I'm gonna have my 69 442 (base) re-aligned next week and I wanyed to check with you folks to see if the numbers in the CSM are still the best settings to shoot for or if it's better to go with different settings.
The suspension is all stock with new ball joints and sway bay bushings. Nothing else has been changed to the best of my knowledge.
Thanks for any help .

 

One of the biggest handling differences from the 1960s to modern cars is the fact that new cars have much more caster angle in the alignment. The factory caster setting for your 69 is somewhere around -1/4 deg to +1/2 deg. This was done to allow a light steering effort, especially with manual steering. Modern cars have closer to 3-4 deg of positive caster angle, which greatly improves tracking and steering feel at speed but increases steering force. Of course, since all new cars have power steering, that's a non-issue. Have the alignment shop crank in as much caster angle as the adjustment in the car will allow. I doubt you'll be able to get to 3 degrees, but anything over 1.5 or 2 degrees will be a phenomenal difference.

Of course, this assumes your shop's lawyers will allow them to align the car to something other than the factory specs.

 

Thanks for the info Joe.
I kinda thought that may be the case as the added caster made a major difference with my 67 Camaro.
I don't believe that I will have any problems with the GM shop as my son is the shop manager.

 

You might have already done the alignment, but here are some specs for reference.

 

The whole point of this thread was that the OP was asking about NOT using the factory specs for alignment, as discussed above. The factory's negative caster is why these cars don't have the steering feel of new cars.

 

I'm new to this forum. Question; will I be bullied by joe also if I submit something useful like W31andrew? It was nice of him to take the time to look and post the base line specs. I hope this isn't another website where trolls bully sincere members trying to help.

 

I'm new as well. Just trying to be helpful. Plus I figured my post may be helpful for others when searching for alignment specs in the future.

I hope this isn't common practice as well.

 

Joe is a moderator on this site and has a wealth of knowledge. I would not look at it as bullying, he was keeping the thread on track. Stick around because you'll see bullying rarely happens here. Thanks for your efforts to help and welcome to CO.

 

From the chart above, it shows all the other GM A-bodies ( buick, chevelle, Pontiac,) with positive camber and Olds with negative camber. I wonder why this was done, since most parts are the same.

 

I noticed that also. Keep in mind that each GM division tuned suspension and road feel separately, which is why each version of the A-body had unique springs, shocks, sway bars, tires, etc.

 

Sometimes Joe can strike new members that way, (he did me also), but you will see his knowledge and helpfulness is fantastic and he makes this site great. He is just very direct and it is not personal. I have worked with and learned a lot from engineers that tend to be this way.

 

Only if you let yourself be bullied (and actually think what Joe posted was bullying ). It's the internet, not the real world where you may not have the option of walking away.

 

I certainly appreciate all replies to my post.
Just a point I would like to make: I appreciate All info that Joe Padavano provides and strongly fill that he has more experience than most here and bad mouthing of Joe is unwanted. Joe on many occasions has freely given me the benefit of his vast experience and all is appreciated.
I would suggest if you happen to disagree to his advice then don't heed it, but otherwise shut the F up! No one is bullied that has the good sense to understand what he is trying to tell someone.