I recently rebuilt my front suspension and I switched to '59 upper control arms, pivot shafts and bushings. I liked the bushing design better. I was pleasantly suprised to discover that as you rotate the shaft 360 degrees it moves the control arm forwards or backwards relative to the frame which changes the caster. My question... does anybody have 1959 alignment procedure information? It won't be much longer before my initial front end alignment...
So, I probably missed this in your previous posts...but the '59 upper control arm/shaft/bushings is a bolt on replacement? What about the ball joint?, and does it change any other geometry, like the spindle height? The big question is, and you probably won't know until it gets to an alignment shop...how much caster can you get??
I did a post on the 52-59 forum asking about the procedure/specs. There is an active, knowledgeable member on there that I think just had his '59 aligned.
Quote from: lalessi1 on 2016-05-19 06:43
I recently rebuilt my front suspension and I switched to '59 upper control arms, pivot shafts and bushings. I liked the bushing design better. I was pleasantly suprised to discover that as you rotate the shaft 360 degrees it moves the control arm forwards or backwards relative to the frame which changes the caster. My question... does anybody have 1959 alignment procedure information? It won't be much longer before my initial front end alignment...
I used '58 Ford /Edsel Upper Control Arms for the same reason. So I'm interested to find out the alignment procedures and results
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2016-05-19 12:29
So, I probably missed this in your previous posts...but the '59 upper control arm/shaft/bushings is a bolt on replacement? What about the ball joint?, and does it change any other geometry, like the spindle height? The big question is, and you probably won't know until it gets to an alignment shop...how much caster can you get??
I did a post on the 52-59 forum asking about the procedure/specs. There is an active, knowledgeable member on there that I think just had his '59 aligned.
Rich, everything remains basically the same. You adjust the caster and camber with shims. I am hoping to find out if there is an initial posistion for the shaft specified as well as the change in caster per shaft revolution. That would help in the alignment process. I have the shafts rotated to give me as much caster as possible to start with zero shims installed. I am interested in finding out how much extra caster this arrangement will allow (if any). I would buy a '59 manual if I knew it would provide the answers I am looking for.
hollander says 58-60 edsel,ford pass 57-64,mercury 57-58 and mercury 61-64 upper control arms interchange
Quote from: lalessi1 on 2016-05-20 07:18
Rich, everything remains basically the same. You adjust the caster and camber with shims. I am hoping to find out if there is an initial posistion for the shaft specified as well as the change in caster per shaft revolution. That would help in the alignment process. I have the shafts rotated to give me as much caster as possible to start with zero shims installed. I am interested in finding out how much extra caster this arrangement will allow (if any). I would buy a '59 manual if I knew it would provide the answers I am looking for.
Lynn, I'm totally confused, something isn't working correctly in my brain. I'm not understanding how rotating the shaft would change the caster, I thought the shafts were symmetrical? I don't have the 59's so I can't figure this out. If they aren't symmetrical then I'm wondering if the 57's are or aren't?
as you rotate the shaft it will move the mounting holes[where it bolts to the frame] forward or rearward.that moves the control arm,changing the caster
Quote from: canadian_ranchero on 2016-05-21 12:47
as you rotate the shaft it will move the mounting holes[where it bolts to the frame] forward or rearward.that moves the control arm,changing the caster
OK, I think I understand this. Rotating the shaft is screwing it in on one end bushing and out on the other which moves the A arm. Is that the way it is designed to work?, I'm sure I'm wrong but it doesn't seem like it. Not that it can't be done..
The pivot shafts are threaded on each end and the bushings are threaded inside and outside. The outer thread on the bushing threads into the control arm until it bottoms out. The movement of the bushing is metal to metal on the inside threads. the shaft can move quite a bit backwards and forwards because it unthreads on one end as it threads into the other. Now these are not machine threads...the outer thread actually gouge into the control arms, the inner threads are very coarse and rounded. There is a lot of engagement with the bushing either "screwed in or out".
Thats the same design type as my 66 mustang and other 60's Fords. I can see how you could screw it in or out but where would you start? So the 59 type shafts won't work on a 57 A arm since they aren't threaded...
The question about where to start is why I am looking for a manual. I believe the bushings will create the threads in the control arm, so I think you could use '57 arms but you definitely need the 58/59 pivot shafts. I can do it without a manual but it would make it easier knowing what a single turn does to the caster. I can probably calculate it too, but I would sure like to see a '59 manual... I am trying to get as much caster as possible within the constraints of the design. The number of turns is limited because the shaft bottoms out. I can move the arm around 1/4" from center.... :003:
I'd like more caster with mine also but it is what it is, I'm getting to old to keep making changes. A 1/4" should help you. I don't know if I can't get more caster is because of the Granada spindles or some other issue. I've already spent to much time fooling with it. I'm not sure how much caster you can even adjust in with stock spindles?. I've come to the conclusion the Granada spindle swap isn't the best way to go... I think who ever started this idea was only looking for a cheap way to add disc brakes and didn't know $hit about alignment and handling..
I agree with everything you said! I went back to stock spindles/Wliwood 4 caliper brakes and just eyeballing what i have now I have a ton of caster and camber. I have Aerostar springs/no spacers.. I ordered 3/4 spacers today. I will let all know when I get the car on the alignment machine. Cornering balance has always been a fun factor for me in anything I have driven.
For me it's all about the cornering too, mine is doing really well even though I only run 215 70 14 tires. I would just feel better about some more caster running at higher speeds on the straights. I still haven't had mine above 90 mph and it's not bad. One advantage of getting older is I don't push it as hard like the good old days :003:
Here's a link to the question I posted on the Hamb 52-59 social forum...
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/working-on-the-59.940138/page-8#post-11536522
My original question was post #227. Sorry for the delay, I was in Colorado for a few days.
The latest reply from the Hamber...
"As far as I know (and I've done a lot of these when I was fixing cars for a living), there is really no adjustment on the '59 upper arms themselves. Any manual I've seen tells to center the shaft on the arm & tighten it up. Camber and caster is done via shims only. You could bias the shaft in relation to the arm a bit, I've never seen it done.
Took a quick look for the specs, I'll post them later when I dig them up."
Thanks Rich. That is the information I was looking for. I am going to leave the arm positioned to the rear as I have it, get it on an alignment machine and go from there. I will also calculate how the caster changes as the control arm moves on the shaft.
What he said makes sense as far as the info you'd find in a manual. Afterall, the Ford manuals were not written with suspension/aftermarket steering modifications in mind.
I was working with lower control arms in a '64 Galaxie. The lower control arm shaft is a crank that provides more caster/camber adjustment. The lower control arm appears interchangeable with a '57 but the shaft is not...there is a frame difference. I will play with the upper control adjustments and lower adjustments when I get the alignment gauges on it.
Lynn....The Hamb member with the '59 finally got back and posted quite abit more info. It's post #233, page 8. I posted the link because he's got pics.
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/working-on-the-59.940138/page-8#post-11544153
That was an interesting read but nothing new really, same basic way to do a 57. I disagree with his theory on toe in. I've found that going to radial tires need more toe in due to the flex on the radial side wall, some radial sidewalls are only like 1/8", that always scares me, I run 1/8 toe in. But thats just my take of how it works. My old straight axle truck with 10.5 x 16 x 31 tires need almost 1/4 toe in to handle correctly.
I feel once suspension parts like spindles, springs, wheel offsets. tire sizes etc. have been modified from OEM it's all an experiment for each individual car to find what works best.
I made a deal with a shop less than a mile away to put the car on the alignment machine for $25, They won't touch anything, just measure the camber and caster and the toe in as is. I just put in my 3/4" spacers and the car sits where I think is as low as practicle. The spacer raised the car 1 5/8". I actually calculated how much a shim would affect caster and camber before I read that in the Shop Manual and I got it right (amazing how that works). I am really interested in seeing how this all works out. BTW, I am leaning to the 1/8" toe in, I look at toe in as preloading the outside cornering tire making for quicker turn-in response?
Lynn, that will be interesting to see where things come out at when tested. While playing with the toe in I also noticed a better/quicker return to center with 1/8"
Well this morning I put my car on an alignment machine with no shims, here are the results:
Left side -2.3 Degrees camber +1.6 Degrees caster
Right side -1.8 Degrees camber +1.1 Degrees caster
I am going to shoot for -1 Degree camber and +3 Degrees caster. 1/8" toe in. I am going to supply the shims and let the shop do the alignment Monday morning. We will have to cheat on the maximum shim thickness difference between shim stacks to get there.
Looks like you will get close the numbers you want hopefully. I never got the caster I would have liked but being on a rake isn't helping either. I just can't get motivated to pull the front apart to add spacers. I wanted to cheat on the max difference in shims front to rear but I chickened out not knowing what may happen by doing that. Damn Granada spindles :005:
The down side of exceeding the MAX shim differential is the adjustment bolts may start to bind in the upper control arm shaft.
I need 1/16 more than the max on one side and 1/8 more on the other. I don't think that should be enough to create a major problem, but I will keep an eye on the bolts.
Just back from the alignment shop and here are the results at this point.
Left side -1.2 Degrees camber +2.9 Degrees caster
Right side - .8 Degrees camber +3.2 Degrees caster
I will remove a 1/16" shim on each bolt on the right side to get the camber bumped up a 1/4 degree.
Good for you Lynn, those are some great numbers.
It is correct that an early mustang has a similar set up concerning the upper control arm shaft--They are designed to be centered in the arm. You can get away with spinning the shaft one revolution but I would not go beyond that. You want a fair amount of threads into the bushing/nuts on the end of the control arm. Spin them one time into the front bushing to increase caster a little bit
Spinning the shaft to add some caster is a good idea. You are limited to the amount of caster you can add with shims, as that can affect the camber too.
Any added caster will make the car drive more like a madern car.
The original specs are to make the car steer easy, especially with manual steering, as that is what was attractive in the 50's. I would use a more modern specs to do the alignment. You may add yto the steering effort some, but if you have power steering or a Borgeson box you want to sacrifice some effort for better road feel, the added caster is necessary.
Thanks for the tip.