D
Deleted member 4847
Guest
My 1978 New Yorker Brougham needs an alignment. Can anyone recommend a good shop in the Dallas/Fort Worth area?
saylor
Senior Member
'mo' at als brake + wheel on hwy 78 in garland.
tell em saylor/FCBO sent ya.
heads up - they will try to set it to factory spec, if you want custom camber or whatever you have to remind them like 5 times.
try not to die -
- saylor
tell em saylor/FCBO sent ya.
heads up - they will try to set it to factory spec, if you want custom camber or whatever you have to remind them like 5 times.
try not to die -
- saylor
D
Deleted member 4847
Guest
Any reason to go for other than stock specs on a stock '78 NYB?
saylor
Senior Member
i cannot answer that - i was only speaking from my own experience on a 68 fury... i guess the old alignment specs are for bias ply tires, and if you lean the wheels in a bit past spec, it is better on todays tires... thats all i got.
try not to die -
- saylor
try not to die -
- saylor
If this is true I think it warrants its own thread. I'd love to read more about this if someone is up on the original spec bias settings vs the radials
LeBaron1973
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 6,310
- Reaction score
- 2,424
Bias Ply versus Radial Tires: Which Are Best For The (Chrysler) Imperial
The following remarks are from the link I posted:
And from Dick:
There is a lot of misinformation about putting radials on older cars. As a reformed former tire recap plant worker (inspection and preparation machine operator for tread application, in my teens) and the son of a tire designer (B.F.Goodrich), I have always been interested in tires and their design characteristics. While this doesn't make me an expert, I think it may give me more skepticism about some of the strange stories we all hear.
My experience and opinion, for what it is worth, is that radials work just fine on our cars, with the sole proviso that the toe-in be adjusted to zero, rather than the factory spec for the car if it was originally designed for non-radials. Failing to do this will result in the car wandering and a tendency to nibble at the seams in a cement roadway.
There is a different riding characteristic, and a much changed feel at the steering wheel.
First, the cars without power steering will be VERY hard to park with radials, as they grip the pavement with a much larger contact patch and really hold on!
Second, the low speed ride will be harsher, as you will feel every tiny road imperfection you drive over. This is why the manufacturers put different valving in the shocks, to try to filter out some of this road feel. That was the origin of the term "radial tuned shocks".
The high speed ride will be much better, however, as the tires seem to float over rapid disturbances without transmitting these to the unsprung components.
The handling and steering response will be much improved, as will the traction on slippery road surfaces. The tread-wear is much better also, if that is of any interest.
My new 1958 Peugeot came standard with Michelin radials, as did my very un-new 1968 Mark III (to save an argument, yes it is titled as a 69, but it was built in April 1968).
I have used radials on everything from my 1948 Studebaker with it's "planar" suspension (a sideways spring) to my torsion level Packards, and if it weren't for the odd appearance, I'd probably have them on everything I own.
I believe there is only one brand to buy, and that is Michelin. You get what you pay for. I sure wish they made a wide whitewall!
The following remarks are from the link I posted:
And from Dick:
There is a lot of misinformation about putting radials on older cars. As a reformed former tire recap plant worker (inspection and preparation machine operator for tread application, in my teens) and the son of a tire designer (B.F.Goodrich), I have always been interested in tires and their design characteristics. While this doesn't make me an expert, I think it may give me more skepticism about some of the strange stories we all hear.
My experience and opinion, for what it is worth, is that radials work just fine on our cars, with the sole proviso that the toe-in be adjusted to zero, rather than the factory spec for the car if it was originally designed for non-radials. Failing to do this will result in the car wandering and a tendency to nibble at the seams in a cement roadway.
There is a different riding characteristic, and a much changed feel at the steering wheel.
First, the cars without power steering will be VERY hard to park with radials, as they grip the pavement with a much larger contact patch and really hold on!
Second, the low speed ride will be harsher, as you will feel every tiny road imperfection you drive over. This is why the manufacturers put different valving in the shocks, to try to filter out some of this road feel. That was the origin of the term "radial tuned shocks".
The high speed ride will be much better, however, as the tires seem to float over rapid disturbances without transmitting these to the unsprung components.
The handling and steering response will be much improved, as will the traction on slippery road surfaces. The tread-wear is much better also, if that is of any interest.
My new 1958 Peugeot came standard with Michelin radials, as did my very un-new 1968 Mark III (to save an argument, yes it is titled as a 69, but it was built in April 1968).
I have used radials on everything from my 1948 Studebaker with it's "planar" suspension (a sideways spring) to my torsion level Packards, and if it weren't for the odd appearance, I'd probably have them on everything I own.
I believe there is only one brand to buy, and that is Michelin. You get what you pay for. I sure wish they made a wide whitewall!
LeBaron1973
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 6,310
- Reaction score
- 2,424
Another link: "Correct" Radial Tire Wheel Alignment Specs????? - Vintage Thunderbird Club International
This is a spec that was posted on another forum back in 2001 for radial tires on a 1962, can not verify that they work.
Here's the specifications that I used for my 62Ht. I got these from
Marlo, who has been in the frontend business in LA for 40 years and
specializes in rods and customs. My car drives great with no pull or
wander.
Alignment specs: Caster Left 1/4* Right 3/4*
Camber Left 0* Right -1/4*
Toein 1/16-1/8
The original specs call for negative caster, which allows for easier
steering effort with bias ply tires. However, radials steer easier and
respond better to positive caster. Marlo recommended 1* left and 1 1/2*
right caster, but the above was all I could get. He recommends the
camber settings because of accelerating left turns made from a stop,
like is made at a traffic light. He says that this keeps the outside
right tire from squealing. Hope this helps.
Rich Bailey
62HT, 66 CVT
Jim Mills
VTCI # 8071
VTCI 1964-66 Technical Editor
2002 Thunderbird
1965 Convertible
1962 Convertible (in progress)
1959 Ford Retractable HT
Many parts cars
This is a spec that was posted on another forum back in 2001 for radial tires on a 1962, can not verify that they work.
Here's the specifications that I used for my 62Ht. I got these from
Marlo, who has been in the frontend business in LA for 40 years and
specializes in rods and customs. My car drives great with no pull or
wander.
Alignment specs: Caster Left 1/4* Right 3/4*
Camber Left 0* Right -1/4*
Toein 1/16-1/8
The original specs call for negative caster, which allows for easier
steering effort with bias ply tires. However, radials steer easier and
respond better to positive caster. Marlo recommended 1* left and 1 1/2*
right caster, but the above was all I could get. He recommends the
camber settings because of accelerating left turns made from a stop,
like is made at a traffic light. He says that this keeps the outside
right tire from squealing. Hope this helps.
Rich Bailey
62HT, 66 CVT
Jim Mills
VTCI # 8071
VTCI 1964-66 Technical Editor
2002 Thunderbird
1965 Convertible
1962 Convertible (in progress)
1959 Ford Retractable HT
Many parts cars
saylor
Senior Member
cool beans I made it sticky!
uhh. yeah. so.
what I can add from real life driving is the feel of the front end. at stock spec, the front end feels 'floaty' just a smidge when going in a straight line. if u can get the top of the wheel caved in a bit at the alignment shop, it narrows/tightens up the steering 'feel' at the steering wheel a lot.
the whole understeer thing...
try not to die -
- saylor
uhh. yeah. so.
what I can add from real life driving is the feel of the front end. at stock spec, the front end feels 'floaty' just a smidge when going in a straight line. if u can get the top of the wheel caved in a bit at the alignment shop, it narrows/tightens up the steering 'feel' at the steering wheel a lot.
the whole understeer thing...
try not to die -
- saylor
Similar threads
