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 !!
cheers,
Ed Nicholson
SCCoO