1965 front end alignment

[Brenton M.]

Need help, took my 1965 corvette to the front end shop to be align, they had no trouble aligning the rear, But had trouble with the front end, they told me that the coil springs were weak this is a 65 big block 425 horse car, my first question is what's the differents in the small block coil springs in the big block springs?

The problem they are haveing is they cannot get enough Camber in the front end to align it, I had a good friend to tell me that over the years the frames were bad to Sag at cross member, but this problem could be corrected on front end machine by rolling the ceoss member out. PLEASE HELP!!! THANKS

[Joe L.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

Need help, took my 1965 corvette to the front end shop to be align, they had no trouble aligning the rear, But had trouble with the front end, they told me that the coil springs were weak this is a 65 big block 425 horse car, my first question is what's the differents in the small block coil springs in the big block springs?

The problem they are haveing is they cannot get enough Camber in the front end to align it, I had a good friend to tell me that over the years the frames were bad to Sag at cross member, but this problem could be corrected on front end machine by rolling the ceoss member out. PLEASE HELP!!! THANKS

Brenton------


For 1965 the small block and big block coil springs were the same----GM #3851100. Big blocks did "sag" a little in the front from the get-go. I even remember the slight rake when the cars were new.

The problem they are experiencing is fairly common. After long service, the frames become somewhat distorted and this problem ensues. It can be corrected on a frame machine as you have been told but first you have to find a shop with the experience and capability to do it. That might not be so easy.

Another way to correct it is to use special off-set upper control arm shafts. This avoids the need to do any frame "rolling". However, the configuration of the shafts is somewhat different than original and it can be detected. Moog offers these special shafts. The Moog part number is K6104.

[Duke W.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

The problem they are haveing is they cannot get enough Camber in the front end to align it,

What does this mean? I have no idea. The only thing that counts is the actual camber data.

Give us ALL the numbers. They may be okay.

Duke

[Michael M.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

I am not so sure you can align the rear wheels without aligning the front wheels first. I always give the car a four-wheel alignment. I first find the center-line of the car. Then I will align the front wheels and then move to the rear wheels.

[Russ S.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

I am not so sure you can align the rear wheels without aligning the front wheels first. I always give the car a four-wheel alignment. I first find the center-line of the car. Then I will align the front wheels and then move to the rear wheels.

I just had my 66 aligned and the alignment tech told me they have to align the rear first.

[Timothy B.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

Brenton,

What spec is the shop trying to set the camber too? My memory tells me slightly positive camber to +- (-.5*) so it may be OK.

I always align the rear first then front because the thrust angle makes the two axles track the same when driving down the street. Ever seen a car dog leg down the road, that's what happens when the two axles don't track straight. I do my alignments at home and they work quite well.

With the modern alignment machines when doing a four wheel alignment it may not matter which axle is done first.

[Gene M.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

Brenton,

................. I do my alignments at home and they work quite well.

With the modern alignment machines when doing a four wheel alignment it may not matter which axle is done first.

Tim,
I can understand setting the toe and camber at home. But how do you set caster? I assume you do not have an alignment machine at home. I generally set toe and camber with slip stick, tape measure and level to get it in the ball park to go to alignment shop. The caster is just an equal count of shims.....till aligned. I go through a more elaborate process on the rear (toe and camber, there is no caster) prior to body drop with the suspension loaded to ride height. I use the main side rails to establish "straight". Again just till aligned.

[Timothy B.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

Gene,

There was a post some years ago about setting caster using the arithmetic average between full lock left and right. It's in the archives and it works good, the important thing is to keep both sides the same. After caster set the camber as you described then toe. I will need to re-read the exact procedure for the caster so I don't describe wrong.

To set toe you use the frame side rails to stringline and I just use a fishing line wrapped around the rear tire and extending to the front at the mid point of the rim. Straighten the front tires and set rear toe (both sides) and last set front toe and go for a ride. If the steering wheel is not exactly straight just turn both front adjusting sleeves the same amount until it's perfect.

As you are aware it's important to have the car on a fairly level surface.

[Bill H.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

Tim,
I can understand setting the toe and camber at home. But how do you set caster? .

There's a couple ways to check castor at home. You can make an inexpensive castor/camber gauge from a Sears Chraftsman digital level and a easily made frame (this is about 1/4 of the cost of a Smart Camber tool and just as accurate). I have less than $50 in my setup. Using this gauge requires a little math but you can download the Smart Camber manual.

All you need to do to check castor is to turn the wheels out 20 degrees, take the gauge reading (or zero the bubble on a bubble gauge), then, turn the wheels back thru straight to 20 degrees in the opposite direction. You can do this with 20 degree lines marked on the floor or you can make your own slip plates (2 pieces of aluminum sheet with lube inbetween).

the castor directly on the gauge.

I can post a pic of one of the frames (adapters) I built. The Sears level was on sale for $37 .

[Jim D.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

I can understand setting the toe and camber at home. But how do you set caster?

I use a Fastrax 91000 by SPC for setting caster/camber & toe. They can be bought for less than $150. They work great. I've been doing my own alignments for years.

[Dick W.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

I too use the string for a quick toe setting. I picked up an old set of Bear turn tables for $10, use a caster/camber guage like what is shown. Alignment on these old cars is not rocket science, just good common sense.

To get the centerline, I go by the Chassis Service manual. Once you establish your datum lines you sometimes get surprises. Minor bump ups sometimes do un-noticed damage.

[Carl N.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

Joe,

I'm going to jump in with quick reply to springs used on 396 cars in '65 - if my memory is correct all 396 cars required the H.D. Sp. Perf. Susp. which calls for p/n 3832518 which is the dark green tag - std suspension called for 3851100 (2nd design) from '64-'67 the sp hi perf #3832518 was part of the sp. hi. perf package when it was ordered on small block cars thru 1971. This was know as F40 Sp. Hi. perf. Susp. Option.

These springs are different in height "unloaded" and coil diameter - where I'm going with this don't spend the money to install normal suspension springs under a big block car - it will sit too high.

As far as the cross member sagging - only if you hace a lotta rust or it's been hit - or someone had it on a frame machine at some time and pulled it out of spec.

My advise - run from this shop and find one that knows what they are doing. Check with other owners in your area and see who they use - aligning the front end of a 63-67 Corvette is no more difficult than any other full size Chevy from than era - Corvairs excluded

Chevy also offered a 2nd design sp hi perf spring for 66-67 427's with F40 p/n 3851100 (No tag) and a 3rd p/n 3888251 for 427's with C.A.C. (no Tag) which can be subsituted for the gree tag 3832518 part.

Enough for now

Maybe Wayne or someone else will correct me if I'm wrong which I'm notorious for !

Carl

[Bill H.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

I too use the string for a quick toe setting. I picked up an old set of Bear turn tables for $10, use a caster/camber guage like what is shown. Alignment on these old cars is not rocket science, just good common sense.

To get the centerline, I go by the Chassis Service manual. Once you establish your datum lines you sometimes get surprises. Minor bump ups sometimes do un-noticed damage.

The string method can be very accurate. The Indy car guys use them at the track with quick attach alignment bars. I build these bars for open wheel cars.

Yea, establishing the centerline is the way to go.
What is also important is that the strings are parallel.
Using the strings over the tires is iffy unless you then measure from the strings to the centerline.

[Michael H.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

I too use the string for a quick toe setting. .

Uncle Dick....

Can you still use the "string method" if the wheel track (distance from C/L of left wheel to C/L of right wheel) is not the same for the rear and front? I think the rear's are on a slightly wider track.

[Bill H.]

Re: 1965 front end alignment

Uncle Dick....

Can you still use the "string method" if the wheel track (distance from C/L of left wheel to C/L of right wheel) is not the same for the rear and front? I think the rear's are on a slightly wider track.

IF the 2 distances you noted are the same - yes. But can you be sure those measurements are equal?
It's better to attach the strings to jackstands that are behind and in front of the car a foot or so.
If you're confident that they're equal, set up the strings on the stands. Try to keep the strings parallel, check the distance from the strings to the frame towards the front of the car. Then measure string to string at the rear. Then measure the string to string at the front, the measurements should be the same which indicates that the strings are parallel.