo is slightly different, I would think you should be able to get at least 2* positive out of the stock set up and 4* with the offset set up. If not, then I'm not sure what to say. After all, that is why they created these "problem solver" parts in the first place...to give additional range, even if that range is not equal to other cars.

[Highbanked Hauler]

Caster is +7/8* left and 1 1/8* right.  Thats all they could get if the side to side difference was to be in spec.

     HA, thats almost what I got on mine initially .  It was +3/4 on the left and + 1 1/4 on the right. Camber was at 0 as I remember.  As soon as I get brake pressure I am going to get mine aligned.

[bill440rt]

After all, that is why they created these "problem solver" parts in the first place...to give additional range, even if that range is not equal to other cars.

Bingo.
I think the tolerances between cars has a lot to do with it. Compared to a new car, they are downright sloppy.
The upper bushings were installed correctly. Truth be told, the tech found they were initially installed incorrectly (not by me), so he was getting really bad NEGATIVE caster readings. So, ponied up for a second set which were then installed clocked the right way. About 2* positive caster was all he could get out of it while still getting a good camber reading.
Compared to what it was, it drives much better now & I'm happy with it.     

[Brass]

Weird. I ended up with +2.74 caster on the driver side and +2.64 on the passenger. Camber came out -0.45 on each. Stock control arms and bushings. 

[HeavyFuel]

I don't know how people are unable to get closer to 4 degrees. I have totally stock upper A arms and the offset bushings allowed me to get 4.7 on one side and 4.8 on the other. Before with the urethane upper bushings I was still able to get a smidge over 2.25 degrees on each side. Maybe you guys needed to have the bushings pressed in relative to the position the UCA sits at ride height?  If the offsets are not oriented just right, you give up some of what you are trying to gain.
Caster does help stability a great amount. Another benefit is that it increases steering effort as well. You lose some of that "tires on ice" feeling the stock Mopar steering box often has.

Are yours installed according to this diagram?   Mine are just like the picture shows.

The UCA is roughly horizontal through it's average range of motion, correct?   So by using the arm of the UCA as a guide, 'pointing' the bushing center towards or away from the far end of the arm should be right, do you agree?

[HeavyFuel]

After all, that is why they created these "problem solver" parts in the first place...to give additional range, even if that range is not equal to other cars.

Bingo.
I think the tolerances between cars has a lot to do with it. Compared to a new car, they are downright sloppy.
The upper bushings were installed correctly. Truth be told, the tech found they were initially installed incorrectly (not by me), so he was getting really bad NEGATIVE caster readings. So, ponied up for a second set which were then installed clocked the right way. About 2* positive caster was all he could get out of it while still getting a good camber reading.
Compared to what it was, it drives much better now & I'm happy with it.     

Bill, you've got one of each year......was there any difference in specs from year to year?   Did they change the mount points on the frame or UCA geometry between years....or are all 2nd gens in the same boat?

[Highbanked Hauler]

Heavy fuel that is how I put mine in just what your diagram shows and as soon as I get brake pressure I am getting it aligned.

[HPP]

After all, that is why they created these "problem solver" parts in the first place...to give additional range, even if that range is not equal to other cars.

Bingo.
I think the tolerances between cars has a lot to do with it. Compared to a new car, they are downright sloppy.
The upper bushings were installed correctly. Truth be told, the tech found they were initially installed incorrectly (not by me), so he was getting really bad NEGATIVE caster readings. So, ponied up for a second set which were then installed clocked the right way. About 2* positive caster was all he could get out of it while still getting a good camber reading.
Compared to what it was, it drives much better now & I'm happy with it.     

Bill, you've got one of each year......was there any difference in specs from year to year?   Did they change the mount points on the frame or UCA geometry between years....or are all 2nd gens in the same boat?

There were not any documented changes between the years  during the 2nd gen run. With that said however, factory tolerances were sloppy at best with a .25" variation not only possibly, but passable on the assembly line.

[HeavyFuel]

After all, that is why they created these "problem solver" parts in the first place...to give additional range, even if that range is not equal to other cars.

Bingo.
I think the tolerances between cars has a lot to do with it. Compared to a new car, they are downright sloppy.
The upper bushings were installed correctly. Truth be told, the tech found they were initially installed incorrectly (not by me), so he was getting really bad NEGATIVE caster readings. So, ponied up for a second set which were then installed clocked the right way. About 2* positive caster was all he could get out of it while still getting a good camber reading.
Compared to what it was, it drives much better now & I'm happy with it.     

Bill, you've got one of each year......was there any difference in specs from year to year?   Did they change the mount points on the frame or UCA geometry between years....or are all 2nd gens in the same boat?

There were not any documented changes between the years  during the 2nd gen run. With that said however, factory tolerances were sloppy at best with a .25" variation not only possibly, but passable on the assembly line.

1/4" up or down, back or forth could make a huge difference as far as caster potential.  The offset bushings only get you about that much.   No wonder some cars with stock suspension obtained decent settings, while others struggle.

[bill440rt]

After all, that is why they created these "problem solver" parts in the first place...to give additional range, even if that range is not equal to other cars.

Bingo.
I think the tolerances between cars has a lot to do with it. Compared to a new car, they are downright sloppy.
The upper bushings were installed correctly. Truth be told, the tech found they were initially installed incorrectly (not by me), so he was getting really bad NEGATIVE caster readings. So, ponied up for a second set which were then installed clocked the right way. About 2* positive caster was all he could get out of it while still getting a good camber reading.
Compared to what it was, it drives much better now & I'm happy with it.     

Bill, you've got one of each year......was there any difference in specs from year to year?   Did they change the mount points on the frame or UCA geometry between years....or are all 2nd gens in the same boat?

There were not any documented changes between the years  during the 2nd gen run. With that said however, factory tolerances were sloppy at best with a .25" variation not only possibly, but passable on the assembly line.

1/4" up or down, back or forth could make a huge difference as far as caster potential.  The offset bushings only get you about that much.   No wonder some cars with stock suspension obtained decent settings, while others struggle.

Yep.
Just an FYI I had my bushings installed according to that diagram and they were... wrong. 
Don't go by arrows, you have to watch which way they are clocked. Mine were initially clocked wrong, hence the negative readings. Only until they were reversed was the tech able to get the positive readings.
Just be careful when you install them.        

[HeavyFuel]

Bill, you lost me.

How can the bushings be off from what the 'moulded into the rubber' arrows indicate is the right direction?

[bill440rt]

Bill, you lost me.

How can the bushings be off from what the 'moulded into the rubber' arrows indicate is the right direction?

A mechanic that pressed them in for me pressed them in according to that diagram. I checked them also before installing them on the car to that diagram. He put them in with the arrows as facing in that diagram.
However, when the wheel alignment guy tried to get an alignment he was getting NEGATIVE caster readings, and showed me why. The direction of the bushings was wrong. 
The bushings had to be reversed.     
It just cost me more time. And money...   

[cdr]

when i put mine in the instructions were wrong. I put them in how they should be.

[HeavyFuel]

Bill, you lost me.

How can the bushings be off from what the 'moulded into the rubber' arrows indicate is the right direction?

A mechanic that pressed them in for me pressed them in according to that diagram. I checked them also before installing them on the car to that diagram. He put them in with the arrows as facing in that diagram.
However, when the wheel alignment guy tried to get an alignment he was getting NEGATIVE caster readings, and showed me why. The direction of the bushings was wrong. 
The bushings had to be reversed.     
It just cost me more time. And money...   

Hell, I must be dain bramaged.   The arrows are logical to me.

By installing the bushings as shown, the front arm of the UCA is essentially 'lengthened' by a smidgen, and the rear is shortened.  That will move the upper ball joint rearward, and increase caster.

Right?   

[bill440rt]

Yeah, it confused the crap outta me, too.      
My wheel alignment shop was getting negative readings, only until he reversed them he was getting positive readings.

[HPP]

The bushings were originally created to address camber problems. If you install them per Moog's instructions, you get additional positive camber. If you offset them as being discussed here, you can create additional positive caster.

[myk]

Why would someone want positive camber?

[HPP]

Rust, damage, structural compromise, I have no idea, but  71 SE3834V  might be able to answer that.

[71 SE3834V]

Rust, damage, structural compromise, I have no idea, but  71 SE3834V  might be able to answer that.

You rang?

[HPP]

You're looking for positive camber. Might have to try to problem solver upper arm bushings and leave  it at that.  This is what they were originally created.

[71 SE3834V]

Why would someone want positive camber?

Not necessarily positive camber but less negative camber if you can't achieve the adjustment you're looking for.

You're looking for positive camber. Might have to try to problem solver upper arm bushings and leave  it at that.  This is what they were originally created.

I'm assuming you're referring to my situation.
I've already taken steps to improve the situation but was reluctant to post anymore about it due to the flak I got for trying to check it out myself.
With my tape measure and squinty eye I was able to identify a couple of possible problem areas. Made an adjustment and found my car WAS able to achieve less negative camber. I don't know if the first shop I took it to was trying to achieve a certain happy medium between the camber and caster but now armed with this info I can look for a shop that can work with me to see if it can be set up right or if I need to install other parts or make other repairs to the car.
Looks better no?

[Kern Dog]

That picture looks right, maybe a very slight bit of NEG camber. 

[c00nhunterjoe]

Where do you live. I feel bad for coming across too harsh. I will line it up at no charge or at least put in on my machine to show what is wrong if it cant be aligned. 

[71 SE3834V]

That picture looks right, maybe a very slight bit of NEG camber. 

I can achieve even less negative than where it is at now even some positive camber by my eyeball but the car starts pulling left. Obviously I don't know where the caster or toe setting is at but my goal was just to see if less negative can be achieved. At this point it doesn't look so bad that if it can't be brought up to the proper settings maybe the offset bushings would be in order.
When I get time I'll get it on a rack and go from there.

[myk]

You should take Joe up on his offer...

[HPP]

That looks much improved.

[myk]

How does it handle?

[Highbanked Hauler]

That picture looks right, maybe a very slight bit of NEG camber. 

I can achieve even less negative than where it is at now even some positive camber by my eyeball but the car starts pulling left. Obviously I don't know where the caster or toe setting is at but my goal was just to see if less negative can be achieved. At this point it doesn't look so bad that if it can't be brought up to the proper settings maybe the offset bushings would be in order.
When I get time I'll get it on a rack and go from there.

    Lower or raise or your  T bars a little so the upper arms are straight out and you might gain a little positive camber..

[71 SE3834V]

How does it handle?

Sorry, was off on vacation.
Handles fine, same as always. No pulling.
I took it out on a long highway run for the first time out to Dino's. About 40 min mostly highway. The only complaint is it has some push going into the curves. Takes more turning of the s. wheel then I expected to take the curves. I know these cars weren't designed for cornering so it might be the norm. Got some pretty tall, skinny tires on it also (205/75/14). Steering box is a rebuilt stock unit. Nothing I'm concerned with. Got plenty other stuff to deal with and this isn't a daily driver.

That picture looks right, maybe a very slight bit of NEG camber. 

I can achieve even less negative than where it is at now even some positive camber by my eyeball but the car starts pulling left. Obviously I don't know where the caster or toe setting is at but my goal was just to see if less negative can be achieved. At this point it doesn't look so bad that if it can't be brought up to the proper settings maybe the offset bushings would be in order.
When I get time I'll get it on a rack and go from there.

    Lower or raise or your  T bars a little so the upper arms are straight out and you might gain a little positive camber..

I'll look into that. Thanks.

[Kern Dog]

A 205 series tire is close to a stock width. You may not be giving the car a fair shake though. If you have spent any time in any newer car, you may have a higher expectation from the car than you should. You will see a dramatic improvement with wider tires and some suspension upgrades.
In 2006 I was hit in the left fender and had to take the car to a shop for repair. I didn't want to risk any overspray on my wheels so I put on some steel wheels with some generic "all season steel belted radials". The car went from  near "razor sharp" steering response to feeling live I was driving on mud. The car understeered going into turns, ( Car wants to keep going straight even with more steering wheel input) and just felt soft.
The pictures below are of the car with the steel wheels and smaller tires.

[Kern Dog]

More

[71 SE3834V]

Your "smaller" tires make mine look like bike tires, Ha!
Yeah F78-14 on 5.5" rims were the stock setup for mine. Can't remember the last time I drove a modern car much. Been driving Ram 2500 4x4's since '96. Nothing but 4x4's since the 80's other than the occasional use of one of the kid's cars. Well technically I own a "newer" car then the Charger but it's only newer by 1 year. 
The understeer wasn't anything I wasn't expecting just needed to remind myself that it was normal. First highway run since owning it.
Don't know if suspension upgrades are in the cards. Most of the roads around here are straight grid pattern anyway. Wider tires are on the list though.