Alignment Specifications ?

Bob, got these specs from Mike Thomas, Pantera Pres, North West. Had 4072 aligned with these specs Friday. Drove like a dream all weekend. Hope this helps. Thanks

Front Camber: -1/8 deg
Front Caster: +2.7 deg
Front Toe-in: 1/8"

Rear Camber: -3/8 to -5/8 deg
Rear Toe-in: 1/8" to 3/16"

Dave

Dave,
Thanks for the reply and specs and I agree my car also drives better even though my camber is out of spec as well as my toe-in on rear.

I'm just curious about the factory spec change to 3/8" toe-in on front and what that will do to handling and if anyone has used that spec. I've never heard of anything over 1/8" on cars. Maybe improve turning even more? May wear tires a bit quicker but most everyone's tires ages out before wearing out.

Surely DeTomaso/Ford engineers had a reason to change it so I would like to know why.

Bob

Bob -

I pulled this out of a different post (by George). This data shows the 1/8" spec.

I am not sure if it sheds any light, but provides a comparison of the changes by models.

I am getting my car aligned Tuesday.

Rocky

Rocky
Thanks for digging this chart up which I assume George created from factory data.

My question still remains if they revised the spec from 1/8" to 3/8" toe-in in Aug '74 why did they then change it in the first place then back to 1/8" when that was the original spec. anyway.

I though someone like George with historical knowledge may remember this revision change and comment.

I'm happy with the 1/8". If 1/8" is good then 2/8" is twice as good and 3/8" must be 3 times as good....just kidding!

Just would like to know their engineering logic to change to 3/8".

Bob

In 1974 weren't the tires bias ply and now are radial? I'd think the alignment would somehow match the type of tire. Am I wrong?

Increasing toe would have been done for one of two possible reasons: (1) to improve directional stability, or (2) to equalize tread wear across the entire tread width of the front tires. I have no idea which was Ford's concern.

George
I was actually considering using that setting when I return to see what the handling results would be, but better leave well enough alone. I will ask my alignment guy for his comments.

Maybe it was changed to compensate for the limited caster adjustment.

Thanks all

Bob

Robbie, you are correct. Alignment specs needed for narrow, hard-compound bias-ply tires are quite different from wide, low profile sticky compound radial tires. Plus, with wide, low profile radial tires it's been found in the last 44 years that extra camber improves stability more than extra toe-in, and tire wear is vastly diminished. Finally, the alignment settings you should use depends somewhat on how much city driving vs open highway running you do, and the tires you choose.

FWIW, there is nothing in the published alignment specs that I personally use for fast street driving with wide 50-profile radial tires on our '72. 6 degrees of theoretical front caster would be nice- '71 Corvettes used it but not without power steering! 4.5 degrees is more reasonable in a semi-stock Pantera and far easier to manually steer at low speeds. 2.6 degrees is all the factory parts will allow- one cannot get more front caster without machining the upper ball joints and/or using offset polyurethane a-arm bushings, or a custom upper a-arm. It's unfortunate the Pantera was introduced before radial tires were being cautiously offered to the public.