I changed a few things around on my front end. Forgot what the original specs were. Just wondering what the average is so I have something to compare it to before it's all ****oned up. I got 1 3/8" with about a 25 1/2" tall tire.
Right. Good question, but if it's not adjustable................... If it's "off", I think you'll hear the tires scrubbing around corners.
I think he's trying to say that all his components are not final welded yet? But, I'm not sure it matters. If he's got everything for the 3 angles you mention to be correct, ackerman should be correct as well
Everything's just tacked up at the moment. Everything else is good. Could still move the arms in to remove some ackerman if I had to.
If somebody has a M2 front end in front of them I sure would appreciate it if they could give me the toe out measurement while the wheels are turned hard. Thanks for the replies so far......
Rack position does affect the ackerman a bit but steering arm length and placement have a more direct correlation on the MII. SO, are you building your own spindles now? Designing for low speed cornering ability, high speed, highway driving, drag racing?
I admire your desire to get it right. You can lay it out and check it. Use a T square and run a line out from a rear wheel straight away from the car about 20 feet. Turn the steering all the way to turn that direction. Run a line out fom each front wheel. The should try to intersect. If way off, you might move the rack to the front or back. 99& of the kits that I have seen have the rack too far forward and thus minimum ackerman. Look at a 60 chevy to see how far back the steering is placed to get the right geometry. Let us know what you find out!!
Ackerman is determined by the steering arms. I suppose you could adjust it by making the track narrower or wider. A line from the spindle ball joint to the tie rod end should intersect the center of the rear axle. Rack position will affect it as well, if the tie rods are not parallel to the axle.
are you the guy putting a rear mount rack in front of the crossmember? it's hard to keep track of all these posts
Since you seem to be obsessed with making your suspension perfect, why don't you ask these guys these same questions. I'm quite sure you will get the answer you're looking for. http://www.eng-tips.com/threadcategory.cfm?lev2=6
Not necessarily....ackerman is controlled by the spatial relationship of the outer tierod ends (ends of the spindle arms) the lower ball joint center and the center of the axle. You can have caster, camber and toe dialed in to the nuts and still have horrible ackerman angle. Stock Model T's are a great example of this and anybody who's tried to back a T down a driveway with any speed is astutely aware of one of the effects of poor ackerman......they tend to 'whip' the front end while backing up sometimes resulting in a broken wrist (from the steering wheel spinning) or a roll-over. -Bigchief.
Yes, converting those spindles I mentioned earlier. Going for moderate drivability. We're in a variety of road conditions here, highway, small mountains, lots of back road so cornering is an issue. I've outgrown my younger reckless days but still like a car that handles well. Enough of the k-cars and family vans, kids are older and long moved out. I'm just trying to Refine the M2 suspension. There's a few things that came to mind as I was putting it together. Also after reading alot of postings concerning the M2, (especially in stock form) I figured I may as well try some of them out. Like for example, the lack of caster. So you tilt the member back some to accommodate. Then theres too much angle on the top of the hat (for anti-dive I imagine) so I was going to make a wedge for that. But after remembering the M2 motor was hanging over the cross member I ***umed Ford probably put more into that than a normal car. So I've shimmed a couple more degrees from it. Won't know until I road test it but The 38 is light so I don't expect it to be a problem. Right now the top settings are centered in the slots and I've brought everything to 0* camber, 4* caster, toe 1/8. Lower a-arms are down slightly a ride height 5 to 6" from the ground. Inner tie rods are very close to the angle that intersects the a-arm pivots (where they where after I widened the member). If thats a problem I'll have extenders machined or go to another rack. Suspension is quite stiff anyway, and in 4" of travel there's less than 1" of toe change in either direction. Took aloft of time to position the outer pivot on the steering arm so the rack was horizontal. I moved it to just outside of the lower ball joint as well so it's right up against the rotor guard. Before it had toe in on turns because of the reversed spindles. Looks good now. Also got the top a-arm up some, dropped the ball joint to do it. M2 was too low, these spindles have a different pitch between vertical and centerline through the ball joints. Almost no camber change during travel and some negative during turn on outside wheel. But who the hell knows what it will handle like. Can always pick up a-arms and go back to stock if I have to. It's just a bit of fun messing with it, if it were for a customer....well noooo! I'll stop by an alignment shop and get a printout of orig specs on the M2. Just need the ackerman for comparison. Later
So far without doing any geometry it looks about right. Geometry was my poor subject in school but after working around cars all my life you just get a feel for things. But I probably will do what you suggested, just for the perfectionist in me. I gotta say that after busting my balls most of my life trying to make other people happy with "production" that I'm injoying this one. The body will be rough "may stay that way" just because. Revenge if you will . Mechanical and handling is what I'm after. Might be an everyday driver if it turns out ok. I'll post up what I find on the ackerman and turning radius of my 112" wheelbase vs 96" of the M2.
The Jalopy Journal
