Excess Rear Wheel Camber ????

[nkemp]

My rear wheels have a lot of camber ( about 1.5" measured top to bottom of wheel against a vertical reference. Negative camber, in at top). When on a jack with the wheels off the ground, there is little to no play when grabbing the top of the tire and pulling in/out. Even if the bushings were missing I don't think the camber would be that much. On the jack, wheels off the ground there is a little camber, about right. There is no camber adjustment so I cannot figure out where it comes into play.

I just replaced an old set of lowering springs and OEM shocks with DMCH springs/shocks. I hoped that the old set (Fred Locket's springs ... for those around long enough to remember him ... AKA the DeLorean Pilot) had "squished" a bit causing the camber. But the new set camber is the same. I currently have the top of the colored height adjustment collar to center of lower shock bolt at ~5-3/4". The wheel wells seem too low at the height but thought I'd reach out before moving on.

Adjustable lower or upper control arms could adjust the camber ... Regardless, there should not be that much camber.

- Early car ... 897
- The frame was stripped and repaired so all the components have been off.
- As I recall, the original lower control arms were replaced

Any ideas?????? Were there differences in lower control arm lengths?

[Mark D]

I do remember reading somewhere that the rear suspension links changed lengths at some point during production. I'll do some additional searching to see if I can find that thread.

I think the solution in your case may be adjustable upper links from DPI.
https://deloreanindustries.com/delorean-36-top-link-arm-adjustable-pair/

EDIT:

Couldn't find the thread talking about the differences in the rear links. It might have been on the old .com site.

You might find this thread helpful though:
http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?775-Rear-Camber-amp-Tire-Wear

[nkemp]

Thanks for the info. It looks like others have the same problem.

When I look at mine it seems worse that others. Others have their car lowered and they look great. I want to get it fixed before replacing the tires. For fun, Google "rear extreme camber" ... mine are not that bad :)

You comment about production run changes got me thinking. I dug out the old lower control arm (find it was a miracle in itself). I then attempted to measure the installed one and the old one. So with the warning that my measurements for the installed one (the new one) is pretty rough (hard to accurately measure it installed), the old and new trailing arms I have are the same length.

An adjustable link seems in order.

BTW ... for as many times as I've jacked up that car over the years, I should have installed levelers on the car

[David T]

I don't recall any production change in the rear suspension. Lowering the rear will cause excessive camber. The fix is to either make the lower links adjustable with some cutting and welding or buying a set of adjustable lower links. Lowering the front messes up the toe. That is adjustable. Once you can adjust the rear camber you should have a 4 wheel alignment to get everything set up right to prevent excessive tire wear. Lowering the car reduces the road clearance so you must be especially careful about potholes, raised manholes, curbs, etc. It also reduces the suspension travel. If you have ground effects or lights they can get caught and ripped off. You can have a lot of trouble getting the car onto a lift for service.

[powerline84]

Check out my build thread . Last few pages.

[nkemp]

Check out my build thread . Last few pages. First off ... nice thread and nice work.

I'm leaning towards adjustable control arms since I don't like the squatting look. I've done some searching to see what is available. First off, there is a huge cost range for adjustable control arms in general. A pair of Honda Civic or Del Sol can be had delivered for $19. (I have NO idea of suitability, quality or applicability for the Honda or the DeLorean (if the "tab" end could be swapped for bushings and the sizes were correct, the Honda version could be an option ... but I might look into better quality ones:D ). Other similar versions are offered for $30 and up. I'm just amazed someone can source parts, make and ship while making it worthwhile to do so.) The trouble is that none of the premade ones give dimensions ... even when asked.

I've looked into a couple sites that can make adjustable control arms to order. The most promising site calculator balks at the 8" upper length. But I just got an email this morning from them that indicates they can make an 8" length. About $105 each.

I could shop locally for a welder (I could slag up a pair myself that might break loose at the first bump) but it is getting harder to find independent welders. Welding is a skill every family should have one or more members capable of.

[David T]

It is not just about how it looks, it affects handling and tire life too. Cutting and welding the lower control arms to make them adjustable is not all that hard but if you can't do it or get it done the vendors have them for sale. Order a set of TAB shims too so when you go for an alignment you have the correct shims.

[nkemp]

... it affects handling and tire life too.

Tire wear is the main driver for fixing this now. I want to put on new tires after I get the camber fixed. The current tires have really smooth rounded interior edges.

[Quinn]

Does anybody know if rear camber can be dialed into specification with adjustable top links alone? Or do you need to have both top and bottom adjustable links to dial it in?

[nkemp]

As I look at the suspension, an adjustable top link can adjust camber and does not affect caster. You would not need a lower adjustable link. In most lowered suspensions, it will do so by moving the top of the wheel out.

A lower adjustable control arm can also be used to adjust camber. Given that the lower control arm is not perpendicular to wheel rotation it might adjust a bit of caster as well (I don't know this for sure). But if so, it may be insignificant. You would not need an upper adjustable control arm. And in this case it adjusts camber by bringing the wheel bottom in.

Having both would also work , may be overkill, but does give more adjustability. For those who really want to dial in the suspension, adjustable uppers and lowers (plus an adjustable trailing arm) would be desirable. But for most, this is probably overkill.

That's my 2 cents worth ... which may be overpriced.

[David T]

Most people who have done this use just an adjustable lower link. Seems to work just fine. This will affect Thrust Angle (aka rear toe) so you really should get a 4 wheel alignment and make sure you have the right amount (and correct type) of shims in the TAB's.

[nkemp]

OK ... it has been a while (ADD/ADHD slows progress :-). I installed the DMCH suspension (rear only so far ... can't wait for the front fun) and have been playing with different adjustments. I'd swear my car is unique ... but that is not likely the case.

First off ... the camber is neutral when hanging ( weight on jack, not the wheels.)

I adjusted the AVO shocks as follows
- 5" of thread exposed (7.5" from center of lower mounting bolt to top of white bushing/washer/spacer/disk)
- My rim to SS fender (measuring vertically) is 6 1/2" passenger and 6 1/4" driver
- Using a square on the pavement, the difference in distance to the square from the top of the rim to the bottom is 1 3/8" (passenger) and about 1" difference on the driver side.
- This could partially be from how I measured but I don't think it is much.
- The top rubber cushion is in place.
- The bushings seem tight (not sloppy)
- The tire insides are worn from years of driving this way. But I don't want to get new tires until this is fixed. I don't see how wear would affect the wheel camber
- This is the 2nd set of lower control arms but they are the same length as the originals as I recall.

Today I lowered the shocks:
- 4 3/8" thread exposed
- Wheel rim to SS fender is 5 3/8" (I don't use the floor to frame height since that includes to many other variables) 5 3/9 seems a bit low.
- The wheel camber difference top to bottom is an inch and maybe an 1/8th (Again I used a square but this time it was on the cement floor so it is a pretty good number)
- And the wheels/tires still look like $#!+ from the rear view

I'm tempted to put in the original suspension just to see where this all started ... but swapping out suspension is not all that much fun.

So for those out there with the DMCH suspension, what is yours adjusted to? Measure (please!) either the thread exposed below the cup ut the top of the white disk to the center of the lower mounting bolt.

[David T]

First of all you cannot properly measure camber with a square and trying to measure it with the wheel off the ground means nothing. Camber is measured at ride height meaning you must put the weight of the car on the suspension. You can get it close with the square but you really should take the car to an alignment shop to get it right.

[nkemp]

First of all you cannot properly measure camber with a square and trying to measure it with the wheel off the ground means nothing. Camber is measured at ride height meaning you must put the weight of the car on the suspension. You can get it close with the square but you really should take the car to an alignment shop to get it right.

It was measured with the car on the ground. The measurements are meant as rough measurements not as an alignment. I'm trying to get it better by adjusting ride height.

[David T]

The camber will only be correct at the spec'ed ride height. It is non adjustable unless you get the adjustable lower links. If it is not correct at the specified ride height, something is bent or broken. It must be equal and correct on both sides.

[DMCMW Dave]

It was measured with the car on the ground. The measurements are meant as rough measurements not as an alignment. I'm trying to get it better by adjusting ride height.

A square is good enough to see how far out it is. We've installed lots of the lowering kits and I don't ever recall seeing one with that much camber unless the car is really slammed. Typically I've seen that issue on cars with cut springs. It's also pretty unusual to see bad bushings in the rear control arms, typically only on very high mile (Hi Oliver) cars.

Couple more thoughts - I just went out and measured my own car (Houston pre-AVO setup with Houston/Eibach springs). I have adjustable lower arms on my car and it was set up at an alignment shop. I see 3/8" neg camber at the upper part of the tire using a rafter square. That's not even accounting for the bulge at the bottom of the tire, so in reality it's equal to or less than 1/4". Not the same shocks but the springs really set the ride height, so for the record, sitting on the ground, I get 5-13/16" from the center of the lower shock bolt to the top of the adjusting rings/bottom of the factory spring collar.

I've heard rumors, completely unsubstantiated by me, that some early frames can be way out of the "final" tolerance specs. Seems that may be what you are dealing with.

BTW both upper and lower adjustable control arms do seem to be available. For adjustment, the bottom ones are certainly easier to swing a wrench on. I believe the reason for adjustable uppers is that they are more invisible. Be sure the design you buy has threads on both parts of the adjuster (one end is left hand thread). I've seen a few out there where you have to disconnect one end of the control arm and rotate it to make the adjustment. That makes for a really annoying (i.e. expensive) time at the alignment shop.

Also IMO tire wear is caused more by excessive toe-in than camber. Look at many modern IRS cars (BMW in my experience) that have suspension setup for crisper handling. They look cambered in, and do tend to eat up rear tires, but the tire wear actually seems very even when they are worn out.

[nkemp]

Dave, thanks for the reply. To the point of early cars and potentially a "way out of the "final" tolerance specs" problem, I wanted to eliminate this option/problem instead of chasing it ... if you know what I mean.

I use a rafter square as well. I set the bottom so that the bottom of the wheel to the square distance is some easy number such as 3". Then I measure the top of the wheel. It makes the math easier. Also, I drive the car a mile or so to set in the springs. It makes a big difference. I'm not sure how the alignment shops get it right if they are unweighting the springs to make the ride height adjustment.

Also, I have also been measuring from the top of the wheel to the fender point straight up from it. To me this eliminates variability in tire characteristics, pressure, flat spots, wear and the like. Some like to set to the frame over the floor height but that has the previously mentioned variations. The trouble is that there is no factory spec for wheel to fender ... unless you had a factory spec car and created the measurement from that.

The benefit of using the upper adjustable control arm, as far as I can tell, it that it moves the wheel perpendicular to the frame/car (the bushing tube is perpendicular to the arm). The bottom control arms have an angle (bushing tube to the arm has an angle to it other than 90). Shortening the lower arm causes some (albeit minor) toe in adjustment. But as you mentioned, there is not a lot of room up near upper control arm to work in.

It is a really nice day, so I'll slide under the car and set it to your spec to see what happens. ... and the wife wonders why I have grit on my pillow so often :)

[Rich]

See inserted comments in bold italics with data about our D's rear suspension. It is set up very much like Dave's is:


Couple more thoughts - I just went out and measured my own car (Houston pre-AVO setup with Houston/Eibach springs) Same on ours. I have adjustable lower arms on my car and it was set up at an alignment shop. Same equipment and alignment process on ours I see 3/8" neg camber at the upper part of the tire using a rafter square Same on ours. That's not even accounting for the bulge at the bottom of the tire, so in reality it's equal to or less than 1/4". Not the same shocks but the springs really set the ride height, so for the record, sitting on the ground, I get 5-13/16" Ours measures 6.0in. in this dimension from the center of the lower shock bolt to the top of the adjusting rings/bottom of the factory spring collar.


These readings are same on both L and R sides.
For reference ours is set to the specified-for-alignment 5.5in rear ride height measured at center of rear x-member.
Tire wear has been fine.

[DMCMW Dave]

[COLOR=#000000]Also, I have also been measuring from the top of the wheel to the fender point straight up from it. To me this eliminates variability in tire characteristics, pressure, flat spots, wear and the like. Some like to set to the frame over the floor height but that has the previously mentioned variations. The trouble is that there is no factory spec for wheel to fender ... unless you had a factory spec car and created the measurement from that.

The benefit of using the upper adjustable control arm, as far as I can tell, it that it moves the wheel perpendicular to the frame/car (the bushing tube is perpendicular to the arm). The bottom control arms have an angle (bushing tube to the arm has an angle to it other than 90). Shortening the lower arm causes some (albeit minor) toe in adjustment. But as you mentioned, there is not a lot of room up near upper control arm to work in.


Problem with using the fender as a reference is that they are not only different from car to car, they are different from side to side on the same car! The fiberglass body is notoriously un-uniform, and keep in mind that the build process for the car was generally to install the doors, get them working and sealing, then install all the remaining stainless and align them to the doors!

I can't count the number of times I've heard from people complaining that the measurement from ground to fender lip is different from side to side, sometimes as much as an inch. With the car being level! If you want to drive yourself nuts go make this measurement. Some cars may be symmetrical, but most are not. This ought to generate some interesting discussion as well.

Your measurement method (to the wheel rim rather than the tire) is a lot more accurate than what I was casually doing. You can do a little trigonometry and figure out what the real angle is. There is a spec in the Tech manual, giving neg 1/4 degree to neg 3/4 degree non-adjustable. Front is zero to neg 1/2 degree, also non-adjustable. There is nothing all that magical about an alignment shop, measurements are measurements if you are careful. You are probably MORE accurate than the typical chain-store alignment guy.

[nkemp]

I just lowered the spring cup to Dave's 5 13/16":
- Driver side 1 1/4" difference top to bottom of the wheel
- Passenger side 1 1/2" difference to to bottom of wheel
- Crossmember is about 4 1/4"off the ground

Tires: 245/60 33PSI

Without doing the geometry ... I know it is a lot out of spec:hmm:

[nkemp]

problem with using the fender as a reference is that they are not only different from car to car, they are different from side to side on the same car! argh!!!

[DMCMW Dave]

- Driver side 1 1/4" difference top to bottom of the wheel
- Passenger side 1 1/2" difference to to bottom of wheel
- Crossmember is about 4 1/4"off the ground
Tires: 245/60 33PSI

That's an insane difference.

BTW with all the same settings, with the car settled, I'm at 5-1/2" frame to floor.

Strange things are afoot here. . . . .This is about where I'd start making comparison measurements between two cars in the shop. Just to try and find the difference whether it's in the frame, control arm mounting points, or ???

[nkemp]

In terms of camber, the rear suspension is pretty straight forward. The things that can affect it are:
- The carrier (but I believe carriers didn't vary)
- Control arm (upper and lower) length. (there are unsubstantiated rumors they varied but the old and new ones I have are the same length. Caution : Sample size is N=1)
- Mounting position of the inboard control arm points. The bottoms would be easy to measure. The tops, not so much.
- The shock lower mounting cup height
- The shock Upper mounting height

The last two are important since it seems the suspension does not move a parallelogram.

I now wonder about the rubber bushing on top the springs ... do they compress? Would it make that much difference? Would an additional spacer help?

I've seen many lowered cars that look great and do not have the adjustable control arms. Camber is slight, not nearly as bad as mine.

EDIT: ... One more thought (scary thought) is that the shock towers are moving inwards at the top. The crossmember should minimize that ... but a thought none the less.

[nkemp]

That's an insane difference.

... 5-1/2" frame to floor. ...

Due to variations in tires (wear, pressure, design, etc) I can see a little difference in ride height. Maybe 1/2" or more but that is only a guess. Tread wear could be 1/4" or morealone.

But yes, mine is way off and thus the investigation.

[Rich]

The latest geometry you report shows massive neg camber, something on the order of -5 deg., which I'm sure you can easily see is way off.

Your frame height is way low even though you're running what we think is a "good" shock height from bolt to spring cup. Let's guess something is wrong in translation on that attempt.

The new 4.25in frame height is the primary cause of the negative camber now.

Recommending to go up ~1.25in. on the shock collars (Dave's 5 13/16 plus 1.25 is about 7.0in) so you're close to 5.5in. rear x-member height and see what you get camber-wise. Guaranteed it'll be closer to spec but may still be excessively negative.

Set aside the linkage/parts issues til we all get numbers we understand.

[nkemp]

Rich, I'll adjust as you suggest but it is likely a tomorrow project (need to change mode from DeLorean mechanic to family member:) But in the past I did have them 7.5" from center of lower mounting bolt to top of white bushing/washer/spacer/disk- Using a square on the pavement, the difference in distance to the square from the top of the rim to the bottom is 1 3/8" (passenger) and about 1" difference on the driver side.

That said, those measurements were not that good so I want to remeasure them on the cement and more carefully once I get them readjusted.

Rich ... Your VIN is not that far from mine. One would assume they are similar.

[DMC5180]

Also weird, your 245/60 tires at 33 psi should create added ground clearance. Makes me wonder if you have the wrong Coils on the shocks.

Measure the weight on wheels coil length if you can.

[nkemp]

Yet another great day to get under the car ... The shocks are now set at 7" bottom of cup to the center of the lower mounting bolt:




Cup height
Crossover height
Driver's difference
Passenger difference


5 5/16"
4 1/4"
1 1/4"
1 1/2"


7"
5 1/2"
7/8"
1 1/8"


7 1/2"


1 3/8"
1"



EDIT: I tried using the table function just above this and it does not display. AND the forum software deletes extra spaces so follows is sorta a table.

Cup height .........Crossover height ..........Driver's difference .......Passenger difference
Cup height: 5 5/16" Crossover height : 4 1/4" Driver's difference 1 1/4" Passenger difference 1 1/2"
Cup height: 7" Crossover height : 5 1/2" Driver's difference 7/8" Passenger difference 1 1/8"
Cup height: 7 1/2" Crossover height : ??? Driver's difference 1 3/8" Passenger difference 1"

Notes:
- A 1" deviation across 16.1" (distance from measurements) is about = 3.554° = 3°33'15" = 0.062032 rad
- There is a lot of tire wear, especially to the inside, so it is possible that with new tires, the frame crossover height would be higher than above numbers.
- The 7 1/2" measurements are more suspect and I'm getting better at the measurements as I go

FYI ... IF the spring height is adjusted unweighted, then driving the car is very important. I drove it about a mile and the rear crossmember height dropped 1" (6.5 -> 5.5").

[nkemp]

Also weird, your 245/60 tires at 33 psi should create added ground clearance. Makes me wonder if you have the wrong Coils on the shocks.

Measure the weight on wheels coil length if you can.

I agree with "weird"!!! And I's swear it has gotten worse over the years but it is like the frog in the boiling water.

Weight on wheel Eibach spring length is about 9". I put the longer shocks on the rear (the fronts are not yet installed and uncompressed they are about 13")


FWIW … I have an original set of springs (not from my car) and they measure about 16" uncompressed and that is the length of the uncompressed set originally on my car and removed after maybe 50,000 miles. I didn't measure the uncompressed Eibach springs before installing

[David T]

At this point I would be examining the frame. If it is bent or rotten all bets are off. I know the front can rot enough to destroy any attempt at alignment, maybe your rear engine cradle is rotten or was in some way previously damaged and then repaired incorrectly. Refer to section R:02:XX in the Workshop Manual. What makes me especially suspicious of your frame is the fact that you can't get it near the same side-to-side. On most cars, even if the specs are way off they are at least consistent side to side. You have to consider tire wear but severe camber will negatively affect braking and handling. As for the equipment to do an alignment, you can do a good job with rulers, sticks, strings, levels, and chalk. You can do it much better and a lot faster with a laser guided, computerized alignment rack. I seriously doubt any substantial difference between early frames and later frames. The frames were built in jigs and they must have been the same jigs for the whole period of production. The only difference I have every seen in frames is manual vs automatic.

[Rich]

Also weird, your 245/60 tires at 33 psi should create added ground clearance. Makes me wonder if you have the wrong Coils on the shocks.

Yes, the tire size affects it a little bit.
The 245/60 vs 235-60 adds 0.25in to the tire radius so the equivalent ride height to achieve correct alignment geometry with the 245's mounted is 5.75in.
https://tiresize.com/comparison/

33psi vs (spec) 30psi tire pressure seems close enough but it's easy to deflate to 30psi just in case.

[nkemp]

... Refer to section R:02:XX in the Workshop Manual. ... the problem is there is a car wrapped around the frame:) Making the measurements I need is going to be a challenge.

[David T]

the problem is there is a car wrapped around the frame:) Making the measurements I need is going to be a challenge.

Yes, BUT you don't have to make exact measurements and you can compare one side to the other. You can also look for any anomalies like welding, bulging, patches, rot, etc. If you find any discrepancies you can make more detailed measurements. In fact, you don't even have to measure. Just take a piece of string and compare things side-to-side. Another way to measure is to use a plumb bob and drop the points to the floor and then measure them on the floor. My point is it can be done and probably should be done.

[DMCMW Dave]

the problem is there is a car wrapped around the frame:) Making the measurements I need is going to be a challenge.

Is there any chance your car is missing the metal brace that goes behind the engine? That's attached to the frame AND body and if missing would explain a lot. Hard to see how the frame could be way out of tolerance if that part is in place.

http://store.delorean.com/c-305-8-1-0-frame.aspx Part ID #6.

[nkemp]

[QUOTE=DMCMW Dave;250056]Is there any chance your car is missing the metal brace that goes behind the engine? /QUOTE]

The brace is in place. I just checked it and there is a bit of play in it (which is curious). The bolt is not tight to the frame. As I recall, the problem with that bolt is that it uses a square nut held in a metal box under the frame. The box is a bit to large and the nut will spin (due to the box bending out of shape) when trying to remove it. You have to wedge something in to hold it tight. That all said, If the tower was bending in, it seems it should apply pressure to the bolt causing it to be tight due to interference and pressure.

Anybody know the dimensions between those mounting holes/bolts? The frame reference data shows measurements for the shock top mounting points and the bolts that hold the brace are a little inboard from those. But they are accessible from the top and easier to measure.

Albeit possible, It is hard for me to imagine how the shock towers could be moving inward with the brace attached. If mine are, then it seems many more cars would be also. If mine are, then is seems there would be indicators (cracks in the powdercoat & epoxy). Even without the brace it seems unlikely to move.

As background, I've had this car for over 30 years. When I got it there was some frame rust so I did a frame off repair (the frame is now powdercoated over the bare metal where needed and over the epoxy where it was good. Zinc rich epoxy base and two color coats). The main damage was to the trailing arms and to the under part of the engine crossover bottom plate. The trailing arms were replaced. The engine crossover was reinforced with a SS panel under the original panel which is still in place. The car also rolled into an elm tree (driver's rear bumper corner was damaged) but did not suffer significant damage (the tree died). DMCH did the repairs.

So the frame "looks" great.

When I diagnose things, I tend towards simple problems first. So simpler would be:
- Can the bushings remain firm in place yet the holes get stretched to one side?
- Are the tires, with the given wear, pushing the wheels into strong camber? Does this explain why it looks so good when first lowered and changes to bad after I drive
- Are there differences in frames from the factory? Different control arm mounting locations?
....
- other simple problems???
....
- Do frames change their dimension over time?

[David T]

Now that you have given some history and the frame has had damage (that has been repaired) it tends to suggest all the more strongly that the frame may not be the way it should. Perhaps all of the damage was not repaired, or not repaired properly. Measure the distance between the front wheels and the back wheels. it must be equal on each side. Easy to measure accurately and if that is not equal you have to figure other measurements are going to be bad too. Might be time to get the car to a frame shop and see if they can measure it and straighten it.

[dn010]

The difference I could tell between early/late frames was that they riveted the plate on the underside of the engine cradle on early frames where the lower links are located (I can try to take a photo of this later today). On later frames, everything is welded. I know this because I went from a late frame in my car to an early frame from vin 712. I do not recall any other differences. In short, perhaps it is worth checking these rivets on your frame, make sure nothing has loosened or has fallen out.


The frames were built in jigs and they must have been the same jigs for the whole period of production. The only difference I have every seen in frames is manual vs automatic.

[nkemp]

The wheelbase measurements look great at 95 1/8" each side (hubcap to hubcap). And that 1/8" error could be measurement error. I then measured wheel rim to wheel rim and there is about 3/8" difference. The longer side was the side bumped (it didn't get pushed forward). BUT ... there is more error in the rim-rim measurement due to front wheel angle.

In the scope of 1981 production, I'd call that pretty close to spec and side to side.

The lower control arm mounting box is riveted and welded (sure looks welded on the inside)

I checked the bottom of the engine crossover with a straight edge because it was easy. There is a very slight upward bow. about an 1/8".

[nkemp]

I measured the top of rear suspension to the bottom of the rear crossmember (which I presume to be on the same datum line as the center of the frame:
- Spec is 19.05"
- Measured 19" each side (there is a little bit of error in this due to position and difficulty measuring but it is pretty darn close ... not enough to cause the camber I'm seeing)

If the shock tower is moving (inward at the top), it should show up in this measurement. Nothing I see leads me to follow the frame being out of alignment theory.

Since I'm measuring ... the lower control arms :
- inner bolts are pretty darn close to 23 5/8" right center to left center
- outer bolts are pretty darn close to 52 1/4" right center to left center
- best I can tell, there is no difference in the original lower control arm and its replacement (now on the car for over 25 years)

I believe the upper control arms are original.

The top of the shock towers feel good, no distortion.

Bushings (uppers) are my primary suspect now. Any other thoughts?

[DMC5180]

Post some photos of the wheel in arch.

[nkemp]

Post some photos of the wheel in arch.

Could you rephrase that question? Are you asking for a side shot of the wheel in the wheel-well? BTW ... currently raining pretty heavy here so the answer is "not right away".

[David T]

Checking the dimensions of the wheels in the wheel wells means nothing. All that can tell you is how the body fits to the frame, it tells you nothing about the alignment or the ride height. I have seen where a car is in perfect alignment but if you measure the body to the wheels and compare side to side you get different measurements.

[DMC5180]

Could you rephrase that question? Are you asking for a side shot of the wheel in the wheel-well? BTW ... currently raining pretty heavy here so the answer is "not right away".

Yes. Is you car parked outside or in a detached garage?

[DMC5180]

Checking the dimensions of the wheels in the wheel wells means nothing. All that can tell you is how the body fits to the frame, it tells you nothing about the alignment or the ride height. I have seen where a car is in perfect alignment but if you measure the body to the wheels and compare side to side you get different measurements.

If, the frame to floor height is low it should also a reduced the gap in the wheel to fender opening. Nick already stated his lower cradle bottom sits well below the 5.5” spec. I would be curious to see what the camber looks like with the frame jacked up to spec.

[nkemp]

Yes. Is you car parked outside or in a detached garage?

parked in an overfilled garage and need to back out to take a picture. Still raining here.

[nkemp]

If, the frame to floor height is low it should also a reduced the gap in the wheel to fender opening. Nick already stated his lower cradle bottom sits well below the 5.5” spec. I would be curious to see what the camber looks like with the frame jacked up to spec.

See the "table" earlier in this topic located here: http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?17446-Excess-Rear-Wheel-Camber&p=250024&viewfull=1#post250024

[nkemp]

The more I dig into this the more I think excess camber, at least in my case, is due to failed bushings. Even though they are still tight, I suspect they are compressed to one side. I could take them apart to see .... or buy new ones and replace them. The question is new rubber types such as DMCH's remanufactured ones or polyurethane. Some say poly is too harsh and others say that is an overhype.

[nkemp]

Here are some high camber before photos. When this gets fixed, I'll post some after photos.

[DMCMW Dave]

The more I dig into this the more I think excess camber, at least in my case, is due to failed bushings. Even though they are still tight, I suspect they are compressed to one side. I could take them apart to see .... or buy new ones and replace them. The question is new rubber types such as DMCH's remanufactured ones or polyurethane. Some say poly is too harsh and others say that is an overhype.

I’d have to agree. If you take them apart for inspection you may as well replace them.

The bushings, even if you buy them as whole arms, are not particularly expensive and if you have a high mile car, can wear to the point of being off center. I would not use Poly, in this application it would be too stiff. I like polyurethane in the sway bar bushings but that’s about all.

[Josh]

i have a freshly rebuilt suspension on 2022. It has QA1 coilovers. I adjusted the coilovers higher than yours, so the lower control arm is level with the ground. Even at this height i have almost -2 deg of camber, which is out of spec.
i think your car is simply too low. Getting some adjustable control arms will solve the problem. I remember when i saw your car in person for the first time I was surprised to see a Delorean that low.

[nkemp]

...I remember when i saw your car in person for the first time I was surprised to see a Delorean that low.

I think its "lowness" was like the frog in hot water. Put a frog in hot water and it will jump up. Put it in tepid water and heat it and it will stay there until it is too late. I think the car got progressively lower over the years ... beyond too late. At first I thought maybe the lowering springs (not any of the current batch, these are about 30 years old) were compressing. After installing the Eibach I think the previous springs were fine.

My current plan is new bushings to see how much it improves the stance (nothing seems out of whack). Then I'll see if adjustables are still needed.

[powerline84]

If you guys want adjustable rear control arms let me know . Check my build thread . If your on Qa1s or are that low you need them . It completely changed how the car drives especially under breaking .

[nkemp]

Just an update ... Pulled the driver side control arms and the bushings are shot. On the lower arms:
- the inner sleeve slid right out
- the rubber part is separated from the outer metal sleeve and was easily removed
- There is so much play in the bushing that the control arm shows damage from rubbing on the frame
- Once the control arm was separated you could feel the play in the bushings

The upper look bad as well and have not yet tried to get the old bushings out.

I have no idea why they are as such but I suspect it is related to them being powder coated (I don't recall how the guy processed them (with or without the bushings installed) .

The current problem is removing the old sleeve from the control arms. The first shop I tried could do them because of the difficulty holding the arm without damaging the finish. If the arms were not powder coated I'd get new ones. I still have the originals (about 60K miles on them) and they are pretty gnarly due to debris hitting them and subsequent rust and deterioration. Granted, the original owner drove them on salted roads and the car now is pretty babied.

The learned experience so far is that it is difficult to judge the state of bushings while on the car.

[nkemp]

If you guys want adjustable rear control arms let me know .

Once I get the bushings fixed I may take the adjustable control arm path. My process is to fix the primary problem, not the symptom. The high camber is a symptom of a problem ... bad bushings is my current thought.

BTW ... since the upper control arms have 90 degree ends, adjusting them does not affect toe-in as do adjustable lowers (Lowers don't have 90 degree ends).

[DMCMW Dave]

...

I have no idea why they are as such but I suspect it is related to them being powder coated (I don't recall how the guy processed them (with or without the bushings installed) .

The current problem is removing the old sleeve from the control arms. .

I'm guessing they went thru the powder coating oven with the bushings in. The bushings are (as you have noticed) somewhat difficult to remove, and would never tolerate being removed and reinstalled as they would likely be loose. A common way to remove them is press out the rubber part, then notch and deform the sleeve to get that out. Then press in the new ones. This will all be difficult without damaging the finish. Are you sure that just repainting them black once in a while isn't a better solution than powder coating?

If I was serious about powder coating a set of control arms, I'd remove the bushings, plug the open ends with high heat corks, do the process, and then install new bushings. Can't say I've ever done that.

[nkemp]

At this point I think I'll try to remove the sleeves. Depending on how it goes I may simply order new ones .... with bushings

[nkemp]

Progress slow but sure. So for those who try this themselves ....

For me, it was easy removing bushings. First push through the bushing's inner metal tube. Then pry (I used a narrow screwdriver) the rubber from the outer sleeve. With it loosened, the rubber part pushes through easily.

I then removed the driver side control arms bushing's sleeves. I tried a variety of ways to punch the sleeves through but none generated any progress. What worked was to use a sawzall to cut through the bushing sleeve but not into the control arm. I sawed it from inside, at the arc that was centered on the arm's long tube since any intrusion past the sleeve into the control arm would not weaken the bushing tube.

That went pretty well. I'd cut and then check and repeated, trying not to go into the control arm. Part of checking was using a screwdriver as a chisel to spread the sleeve from the tube. Once the bushing sleeve was fully cut, it either could be slid out or I used a pliers to twist it in such direction that it wound the metal into the hole and worked it out.

This process is not really that hard. It takes time because I went slow to prevent overcutting (that said, I did barely "Nick" the control arm tube ... or did I Mark it or Chip it). You can't uncut a cut made too far. That said, once I figured a process, a sleeve can be removed in under 15 minutes.

[nkemp]

Problem solved. With the new bushings installed the stance is as it should be ... and looks like all its brethren. I don't need to feel embaraced any more.

My conclusion is if you have a lot of camber, bushings (not the springs) are the primary suspect. You can't really tell from looking at them and they don't result in any looseness. Adjustable control arms might solve the problem but its fixing the symptom, not the problem. In my case, I think it was the uppers that were bad (the most bad) since both sides showed damage to the frame where the control arm was rubbing against the frame.

So I don't, at this point, see a need for adjustable control arms.

Now on to finding a nice set of tires.

[DMC5180]

I view adjustable arms mostly for compensating for a lowered suspension geometry.

Do you have any pictures of the old bushings before you pressed them out?

Btw, you tackled this all wrong! You’re supposed to wait until a week before the next big DMC event to finish these kinds of projects. [emoji23]

[nkemp]

You’re supposed to wait until a week before the next big DMC event to finish these kinds of projects. [emoji23] I've learned my lesson on this a long time ago:)

I didn't take any pictures (I should keep a cheap camera I don't mind getting greasy in the garage). They didn't look bad but were "sloppy".

[nkemp]

Here are two pictures of the bushings. Most of the inner sleeves easily push in/out and most came out of the outer sleeve pretty easy (only one took more than a few seconds). Notice how some are very deformed. Also, the rubber is fairly plyable ... but this is hard to compare to a new one with inner and outer sleeves.
6140061401

[Mark D]

Wow that is some serious bushing wear. It almost looks like they were subjected to extreme heat or had some kind of chemical reaction with all that mushrooming. Or they're just really really dry rotted.

The process of making the bushings involves vulcanizing the rubber to the inner and outer sleeves so normally it's next to impossible to separate the inner and outer parts without destroying the rubber in between. For the rubber to just slide out from the outer sleeve in one piece is pretty amazing.

I'd be checking over the rest of the rubber parts on the car (hoses, seals, front suspn bushings, etc) to make sure the other rubber parts aren't similarly aged.

[nkemp]

About 30 years ago, the car got restored. The PO drove it in MN winters and the frame suffered as a result. Most of the car was powder coated including many small parts and things like the suspension components. I suspect that the bushings went through the powder coating process which may have damaged them. As indicated earlier in this thread, the car seemed to get more camber as time went on. At first the car was fine but in recent years it was really noticeable. At first I thought it was the springs compressing since everything felt "firm". Now I suspect those springs were fine (I installed the DMCH springs/shocks in an attempted fix ... plus I wanted the newer shocks).

I don't recall how the front suspension was powder coated but that is another project for the near future.