Printable View
We are currently building a new car. We previously ran novas and camaros so the metric Monte Carlos are new to us. After getting the car in a roller stage we noticed we don't have much camber in the RF. We are using stock ball joints with stock upper and lower a arms and spindles. We have moved the upper a arm back with washers 1" in the back and 1/2" in the front and have about 1/4" gap between the upper a arm and the exhaust manifold. Any suggestions on have to get more camber in the RF?
Use the large Chrysler lower ball joint (moog 727).It is a screw in so when you weld the sleeve in accidentally move it out 1'' and forward 1/2''.
Your going to have to use your imagination and common sense on how to build new lowers.You can all so cut the upper mount off and move it.I put 3/8 shims in both sides then reweld it to the static camber and caster setting.Try not to add any caster gain when moving the upper.The taller ball joints and longer lower help with camber curves and r/c movement after dive and roll.
Metric front ends are a mystery,,,must have had illiterates putting upper mounts on frame at factory..And to make it more funnier,,there is a local track getting a jig made to fit the metric to see if the original mounts have been moved.LOL,,Just wander how many cars will pass that test?
He's not getting the caster he needs either with the stock mount.By moving it you don't have to run 1'' shims in the rear 1/2 shims in the front, thus putting the arm in a bind.
I give you win.lol
I don't race stockcars anymore.I was going to share some information that was very difficult and time consuming to learn that helped win races with a metric front end.They need improvements with static camber and caster settings,camber curves ,roll center movement after dive and roll.You are not going to get there with stock parts.longer lower a-arm help most of these problems.It is very time consuming to modify a stock one .it takes 2 lower arms to build a modified one, cut it at the rear by the mount and at the ball joint area.you would have to watch me do it as it is hard to explain.The longer ball joints helps with roll center movement.After all these changes you will have to move the upper mount to get your static settings right. Caster gain is some thing you have to keep an eye on when moving the upper mount.I do not know anything about stock upper arms or exhaust manifolds as it was in 1992 when I last raced under those rules.with tubular a-arms if you have a large difference in shims it will wear the arm fast from binding.Bump steer and drag link modifications would be the next thing that would need to be addressed.What degrees are metric spindles, I have discovered a few more tricks sense I last worked on a stock front end.
If rules allow tubular uppers would it not be easier to just cut and lengthen or shorten those as needed? Our rules did not allow us to alter the lower control arms or the mounting points on the chassis upper or lower. I would alter both upper (tubular) arms to get desired caster/camber with minimum shims and this will in turn give the clearance needed from the headers/exaust manifold. Just take a little out of the rf and add a little into the lf. Tack it up, assemble front without shocks or springs get it relatively close to ride height on jackstands check your caster/camber. Do this until you are where you want to be just know how much you took out or put in. That way you can just cut and fab without all the checking on the next set.
Good info there. I completely agree that the Metric geometry is an animal to get right.Quote:
Originally Posted by save the racers
one reason I like the Impala/ Caprice mid 70's Chevelle and Camaros.
A Ford Crown Vic is also a very good choice, and a lot easier to find. but a lot of people do not want to run a Ford. plus most rules do not allow brand switching.
I have welded in many screw in ball joint rings in controll arms, i have left about one third of the ring unsupported or banded. never had an issue on dirt. That is over twenty years of building chassis and suspension systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by stock car driver
He's definitely right here I just converted a car over for a client. You have to get the correct bushings and weld them in in this case. I ran the nova lower ball joints and reamed the spindle and switched to the Chrysler Upper screw in joints so I reamed the spindles there, you could run the big metric upper joint if you could find the length arms you wanted but finding the right arms for the camber gain I wanted was a chore so I switched to 6" on center uppers that were slugged shafts cut all the old mount off the upper and you have to move the weight Jack almost to outside the rail so to remedy that you plate the top of the rail to get the bung where it works and it uses 5" springs. You also have to run longer tie rods. It moves the wheel base forward about 1" as well. You have to redo your shock mount. It's a lot of work it's worth it it my opinion because the stock metric has a camber gain issue, and bump steer issue. If it's allowed on your rules I would do it but it takes ALOT of time to do it right. One last bit of advice you need to check your wheel spacer rules. It is harder to get right if you can't run spacers. When you make the front end more efficient and you use a metric rear end that already has a sidebite issue you need to be able to balance the car backQuote:
Originally Posted by stock car driver
When you make the front end more efficient you need to be able to balance the car back.
paraphrased, but best advice in whole thread. JMHO