Long post, sorry in advance. Just got back from the alignment shop (good one), and here are the final specs.

Left Front (listed before, actual, range)

Camber: -1.09, 0.06, -0.10 to 0.90
Caster: 4.30, 5.38, 4.30 to 5.30
Toe: -0.42, 0.03, -0.05 to 0.05

Right Front (listed before, actual, range)

Camber: -1.87, 0.03, -0.10 to 0.90
Caster: 4.12, 5.49, 4.30 to 5.30
Toe: -0.47, 0.02, -0.05 to 0.05

Rear thrust angle: -0.07

I wanted a strictly street alignment, since I don't do any track or auto-x. As you can see, camber is off. The tech could not get the camber any more positive than it is, because the passenger lower A-arm is maxed out. He put the caster where it is because of the camber.

Suspension mods:
BMR 1.25" lowering springs, all 4 corners
Bilstein HD shocks, all 4 corners
Strano 35/22 sway bars
BMR adjustable panhard rod
Rear LCA relocation brackets
Moog upper/lower ball joints
Moog tie rod ends
OE Wheels 17" rims
BF Goodrich Comp2 tires 275/40/17 all around

All parts are new, and have nearly no miles on them. Everything else is stock. But here's the thing. The k-member is out of a 97 car that was in an accident. It slid sideways into a couple poles, one of which hit the front driver side rim, breaking it. So I have the k-member, and the upper and lower A-arms out of the 97. I have steering knuckles out of a 99 Firebird, for the LS1 brake swap. Unknown accident history of 99 Firebird.

I told the tech these things, but he was way ahead of me, and said he could not find any signs of a bent k-member or bent A-arms, or even bent knuckles. The passenger A-arm is all the way in on the front bolt, no adjustment left. I have not taken the car to a frame shop, but I would think the tech would have caught this anyway. He said he got it the best he possibly could.

Other than that, the car drives great and tracks much better than before. I would really hate to drop a bunch of money on adjustable A-arms, because I don't need them for how I drive it. Anyone have any thoughts on this, or what the issue could possibly be? Or is this just a normal thing I get for lowering it?

 

I would say your car is fine since it has been lowered this would change the suspension geometry and increase negative camber. By the way anything above -1.5 camber is the realm of racing and not street driven cars. Also I think your car is going to gain more negative camber if the suspension hasn't settled yet. Toe is what eats tires a lot more than negative camber.

 

It's been a while since I've looked really closely at my car's K-member, to see where the adjustment bolt sits, but back in '96, when I initially lowered it with a set of Eibach springs, I took some time and lengthened the slots the a-arm locates in. I used a Dremel tool, and added about 1/4" to the slot (toward the inside). In all the years since, I've never had an issue being able to get "0" camber.

 

I was contemplating slotting the k-member, but wasn't sure if I would run into clearance issues with the A-arms. Also, is my toe out too excessive?

 

I would say so, as I always run a smidgeon of "toe in", so when you factor in the rolling resistance of the tires, and the normal "play" in the suspension, the tires are something close to "zero toe" as I'm rolling down the road.

 

Your toe out is not excessive it is 1/32 I figured you would have went with zero tho.

 

I was too wound up about the camber to even notice lol. I might just take it back and have him zero it, I have 90 days.

 

Zero it for longer tire life. I think your alignment is fine and very mild. My car is -2.3 camber and 1/16 toe out. Drives super easy, predictable and not twitchy on the highway.

 

I feel better about it now, thanks. It did drive really well on the highway on my way back from the alignment shop, much better than it did before. But I'll probably do as you were saying and have the toe zeroed to make the tires last longer.

 

So, it currently has positive camber, and toe in (isn't positive toe = toe-in), am I reading this correctly...?

A bent knuckle is not easy to detect without careful measurement/comparison to a known straight knuckle (due to its shape having almost no straight edges). Also note that the knuckles are designed to bend in case of accident (rather than snapping), so I think these may be suspect.

To get more negative camber, doesn't the lower a-arm need to move outward (not inward)...?

 

Thanks to your highlighting of the numbers, followed by my more careful reading of them, I stand corrected. Yes, the OP's car does have a little positive camber, as well as a little toe in. Therefore, my revised opinion of his alignment setting is the toe is good, but the camber should be zero. With respect to caster, it's good as is....


Yes, you normally push the lower a-arm outward to add negative camber. But on some of the cars, depending on how much you lower it, you actually have to pull the arms inward, as lowering the car adds negative camber by itself.

 

Thanks for clearing that up, joecar. I'm not sure why I was thinking positive toe was out. Since it is in fact toe in, I think I'll leave it where it is.

Yes, moving the lower A-arm out gives more negative, but the tech was trying to put it in the middle of GM spec. If you look at the before values, you can see it was way too negative to begin with because of lowering, and cannot go any more positive because the passenger side is maxed positive.

While I may have a bent knuckle, I believe the issue here is more likely just a consequence of lowering. I plan to drive it around a bit more before I make my final judgement, but I think it should be good where it is. The springs have been on the car about 4 months now, with maybe 50-100 miles on them, so I'm hoping they have settled already.

 

No worries... sometimes numbers play tricks on the eyes.

 

If it were me, I would go negative on Camber. Around -.5* Most of us would kill for your caster.

-1.0* Camber
+4.6* Caster
1/32 Toe in

Street driven, raced once in a while and perfect tire wear. Great street manners.