PDA

View Full Version : What Angle?



Belair-o
12-18-2017, 07:46 PM
Hi,
I've installed CPP's 500 power steering box on my 57, and think the steering seems restricted - the wheels don't seem to turn out far enough, and the turn radius will be too big. I have read that the turning radius can be tightened by doing some grinding on the pad on the steering arms. I am not sure of the target though; are there production specs for what angle off of straight the tires should turn out?
Thanks, Doug

56Mark
12-18-2017, 08:06 PM
I don't know the factory spec but after I put CPP drop spindles on I lost a lot of turning radius. I ground the spindles where they hit the stops a little at a time to get all the angle I could without my tires rubbing something. It doesn't take much material removal to make a difference. I am happy now with turning radius and I did not hit the limits of the 500 box.

Rick_L
12-18-2017, 08:23 PM
There are specs published. The ones I have are in a book called "Chevrolet 55-56 Restoration Guide" which has lots of reprinted specs from GM literature.

Thing is, are you set up to measure them? Probably not.

Any time the steering arm is moved inboard, you'll lose steering travel - whether it's from a disc brake caliper bracket for a stock spindle or a dropped spindle that's thicker than the stock spindle. The fix for that is removing material from the stop on the steering arm.

There are other sources of losing steering travel. A stock steering box has over 100 degrees of travel. A CPP 500 box has about 90 degrees of travel. Thing is you don't get the full 100 degrees with the stock box because the stops on the steering arms limit that to less. In fact to about what the travel of the CPP box is. I had a McGaughy's 605 box that was modified to limit the travel to about 75 degrees - close to matching what you got with their spindles when using stock steering arms with full height stop pads. Totally unnecessary, don't know why they did that.

So there's multiple reasons for not having full travel, you need to check everything out. It's a shame that suppliers won't tell you this up front. Part of this is that you may have fender rubbing problems with full travel, especially on a lowered car (dropped spindles). They'd rather not have your tires rubbing and have you be ignorant on the steering travel.

chevynut
12-18-2017, 09:15 PM
Here's the specs: http://chevy.oldcarmanualproject.com/chevyresto/56031.htm

Toe out on turns (I assume this is at full lock)

Inside wheel 20 degrees
Outside wheel 18 degrees 10 minutes

Belair-o
12-19-2017, 07:32 AM
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the replies, the information, and the specs. Rick, I agree I can't measure the angle to much precision, but thought close would be good enough. Maybe that is where I am wrong, that the turn radius is very sensitive to small angle differences. Maybe I could just establish a straight line on the floor, turn the wheel all the way one direction, measure that angle off of 'straight', turn the wheel all the way the other direction, measure that angle off of 'straight', sum the angles, and know the full angular travel. That would let me know if my setup was close to spec, or not?
Thanks, Doug

WagonCrazy
12-20-2017, 09:35 AM
don't know the factory spec but after I put CPP drop spindles on I lost a lot of turning radius. I ground the spindles where they hit the stops a little at a time to get all the angle I could without my tires rubbing something. It doesn't take much material removal to make a difference.

I did this same procedure on my 9 passenger wagon after adding CPP's drop spindles (with a manual steering box). It worked...

Belair-o
01-07-2018, 12:28 PM
I just did my semi-crude angle measurement. I held a straight edge along the tire near the center of the hubcap. Established a 'center line' by using two combination squares to drop two points down to the floor off of the straightedge. Rotated the wheel all the way one way, dropped two points, fully rotated the other way, dropped two points.

I measured 19.3, and 18.2 degrees with my Wixey angle finder, for a total travel of 37.5 degrees (I know I don't have tenth of a degree accuracy). Chevynut cited 20 (inside wheel), and 18.2 degrees (outside wheel), for a total travel of 38.2 degrees, so to me, my settings seem pretty good, assuming I can equate my measurements to the inside wheel/outside wheel reference measurements. I don't really understand inside wheel, outside wheel though, compared to what I measured.
Regards, Doug

Rick_L
01-07-2018, 06:14 PM
The "inside wheel/outside wheel" thing is the "Ackerman effect". What it means is that when you turn left, the driver side wheel turns further than the passenger side wheel, opposite for a right turn. This means they don't fight each other, they roll about the same turning radius (for the whole car). The "Ackerman effect" comes from the steering arms being angled inward if the steering linkage is behind the spindles, outward if in front. "100% Ackerman" is when the steering arm tie rod end lies on a line from the lower ball joint to the center of the rear axle. You don't need "100% Ackerman" but you do need a significant amount, and you don't want it backwards, which is what would occur if you swapped the steering arms side for side and mounted a rack or steering linkage in front of the spindles.

What I would suggest you do is count the number of turns from full left to full right with everything connected up. Then disconnect the steering at the pitman arm and count the number of turns again.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but a CPP500 box has a little more than 90 travel, and a stock box a little more than 100 of travel. But, and this is a big BUT, the travel with everything connected up with a stock box is far less because of the stops on the steering arms with fully stock steering and brakes. So when you are checking, see if the steering arms hit the stops. (I know I'm repeating myself here.)

There are other factors here too. Did you change your brakes or spindles along with the steering box? Most if not all stock spindle disc brake conversions, as well as many of the dropped spindles, move the steering arms inboard from stock. This means the steering arms will hit the stops sooner than stock. This can be fixed by grinding material from the stop pad on the steering arm.

55 Tony
01-07-2018, 08:43 PM
Hey Rick, Do disk brake kits that move the wheel outboard a bit effect steering radius, and which way? I haven't measured my lock to lock angles but I sure do have a nice small turning radius. I have a factory box/factory P/S.

Rick_L
01-07-2018, 09:02 PM
Widening the track width would not affect it much, it's how much the steering arms are moved and whether that is corrected by grinding the stops.

Of course if this means you have tire rub (and that often happens) that's another problem that has its own solutions (or maybe no or limited solutions).

55 Tony
01-08-2018, 06:01 AM
I've never been a fan of wide front tires (215/70-15) so no my widened track width is not giving me any rubbing problems. I just always thought it turned a tight circle, it's nice. No complaints, just curious.

markm
01-08-2018, 07:37 AM
I've never been a fan of wide front tires (215/70-15) so no my widened track width is not giving me any rubbing problems. I just always thought it turned a tight circle, it's nice. No complaints, just curious.

Come on Tony they have to rub, because according to Cnut mine are the only one that never rub.

chevynut
01-08-2018, 08:41 AM
according to Cnut mine are the only one that never rub.

If you go wider than about 67 3/4-68" overall tire width on the front of a LOWERED car, and if your suspension compresses significantly at full lock, your tires WILL likely rub the fenders. There are plenty of cases of tire rubbing to prove this is a fact. It won't happen using the garbage Chevelle rotors on a stock height or higher car or a lowered car with positive offset wheels that correct the track width. My point has always been there are much better alternatives than Chevelle rotors that move the wheels out 1 3/4" wider than stock, both because of the rubbing issue and because it looks stupid with the tires so close to the fender lip.

Belair-o
01-08-2018, 09:23 AM
Rick, thanks for the explanation!


What I would suggest you do is count the number of turns from full left to full right with everything connected up. Then disconnect the steering at the pitman arm and count the number of turns again.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but a CPP500 box has a little more than 90 travel, and a stock box a little more than 100 of travel. But, and this is a big BUT, the travel with everything connected up with a stock box is far less because of the stops on the steering arms with fully stock steering and brakes. So when you are checking, see if the steering arms hit the stops. (I know I'm repeating myself here.)

There are other factors here too. Did you change your brakes or spindles along with the steering box? Most if not all stock spindle disc brake conversions, as well as many of the dropped spindles, move the steering arms inboard from stock. This means the steering arms will hit the stops sooner than stock. This can be fixed by grinding material from the stop pad on the steering arm.

I changed to the minimum offset CPP 2" drop disk-brake spindles. I will try the lock-to-lock turn experiment you mentioned and compare results, and also see if the steering arms hit the stops.
Thanks, Doug

Belair-o
01-08-2018, 03:17 PM
Hi,
When I view the front end at full turn, I see the steering arms are on the stops. Not sure of the purpose of comparing the turns lock to lock with and without the pitman arm attached. Should I just pare off a 1/16th of an inch at a time off of the steering arms, until the arms just barely stop hitting the stops?
Thanks, Doug

chevynut
01-08-2018, 04:01 PM
Hi,
When I view the front end at full turn, I see the steering arms are on the stops. Not sure of the purpose of comparing the turns lock to lock with and without the pitman arm attached. Should I just pare off a 1/16th of an inch at a time off of the steering arms, until the arms just barely stop hitting the stops?
Thanks, Doug

Seems to me that you're close to the spec of 20 degrees on both sides so IMO I'd call it good unless you want to get a little more steering angle. You could grind them to make them the same if you want to since one side is 1 degree less than the other. I think Rick's suggestion of removing the pitman arm was to see if the box was hitting the end of travel or if it was the steering arms hitting the a-arms.

The arms should hit the stops before the steering box runs out of travel. You might also want to make sure the box is centered when the steering wheel is in the straight forward position.

Rick_L
01-08-2018, 04:40 PM
If you're hitting the stops, you could still have more travel in the box. That's where disconnecting the steering linkage at the pitman arm comes in - it allows you to compare how much travel you might gain. And disconnecting the linkage is way easier than removing the steering arms to grind on the stop. Also it would be very tedious to grind on the stop with them assembled on the car.

But as Cnut said, you may already be there with your travel if your measurements were accurate.

56Mark
01-08-2018, 05:51 PM
I didn't care what the factory specs were. When I put my spindles on it reduced my radius and I wanted all I could get. I did what was suggested above. I had measured the lock to lock turns of the new box before I hooked up the pitman arm. I measured again with the arm connected and it was a lot less. I ground the stop pads while installed on the car until my tires nearly hit the frame. You do not want your steering box end of travel to be the limit; make sure it is the stops on the steering arm. I used a right angle die grinder with a very course 3M roloc disc to slowly carve away at the stops. It didn't take long and greatly improved turning radius.

55 Tony
01-08-2018, 08:39 PM
If you go wider than about 67 3/4-68" overall tire width on the front of a LOWERED car, and if your suspension compresses significantly at full lock, your tires WILL likely rub the fenders. There are plenty of cases of tire rubbing to prove this is a fact. It won't happen using the garbage Chevelle rotors on a stock height or higher car or a lowered car with positive offset wheels that correct the track width. My point has always been there are much better alternatives than Chevelle rotors that move the wheels out 1 3/4" wider than stock, both because of the rubbing issue and because it looks stupid with the tires so close to the fender lip.

Hmm, I never thought my front tires look stupid? Thanks for letting me know! I didn't even know the track was widened until I read it somewhere. I really don't think they are close to sticking out 1.75" from stock. What is stock measurement? I have maybe 20,000 miles on it without it rubbing even once. No it's not lowered, I think that looks stupid. My springs are made to support the BB and still be a little stiffer than stock.

If anyone thinks I said their car looks stupid lowered, well re-read what I quoted and you should catch on to what I am referring to. But even so it seriously doesn't do anything for me to have it lowered but to each is own. It's my ride and I'll do what I want and so should everyone else. If someone gave me lowering spindles for free I wouldn't use them. I suppose I'm going for the late 60's early 70's hot rod look, but not a gasser either. Not jacking up the rear either, it's my version of my street rod. :)

chevynut
01-08-2018, 09:44 PM
Hmm, I never thought my front tires look stupid?

I don't think I've even seen your car so I don't know what it looks like. I think tires that stick out close to the fender look bad......when you get much over 68" across the tires. That's usually with wider tires and it depends on the wheel offset too. That's my opinion. I've posted pictures in the past. This is an example of Chevelle rotors with a 225 tire.....what do you think would happen if the car was lowered, or if the suspension compressed while the tires were turned? Personally I think it looks bad too, like the tires are too big.

https://www.trifive.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=4442&pictureid=39426

Here's another one belonging to a member here. You may think it looks fine, but what if it was lowered or the wheels turned when the suspension compressed? Do you think it would be an issue? I don't know if he has a rubbing problem or not but to me it looks possible.

http://pic100.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1034/746788/1287492/158865000.jpg


I really don't think they are close to sticking out 1.75" from stock. What is stock measurement?

Yes they increase the track by 7/8" per side if you're using the Chevelle rotors on stock spindles. That's a total of 1 3/4" increase in track width. Stock wheel mounting surface width is around 59 1/8" per GM specs. In reality it's often a little wider, depending on the car. The Chevelle rotors make the mounting surface width around 61" wide.

The stock front track width is 58" and the tires are 6.70-15 which are equivalent to a 215 metric tire that's about 8.5" wide section width. That puts the stock overall tire width at 66.5". The same wheels and tires on Chevelle rotors would be at 68 1/4" which is not that bad. A zero offset wheel with a 225 tire, a very common setup, would put the track width at 61" and the outside of the tires at 69 7/8". I can guarantee that won't work with a lowered car. It's also worse of a problem with a 56 and 57 than a 55 due to the fender opening height.


I have maybe 20,000 miles on it without it rubbing even once. No it's not lowered,

That's why they don't rub....the car is stock height and you have narrow tires. Most guys lower their cars for better handling and looks and use wider tires, like a 225 or 235. 2" dropped spindles have been common for many years, and now guys are going to an additional 1" dropped spring.

The reason I bring up the Chevelle rotors is that some guys come to the site ask what they should use for disc brakes. One guy here tells them the Chevelle rotors are "no problem". They might not be on his 60's style stock height or higher car with narrow tires. I just warn them that IF THEY LOWER THEIR CAR SIGNIFICANTLY and plan to use wider tire, they want to stay away from the Chevelle rotors because they DO widen the track 1 3/4" and the tires will probably rub the fender. In fact, you don't even have to lower the car that much to have a problem, if the suspension compresses a lot. Mark gets all butt-hurt when I warn people about using the Chevelle rotors for some stupid reason. I don't know why anyone would use them when there are better alternatives available that DON'T increase track width much, if any. If they understand what they're getting into and still use them, it's their risk. But you can't say they're "no problem" with them in all cases. The width can be mitigated by the use of positive offset wheels, just like I do with the wider C4 front suspensions.

55 Tony
01-09-2018, 05:48 AM
Chevynut, I'm just poking fun. I wasn't offended about the car looking dumb comment. I'll have to measure mine. 7/8" per side ain't bad, better handling. ;)
I do doubt you have seen my car, she isn't real pretty but I love her anyway. She's low budget all around. Drive her more than I work on her.

Belair-o
01-09-2018, 07:23 AM
Thanks Rick, Chevynut, and 56Mark for the suggestions and guidance. Do I need to have a complete alignment in place (and not just my rough one), before considering any tweaking of the spindle stops?
Thanks, Doug

markm
01-09-2018, 07:55 AM
Hmm, I never thought my front tires look stupid? Thanks for letting me know! I didn't even know the track was widened until I read it somewhere. I really don't think they are close to sticking out 1.75" from stock. What is stock measurement? I have maybe 20,000 miles on it without it rubbing even once. No it's not lowered, I think that looks stupid. My springs are made to support the BB and still be a little stiffer than stock.

If anyone thinks I said their car looks stupid lowered, well re-read what I quoted and you should catch on to what I am referring to. But even so it seriously doesn't do anything for me to have it lowered but to each is own. It's my ride and I'll do what I want and so should everyone else. If someone gave me lowering spindles for free I wouldn't use them. I suppose I'm going for the late 60's early 70's hot rod look, but not a gasser either. Not jacking up the rear either, it's my version of my street rod. :)

I feel pretty much the same and have been trash talked by Cnut for it. Most people don't have the balls to take stand up to his bullying, you have moved up a few notches in my book Tony. I spent a lot of money building that early 60s look for my 56 and late 60s for my 55. I too built my cars to drive and don't need a bunch of internet praise for my build. I get that in person when I drive on of my cars to an event, chasing parts or just a Sunday drive. I am actually nicer on here than in person about this topic and have no problem telling people how terrible Chevelle rotors are and how stupid internet trolls think my cars look, the reactions I get are priceless

chevynut
01-09-2018, 08:18 AM
I feel pretty much the same and have been trash talked by Cnut for it.

No markm, I have just warned people about the Chevelle rotors you seem to love and you came after me every time I mentioned the problems with them. Anyone can go back and read the posts and see you were the attacker. For some reason you can't handle the fact that you use old 60's crap on your car that nobody uses anymore, or that nobody should use anymore, when there are much better parts available. You're stuck in the past, even admitting once that you still used a rotary phone LOL! Most guys want as more modern look and handling to their cars.

I really don't give a shit what you use on your car or what it looks like. Just don't try to con people into using the same garbage on their cars when there are obvious problems with it that you ignore, and there are alternatives.

It's the same as when I challenged the gestapo on Trifive for saying he put 295 tires on the back of his "stock" 57. He kept insisting that he did it, but finally admitted he modified the fenderwell lips. What if a guy bought 295s for his car based on his advice, and found out they don't fit his car? Is it wrong to warn someone about that?

Same with your claim that Chevelle rotors are "no problem". They're a big problem with a lowered car if the offset isn't corrected by wheel offset, which is what I have always said and you keep denying.

55 Rescue Dog
01-09-2018, 04:17 PM
No markm, I have just warned people about the Chevelle rotors you seem to love and you came after me every time I mentioned the problems with them. Anyone can go back and read the posts and see you were the attacker. For some reason you can't handle the fact that you use old 60's crap on your car that nobody uses anymore, or that nobody should use anymore, when there are much better parts available. You're stuck in the past, even admitting once that you still used a rotary phone LOL! Most guys want as more modern look and handling to their cars.

I really don't give a shit what you use on your car or what it looks like. Just don't try to con people into using the same garbage on their cars when there are obvious problems with it that you ignore, and there are alternatives.

It's the same as when I challenged the gestapo on Trifive for saying he put 295 tires on the back of his "stock" 57. He kept insisting that he did it, but finally admitted he modified the fenderwell lips. What if a guy bought 295s for his car based on his advice, and found out they don't fit his car? Is it wrong to warn someone about that?

Same with your claim that Chevelle rotors are "no problem". They're a big problem with a lowered car if the offset isn't corrected by wheel offset, which is what I have always said and you keep denying.
60's, to 80's, not a HUGE improvement anyway compared to 2018. So what exactly is so modern about your 56 that is basically 34 year old technology that is equivalent to new cars now? Does it have the latest engine design, ABS, traction control, stability control, tire pressure sensors, lane departure, blind spot monitors, adaptive cruise, air bags, crumple zones, headrests, 3 point belts, and many more I can't even think of???

markm
01-09-2018, 06:19 PM
News flash Cnut anyone using Chevelle rotors is probably not lowering their car as they are for use with stock spindles not dropped so STFU. I too don't care what you do to your station wagon its still a cinder block on wheels compared to my C3 Corvette with spring and sway bar upgrades, so go back to your TRS80 Computer and work on the tune on your 50 year old trash truck motor..

Rick_L
01-09-2018, 06:20 PM
We've made a lot of laps around this track.

Both chevynut and markm need to let it go.

Fact is, there's situations where the Chevelle rotors are fine, and others where they aren't. It's just simple as that. Belittling people and calling certain parts junk doesn't serve any purpose other than to show unneeded arrogance, bias, or anger.

NickP
01-09-2018, 06:56 PM
We've made a lot of laps around this track.

Both chevynut and markm need to let it go.

Fact is, there's situations where the Chevelle rotors are fine, and others where they aren't. It's just simple as that. Belittling people and calling certain parts junk doesn't serve any purpose other than to show unneeded arrogance, bias, or anger.

Beat me to it, well said. I was also thinking Sid had re-established that we would no longer do this childish crap. This is not building the site.

56Mark
01-09-2018, 08:38 PM
Guys, I came over here to see more good technical car information. There is a lot of know-how here. One thing I told one of my kids about me moving over here from the other site was that most of the people here think for themselves and are not going to go with the flow when they think the flow is wrong. I know many of us are engineers or technical minded type people and often with that comes strong opinions and sometimes clashes. I see it at work often; you know engineers are always right, myself included. I hate it when it turns out I am wrong. The more I learn, I realize the less I know. And sometimes there are several acceptable answers.

As far as the Chevelle rotors I bought some when I was a trifive newbie, they worked OK on my car before I decided to lower it. I didn't really notice the look was much different but the tires were 205's that came on the car. I dropped it 2" with spindles that have about 3/8" offset on each side and put a little wider tire on and that works fine for me. I sold the slightly used Chevelle rotors to a guy that put them on a 55 wagon that was stock height and as far as I know, worked fine.

I sure don't want to see threads on the other site that talk about not getting along over here. Of course that may not happen since they are not allowed to mention this site or link to it.

567chevys
01-09-2018, 09:28 PM
Beat me to it, well said. I was also thinking Sid had re-established that we would no longer do this childish crap. This is not building the site.

Agreed ,
It does nothing good to belittle someone because of what they like or have , I know of 3 Cars here in Kelso Washington that have Chevelle Rotors. The owners of them love them. They also have Carbs on them and Love that also .

My 34 Coupe has injection on it and I hate it ! I'm thinking of installing a Carb on it , if I want new stuff I will drive my wife's car or my Truck.

But that's my Taste and that all it matters to me :)

Sid

BamaNomad
01-09-2018, 09:53 PM
A good rule for all of us to follow is this: IF you cannot say something constructive, or good... remain SILENT .. ie. keep your hands off your keyboard.

If you have to be negative to another member, then do it privately.. or call him up and arrange to meet him somewhere to address your differences... :) but leave the rest of us out of it.

Belair-o
01-10-2018, 09:18 AM
Whew, maybe the tsunami has passed by. Does anyone have any guidance on my question (please see below). Thanks, Doug

Thanks Rick, Chevynut, and 56Mark for the suggestions and guidance. Do I need to have a complete alignment in place (and not just my rough one), before considering any tweaking of the spindle stops?
Thanks, Doug

Rick_L
01-10-2018, 10:36 AM
A rough home alignment will be sufficient. I.e., set the camber with a level or angle finder, and set the toe in best you can, as well as centering the steering.

55 Tony
01-10-2018, 01:27 PM
Agreed ,
It does nothing good to belittle someone because of what they like or have , I know of 3 Cars here in Kelso Washington that have Chevelle Rotors. The owners of them love them. They also have Carbs on them and Love that also .

My 34 Coupe has injection on it and I hate it ! I'm thinking of installing a Carb on it , if I want new stuff I will drive my wife's car or my Truck.

But that's my Taste and that all it matters to me :)

Sid




My bad, I didn't know there was an ongoing feud and I was feeding it fuel.

Sid, my 55 currently has an 800cfm quadrajet! I also have an old Holley 800 Spreadbore which ran darn nice too. I had new Holley's for short periods of time but keep going back to the quadrajet.

Belair-o
01-10-2018, 07:25 PM
Thank you.


A rough home alignment will be sufficient. I.e., set the camber with a level or angle finder, and set the toe in best you can, as well as centering the steering.

55 Rescue Dog
01-10-2018, 08:25 PM
As far as setting toe, the best DIY way to do it is with a trammel bar. Hard to quickly explain, but using a common reference point on both tires, you simply roll the car back and forth 180 degrees of tire rotation, using the same 2 points to measure. Accurate to 1/32's of an inch, or less. Figured that out racing Karts 25 years ago using a tape measure, but on a car the trammel bar is hard to beat with the wheels further apart, and for no money. My trammel bar is a 2x2 piece of pine across the track, with 2 sheet metal uprights to the height of the centerline of the tires.

55 Rescue Dog
01-11-2018, 05:40 AM
You can also get a magnetic mount caster/camber gauge like this for less than $130, and align it all yourself anytime, and eliminate needing to take it to a shop.
8173

Belair-o
01-11-2018, 06:57 AM
Thanks for the ideas! I don't understand the trammel bar, but will do some searching online. The gauge you showed makes sense.
Thanks, Doug

55 Tony
01-11-2018, 08:31 AM
Laugh all you want but I used one of these to do my alignment including caster. Then I took it to a pro and he didn't touch a thing except the toe. I have to make a tool for the toe.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Adjustable-Magnetic-Gauge-Tool-Camber-Castor-Strut-Wheel-Alignment-Truck-Car/252770201173?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.S EED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D49452%26meid%3D28d9b450418c40 6e9ff3876fc569b0db%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3 D15%26mehot%3Dag%26sd%3D252770201173&_trksid=p2481888.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%253A5f38f6e5-f6e2-11e7-b9cf-74dbd180da5a%257Cparentrq%253Ae5cb0d241600a8619c04 2893ffdce366%257Ciid%253A1

BamaNomad
01-11-2018, 09:17 AM
Setting 'toe' in your home garage is not difficult if you cut two plywood pieces which are H" x H/2", where H" is the height of your front tires. Attaching (with duct tape or ?) those two pieces of plywood to the lower half of each front tire allows you to 'measure much more precisely the distances across the back, and front, of your front tires.

55 Tony
01-11-2018, 11:20 AM
Setting 'toe' in your home garage is not difficult if you cut two plywood pieces which are H" x H/2", where H" is the height of your front tires. Attaching (with duct tape or ?) those two pieces of plywood to the lower half of each front tire allows you to 'measure much more precisely the distances across the back, and front, of your front tires.

I'm going to get around to doing that one day. I plan on cutting out an arch in the lower middle so the bottom bulge of the tire doesn't push it out in the center. Then use 2 tape measures at the same time across the front and the rear of the plywood.

55 Rescue Dog
01-12-2018, 06:00 AM
Using plywood could work assuming they are perfectly flat, but the sidewalls of most tires are not all that flat, and could skew the readings quite a bit, unless you made standoffs to touch the wheel flange instead. They use commercially made toe plates at the track for quick adjustments though. Trammel bar is a more accurate method. When using a trammel bar rather than trying to scribe a line on the tire I found it easier to just make a vertical line on a piece of masking tape on center of the tires, and roll the car back and forth using the same 2 reference points. Very accurate, and pretty easy to do.
8174

56Mark
01-12-2018, 09:07 AM
I have heard of using a cheap extendable curtain rod, set it to front or back and then compare. I like the tape idea and roll. Last time I did mine I raised the wheels off of the ground, spun them and marked a ring on the tread with soap stone. The tape sounds easier and better; get the same point for sure.

55 Tony
01-12-2018, 01:05 PM
Although I also see a tire scribe in that ad, I don't quite get the need to make a true line, however I did just get the idea of measuring to one of the lines in the tread? If I raised the wheels and spun them I could see if the tread is straight/true. I could be a bit confused since I had a minor procedure done at the hospital and was under general anesthesia this morning.