Camber Adjustments

68COUGAR

Registered User
1st. Ques: What is the Camber spec. for SC's?

2nd. Ques: Have any of you guys ever tried running more positive camber than the spec?

Yeah, the mn12 platform handles pretty good the way it was set up, but I'm wondering if it would handle better with some positive camber. You Road Racing & Autocross guys know what I'm talking about!

Also, I'm wondering if more positive camber would help lowered cars handle even better?

Curious 68COUGAR
_______________
 
From my 1995 service manual: nominal front camber, -0.50 deg., + or - 1.25 deg. Rear, -0.50 deg., + or - 1.00 deg.

Generally, you want to change the camber to a more negative setting, not positive, to improve handling. As the body of the car leans in a corner, the wheels on the loaded side will experience more positive camber (tires leaning out at the top) ... so a static negative setting (tires leaning in at the top) is used to counteract that.

The MN-12 suspension design is pretty decent in this regard. Because of the short / long arm front suspension, the top of the spindle actually gets "pulled in" on the loaded side, meaning that the geometry helps to counteract the camber change due to lean. Over on TCCoA, in the tech. articles section, there are the infamous "aggressive alignment" specs. From my experience with my 95 SC, on the street, and from open-track use on race tires, those specs are too aggressive, and are good only for taking off the insides of your tire treads. Discovered that the hard way after using those specs the first time we did an alignment on my freshly lowered car. I've since found that front camber around -0.6 to -0.8 gets the job done, and rear at about -0.3 to -0.5. Those settings will help get you even tire wear, especially on a lowered car, and will be aggressive enough for good handling too. Looking at photos of my car from the last track weekend I did in 2003, the rear could use a tiny bit more camber. This was on a tight track, running Hoosier race radials, an extreme situation.

So I'd say no, you don't need a bunch of camber to get good handling out of an MN-12 car. Certainly not like my old Fox Mustang race car, it got -3 to -3.5 front camber dumped into it, so the pig would get around the track !! :eek: :p

cheers,
Ed Nicholson
SCCoO
 
Re: specs...

supercatxr7 said:
I know somewhere on the tccoa there are some agressive handling specs. Do a search.
Yes, well I'd rather Not wade though 192 TCCoA entries about CAMBER.

I'd rather talk to somebody who's done it, or knows what I'm talking about.

I'll keep seaching!!!!!!

68COUGAR
 
I Stand Corrected

fast Ed N said:
From my 1995 service manual: nominal front camber, -0.50 deg., + or - 1.25 deg. Rear, -0.50 deg., + or - 1.00 deg.

Generally, you want to change the camber to a more negative setting, not positive, to improve handling.

YES, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

As the body of the car leans in a corner, the wheels on the loaded side will experience more positive camber (tires leaning out at the top) ... so a static negative setting (tires leaning in at the top) is used to counteract that.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

The MN-12 suspension design is pretty decent in this regard. Because of the short / long arm front suspension

THE SLA is the BEST handling OEM suspension.

, the top of the spindle actually gets "pulled in" on the loaded side, meaning that the geometry helps to counteract the camber change due to lean. Over on TCCoA, in the tech. articles section, there are the infamous "aggressive alignment" specs. From my experience with my 95 SC, on the street, and from open-track use on race tires, those specs are too aggressive,

WHICH CAMBER SPECS ARE TO AGGRESSIVE?

and are good only for taking off the insides of your tire treads. Discovered that the hard way after using those specs the first time we did an alignment on my freshly lowered car. I've since found that front camber around -0.6 to -0.8 gets the job done, and rear at about -0.3 to -0.5.

IS THAT WITH A LOWERED CAR?

Those settings will help get you even tire wear, especially on a lowered car, and will be aggressive enough for good handling too. Looking at photos of my car from the last track weekend I did in 2003, the rear could use a tiny bit more camber. This was on a tight track, running Hoosier race radials, an extreme situation.

So I'd say no, you don't need a bunch of camber to get good handling out of an MN-12 car.

THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE. I JUST WANTED TO GET THE OPINIONS FROM REAL ROAD RACERS.

Certainly not like my old Fox Mustang race car, it got -3 to -3.5 front camber dumped into it, so the pig would get around the track !! :eek: :p

68COUGAR
_________
 
Back
Top