Thread: positive camber
View Single Post
Old 03-14-2023, 05:09 PM   #5
chevroletrestoguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 201
Re: positive camber

Quote:
Originally Posted by theastronaut View Post
Check the studs where the upper control arms bolt on- are there thick spacers that could be ground or machined down to move the upper arms inward? I think squarebodies have thicker spacers than 60-72 crossmembers had, and it's common for squarebody crossmembers to be swapped in.

If it doesn't have thick spacers, with that mild of a drop you could go back to standard height spindles and 3-4" drop springs to change the angle of the A-arms which would give you more negative camber.

It's also possible that the upper arms are made longer to get rid of the thick stack of shims that most trucks have.

My '66 is slightly lower, it has stock arms and crossmember, CPP spindles, stock springs with one coil cut off, and without any shims it has about -1.5* camber.
All of this makes sense to me. The frame is from a 63. The spacers are fairly thick and I suppose that they could be ground down. But the cross shafts are probably close to hitting on the edges and the center of the bracket at this point already. I was thinking going back to stock spindles and using maybe 3 inch drop springs might help give me more negative camber. However, first of all I plan to get it aligned to see how bad (or not bad) this really is. I just know that there has to be some more adjustability in this somewhere that I am missing out on and I think you may have hit on exactly what that issue is.
chevroletrestoguy is offline   Reply With Quote