[Timh]

I recently took my 65 chevelle convertible for an aliginment and the technician said I had the upper control arms on the wrong sides because the best caster (foward tilt) he could get was -2 degrees. I told him that I was looking for +2 degrees as recommended for today's radial tires and I would take the car home and make the change. Well I started to make the change then decided to do some research only to find that both the upper and lower control arms are on the correct sides. I talked to another mechanic who is into 70 Chevelle restorations and he said my car was definitely out. He said that on occasion the frames fold/bend inward due to the cross member not being strong enough usually related to heavy big block engines. Since the frame is a replacement, actually from an Elky, I have no history on it.
My question - should I wait until the mechanic (not the original one) tells me he still can't get enough caster even with lots of shims on the upper arms or should I just bite the bullet and get a pair of adjustable tubular lower control arms and put them on? If I do that do I also need to replace the uppers with tubular arms? At this time money is an issue.
Anyone out there with some ideas, I certainly would appreciate your help, thanks. Tim

 

[67_LS1]

I’m not an expert but I’m going through the same issue now. I have Hotchkis upper/lower arms and still couldn’t get to where experts on this site tell me would be best .
So I added tall upper ball joints and it seems to have brought me to where I’m in the range. I still haven’t been to the alignment shop because I have other projects winding up. Hopefully in the next couple weeks
I’m throwing this out so that others can chime in and advice if tall ball joints could help with stock arms since it is a pretty inexpensive change.
Also if you do go with adjustable arms, wouldn’t the uppers be the ones that should be adjustable?

 

[64SS427]

That’s an interesting situation. I can see how a frame that was bent in due to excess weight could affect camber, but not caster. I can tell you from personal experience that the lower control arms can be reversed, I did it once. The caster on mine is set to about 2.5 degrees, using all stock parts. Let me know if there’s any pics or measurements that would assist.
Devin

 

[hydro462]

The upper control arm put the ball joint up front and the factory spec was -2. If you change the arms so the ball joint face the rear you will have 10 degrees of positive caster. I've done this on a couple cars with good success. This will help handling and straight away feel. The issue is the stock uppers also put the ball joint down too far. So if you want negative caster during compression (stopping). You need tall ball joints. Best to pick up a pair of SPC adjustable arms with Delrin bushings and heavy duty adjustment bushings. This way you fix all of the A body issues.

 

[billdini]

We couldn't get my 68 to 2 degrees. We got closer around +1.6 and +1.8 but ran out of threads. I was thinking to replace my upper control shaft retaining bolts to the longer ones available to get the rest. It did make a big difference especially in road feel and return to center.

 

[makemfaster]

............ He said that on occasion the frames fold/bend inward due to the cross member not being strong enough usually related to heavy big block engines........... At this time money is an issue.
Anyone out there with some ideas, I certainly would appreciate your help, thanks. Tim

This such a common issue that there are replacement upper control arm shafts that are offset to compensate for this problem. I had a shop for over forty years and used these "problem solver" shafts countless times. NAPA has them readily available.

 

[von]

I was able to get about 2 degrees of positive caster on my '69 Malibu with stock A arms, ball joints, and locations. I did the complete alignment myself. I started by setting both sides at 0 deg camber which took around 1/2" or so worth of shims, equal front and rear bolts of the upper A arms. I then (both sides worked out equally) left 1/8" shim in the front upper A arm bolt and moved all other front shims to the rear bolt at each wheel. The camber remained at 0. If the camber would've changed I would've then added or removed an equal amount of shims front and rear bolt to get back to 0 camber. I measured it using a straight edge with equal thickness spacers taped to it and contacting the upper and lower bare rim of the wheel. Then put an angle gauge on that to measure degrees from true vertical. Then used a protractor to tape out on the floor 20 degrees of steering each direction from straight ahead at each wheel. The way you measure caster at home is turn the steering one direction (left or right) 20 deg from straight ahead and measure degrees of lean from vertical of the wheel. The turn the direction of the wheel to 20 deg the other direction from straight ahead and measure degrees of lean from vertical of the wheel. Add the two degrees of lean at each wheel together to get caster for that wheel. For example if the driver side wheel leans out at the top 1 deg when turned left 20 deg and leans in 1 deg when turned right 20 deg that's 2 deg of positive caster. If The top of the driver side wheel leans in at the top when turned left and leans out when turned right that's neg caster. Lastly I set the toe-in to 3/16" using my home made toe-in gauge. It's important that the front suspension be settled and the car rolled forward at least one complete wheel revolution before taking any measurement if not using "slip plates". I know, not as precision as professional equipment but works for me on Chevelles.

 

[makemfaster]

........... I measured it using a straight edge with equal thickness spacers taped to it and contacting the upper and lower bare rim of the wheel. Then put an angle gauge on that to measure degrees from true vertical..........Lastly I set the toe-in to 3/16" using my home made toe-in gauge.

I applaud your knowledge of the procedures involved; however, your methods leave a little to be desired. I have a "primitive" set-up, manufactured by Hunter, that uses portable alignment heads and the aforementioned "slip plates". The key to getting an accurate alignment is in the set-up of the heads. The first step in making sure that you are truly "reading" the alignment is to take the "run-out" of the front wheels. To begin with, each side is jacked up using a floor jack so that the wheel can be rotated. Once the heads are attached to the wheels, each wheel is slowly rotated, while observing a bubble level that is built into the head. There are three adjustment screws that tilt the head relative to the wheel. Once the bubble holds steady, the heads are truly reading what the spindle is doing. This eliminates any errors in readings from a bent wheel or front hub that isn't perfectly true. With any sort of wide tire, ie. 70, 60 series, etc., you want a Camber reading of "0" deg. The caster on the right front wheel should be set to the highest limit of the factory specs. The left side should be set to ~ 3/8 deg. LESS positive than the right, to compensate for the crown of the road. Finally, the toe-in should be as little as possible, just in from zero. 3/16" is too much; it will cause tire wear. There is much more that I haven't covered, but this is the basics. I learned from an "old man" that was the only one who could get my '63 Impala right, when I was a kid and had it raised up, with heavy duty station wagon springs in the front, with ball joint spacers and the stock front springs in the rear. I had 10" of ground clearance at the back of the front fender. I hope that this has helped take some of the mystery out of the "black art" of alignments. Thanks, Bob.

 

[japete92]

I recently took my 65 chevelle convertible for an aliginment and the technician said I had the upper control arms on the wrong sides because the best caster (foward tilt) he could get was -2 degrees. I told him that I was looking for +2 degrees as recommended for today's radial tires and I would take the car home and make the change. Well I started to make the change then decided to do some research only to find that both the upper and lower control arms are on the correct sides. I talked to another mechanic who is into 70 Chevelle restorations and he said my car was definitely out. He said that on occasion the frames fold/bend inward due to the cross member not being strong enough usually related to heavy big block engines. Since the frame is a replacement, actually from an Elky, I have no history on it.
My question - should I wait until the mechanic (not the original one) tells me he still can't get enough caster even with lots of shims on the upper arms or should I just bite the bullet and get a pair of adjustable tubular lower control arms and put them on? If I do that do I also need to replace the uppers with tubular arms? At this time money is an issue.
Anyone out there with some ideas, I certainly would appreciate your help, thanks. Tim

A couple of comments:

According to this doc:

https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits/Chevelle/1965-Chevrolet-Chevelle.pdf

The acceptable caster range is -1 to 0. Getting to +2 with the OEM upper control arms won't be easy and MAY be too hard. Recommend NOT having a 'bunch' of shims on one end and none on the other. AND, toe in and camber still need to be 'right'.

Steel deflects with load but, if the load is in the 'plastic' range, it returns to original position upon removal of the load. Time itself is not a factor. Three things can cause a frame to 'sag'/deform permanently. Failure due to accident, failure due to loss material from corrosion, or failure from many thousands of load cycles (fatigue). None of those 'heal themselves'. The steel is weakened.

You decide where you wish to 'go' with that frame.

Just info.

Pete

 

[von]

Yes I know my methods are somewhat crude but they work for me. My car goes straight down the road and I've not had a Chevelle tire wear problem in the 20 years I've been doing it this way. GM toe-in spec for '69 Chevelles is 1/8" to 1/4". That's why the 3/16" I set it to.

 

[Timh]

Wow thanks to everyone who responded. This seems to be a somewhat common issue. It will take me some time to ponder.
First let me say that I forgot to note that I have a 2" front/1.5" rear drop in the height. The front is 2" spindle drop while the rear is 1.5" spring drop. The car has a much better stance this way although I had to put smaller tires on the front to prevent them hitting the front corner of the fender.
Second with reference to JAPETE92's discussion regarding GM specs I bring to his attention that the manual referenced was written in '64 and directed to bias ply tires. Today's radials require at least some positive caster - here are some specs I got from the net a number of years ago, the fellow had a 66 Chevelle SBC, ""Camber -1/2 Deg.; Caster-drivers side +5 Deg.; Caster-passenger side +5.5 Deg.; Toe - IN 1/16" Total
This is basically the best performance alignment that won't really create a tire wear issue.
As with some cars you won't be able to achieve these specs because of the components you have installed and the geometry of the car, I would recommend getting as close to these as you can if your looking for upgraded handling.
Craig""
Third with reference to MAKEMFASTER's discussion - could you please tell me exactly what you bought from NAPA, was it the whole A-arm or just the the cross shaft that bolts to the frame? What is special about the shaft? Although specs say to use the shaft shims for adjustment I have looked at various E-Bay offers trying to find adjustable tubular uppers but have only found lowers that at adjustable which is why I expected to be changing the lowers to get the caster I am looking for - any thoughts?
Thanks again for all of your replys and I hope others read this to help with their chevelle alignments.
Tim

 

[Timh]

Oh with regard to my frame: it came from Texas and had most of the original factory paint on it and, zero rust except the rear mount pockets had minor scaling which I filled with weld and ground smooth before sand blasting and powder coating. Tim

 

[RR24]

Here is one brand of adjustable uppers and there are others.

1969 CHEVROLET CHEVELLE SPC Performance 94320 SPC Performance Adjustable Control Arms | Summit Racing

Free Shipping - SPC Performance Adjustable Control Arms with qualifying orders of $99. Shop Control Arms at Summit Racing.

www.summitracing.com

 

[hydro462]

The shim stack between front and back bolts should never be more then a 1/2... When you load that rear bolt up you make the swing arc of the upper and lower control arms move at a different arc. This causes all kinds of wierd issues. I always try to keep the shim stacks as close to each other as possible.

Another mistake I see people doing is chasing this illusion that a bunch of positive caster will cure all there front end ailments. It won't and like I mentioned above you actually make things worse by having the shim stacks more then 1/2" different.

Its all been worked out for you. Just pick up a pair of UMI or SPC upper control arms. Have them install .9 tall ball joints in them and in SPCs case, get the better hex head adjusters.

The real issue is in the steering box. One of the best things you can do for your car is get a 800 Series box from Lee and have them use the 30 pound valve. This will give you a real nice return to center and will feel like a nimble tight car..

 

[hydro462]

If that car has a el Camino #1942 frame under it you have it made! That frame is massive and only came with the el Camino and the 69-72 Pontiac Grand Prix..

 

[makemfaster]

Wow thanks to everyone who responded. This seems to be a somewhat common issue. It will take me some time to ponder.....
Second with reference to JAPETE92's discussion regarding GM specs I bring to his attention that the manual referenced was written in '64 and directed to bias ply tires. Today's radials require at least some positive caster.........
Third with reference to MAKEMFASTER's discussion - could you please tell me exactly what you bought from NAPA, was it the whole A-arm or just the the cross shaft that bolts to the frame? What is special about the shaft?......
Thanks again for all of your replys and I hope others read this to help with their chevelle alignments.
Tim

I believe that the Moog # is K-5250. This is a replacement upper control arm shaft and bushing kit. The ends of the shaft where the bushings ride are offset from the center part that bolts to the frame, where the shims go. This moves the upper control arm outward, which makes the camber more positive. I also highly agree with your comment regarding updated alignment specs.

 

[David Bates]

If that car has a el Camino #1942 frame under it you have it made! That frame is massive and only came with the el Camino and the 69-72 Pontiac Grand Prix..

View attachment 699538

But the OP is dealing with a 1965 fwiw!

 

[Timh]

I'm not sure what your comment is (OP ? fwiw?) but you are right that the 68-72 frames know fit the 64-67. Thanks

 

[Timh]

I'm not sure what your comment is (OP ? fwiw?) but you are right that the 68-72 frames know fit the 64-67. Thanks

That shoould have said 68-72 frames do not fit 64-67. sorry, thanks

 

[Timh]

I believe that the Moog # is K-5250. This is a replacement upper control arm shaft and bushing kit. The ends of the shaft where the bushings ride are offset from the center part that bolts to the frame, where the shims go. This moves the upper control arm outward, which makes the camber more positive. I also highly agree with your comment regarding updated alignment specs.

I just called my local NAPA dealer who can provide MOOG parts and the clerk said that they have the NAPA offset shaft available, but will this solve my caster problem or just the camber? Thanks for your fuzzy re alignment specs. Tim