Alignment Issue

[DUCeditor]

As noted in earlier posts I have just had several major systems refreshed on my `77. Included was the front end which got to A-arms, shocks, bushing, etc. Yesterday I took it to a highly regarded shop for alignment and the tech reported that he could not get the camber quite within spec. ("0" instead of +.9 if I understood him correctly). At that point there was no more adjustment left.

The possible effect of this will be accelerated wear on the inside of the tire, something that I have experienced with every set of tires on my car since buying it 22 years ago.

The likely reason for this, according to the tech, is the age of the springs. But the same problem was evident shortly after I replaced the springs a few years after getting the car.

I know in early Road and Track reviews tire wear and alignment issues were common reported complaints on Spiders. Has anyone here experienced anything similar? Any suggestions for dealing with this? Or should I just assume that tires on this car will (as in the past) have shorter life spans than they would on a more modern vehicle?

Thanks in advance for any insights you can share!

-Don

[zachmac]

Nevermind, I had a brain fart!

[So Cal Mark]

if your camber reading is +.9, your tires should be wearing on the outside. Usually, the problem is negative camber. That's when you run out of adjustment

[zachmac]

Mark, he didn't say he was at +.9, he implied he was trying to adjust to that but could only get to 0.

Was the car properly weighted when the alignment was being done (most likely NOT). The specs call for the car to have the weight of a driver, passenger and luggage in the car when taking the measurements. VERY RARELY will a modern shop do this. As that weight is added the car will settle further on the springs which in turn will cause the angle between the A arms and the chassis to change such that camber will become even more negative, so your probably farther out of spec than you think!

Since increasing positive camber is normally done by removing shims between the lower A arm and the cross member we have to assume they are all already gone. That only leaves you with the option of installing stiffer springs. By doing so the angle of the A arm in relation to the chassis will become more "upright" (think car suspended above perpendicular) which will in turn increase camber toward positive.

[zachmac]

ALSO, when the A arms were installed, was the car properly weighted BEFORE the bushings were tightened? If not you may have them producing a counter torque that is effectively raising the car (and over stressing the bushings which will in turn fail sooner). This can cause the resting A arm angle to be more "downward" than normal, increasing negative camber.

[majicwrench]

Without looking it up, I think "0" is very much in-specs for my 72 anyway.
My 72, BTW, has slight negative camber on both sides, and all shims gone. I would bwe very happy with "0".One of these days I will get a good look at it, but my first thought is that body is slowly failing in such a way that the camber is becoming more negative. Mine has been smucked in the front end at one time.
Keith

[DUCeditor]

Thank you all for your responses. The tech may well have said -.9. I understand the basic theory here but have no practical knowledge.

The car definitely was not weighted when the measurements were being made. I would assume (always dangerous!) that the designers of the equipment - all lasers and computers - took that into account when the numbers were crunched. Unless, of course, the Fiat because of its age had not had its requirements properly entered into the computer.

The mechanic who did the initial work is renowned for his restoration work on classic BMWs. (Clients cars come from all over) But he is very comfortable and knowledgeable with Fiats and Alfas too so I am confident the bushings are not at risk.

The tech said the answer if I see untoward tire wear will be new springs. He took his time on the job. It is that kind of shop, not a chain, run 'em through place.

Thanks again!

-Don

[kmead]

I believe the techs statement for the camber is correct for an unladen car. The loaded spec is +0.30' which translates to .5° of positive camber, given the reality of how alignment has generally been performed on cars in this country the spec books for alignment have been adjusted for unladen numbers.

Now as to the springs being worn making it impossible to reach the desired spec for camber, I don't think he is correct. Especially in light of you having trouble getting to the spec in the past and having replaced the springs previously.

Sometimes the tolerances of all of the parts of a car create a situation where you can't hit the nominal specs expected/desired. This can stem from issues with the welding of the complete unibody, the weldment of the crossmember or just slight sag and wear in the body from years of impacts.

As it is now, your car is close to being in spec, and in performance terms is likely closer to a preferred spec for the alignment than the factory numbers. The two biggest issues I would expect to suffer with your car are somewhat higher steering effort and somewhat higher tire wear than "normal" whatever that is on an old car. Unless you are chewing through the tires in less than 10k miles I wouldn't worry much about it as you likely need to replace the tires due to age before they actually wear out.

So I would it go, but that's me.

[zachmac]

Ditto on everything kmead said! Close enough for a FIAT!

[DUCeditor]

Again, thanks guys. Quite correct re aging vs wear. We generally put on only a couple of K a year and the car - at least as I drive it - doesn't require very expensive tires. (The Yokohamas I just had installed came to about $70 a piece installed. And they are wonderful with superb wet and dry traction and exceptionally quiet.)

So yes, I'll live with it. Especially having heard your supportive comments.

This is a wonderful forum. I appreciate you all so much!

-Don

[So Cal Mark]

I use a little different approach than factory specs. It depends on how the car is driven. On a daily driver, I set camber as close to 0 as possible. If the owner likes to fling it around corners, it's going to get 1/4 negative camber. This puts a better contact patch down as the car leans in a corner and doesn't affect wear much. I never give them positive camber.

[majicwrench]

Now I know why I have negitive camber, so I can fling it around corners!!! Thanks for the hot tip Mark, now I don't feel so bad about it...
Keith

[BEEK]

i have seen in the 124 series of cars the shock towers will lean inwards causing too much negative camber, the upper frame rail, just below the fender weld line should be checked inside the wheel well. if there are wrinkles in this area its possable that the shock tower has moved. again not all that bad but sometimes not perfect allignments can be acheaved. i very much agree with mark about the 1/2 negative camber. i go with almost 1 degree on my own car. for the same reason, its about performance not tire wear to me. also for the bushings, i dont tighten the nuts except to make face contact, then a small amount of bushing squish, i want the pivot point to do its job, not to rip the centers out of the bushings, thats the reason fiat uses lock nuts there. overtightening is the main reason fiat front end bushings fail. also not tightening crossmember mounting nuts and bolts.

[So Cal Mark]

another little secret slipped out