wheel alignment/tracking

[Eric R]

1959 Rover P5 Mk1 3-litre Chassis 62590144 Engine 625900542 New tyres used less than 3k miles. The front n/s one is already bald on extreme outside edge and the steering wheel is slightly off-centre but only by 11:55 on a clock.
I note p45 Section J - power steering - that the alignment is 1.5mm toe-in to 1.4mm toe-out which doesn't make much sense to me! Will a local tyre centre have the knowledge, skill and information to correct this?

[colnerov]

Hi, this has been discussed before here

roverp5.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rover12&action=display&thread=4625

It is just a case of finding a garage that knows what they are
doing, in regard to older vehicles. A tyre depot will have the
equipment but not necessarily the correct knowledge, you need
to ask the right questions. Good luck.

[allanthomas1]

I had problems with my car with wheel alighnment/tracking the problem is they tend to adjust the tracking by adjusting the outer track rod arms, tracking should be adjusted on the centre track rod not the steering links, once I pointed this out to ATS they made the adjustments using laser beam equipment, no problems after that.

[mjb59]

You'll see from my previous posts about this that I had the same problem.
I had new front tyres fitted, but they said they couldn't align it. They were wrongly playing with the outer track rods rather than the centre tracking rod. I found a veteran front end specialist who set the centre tracking rod to the required distance - it was at least an inch out. The 'wandery' handling that I'd always assumed was the legendary vague power steering in the coupe was noticeably less vague afterwards (although still feels like the steering wheel is only distantly related to the tyres).

[enigmas]

The wandering feeling at the wheel is because they were built by the Factory with negligible castor? The 3 litres track better than the V8s due to the heavier engine over the front end. The manual box gives the best feel. The castor can be improved markedly but it's not a quick or easy fix for a novice.

As for one tyre tracking badly (toeing-in)...it could also be due to 'looseness' in the upper and lower ball joints. These are adjustable (when were they last done...40 years ago? They're quite easy to clean and adjust once you get them off the car...that's the painful bit. I did mine recently on the driver's side, replacing the dust boot and also regreasing the ball joint. If they have play the wheels will track erratically.

[Eric R]

P5 3 litre 1959:
A reputable tyre centre has tried to fix alignment now parallel but problem exists with the camber and caster. It is now set at 2degs 04' front passenger and 0degs 13' on driver side.
The caster is now -1deg 11' front passenger and -0degs29' on driver side. Toe in 0degs 03' passenger and 0degs 02' driver side which i believe to be within limits.
I don't see any information in the manuals as to what the camber/caster figures should be, nor how to achieve them. Any ideas please?

[Phil Nottingham]

They are fixed at manufacture - if outside tolerance which 1º seems to be then either subframe or arms are bent assuming bushes are not perished.

See page 17 Section K of WSM!

[Eric R]

thanks Phil. Remember there was crash damage to sub frame? I replaced the whole sub frame with a salvage one from J Wadhams. This was said to be geometrically perfect at the time. So is it a question of replacing some arms etc with more salvaged material? Not certain which part to replace.

[Phil Nottingham]

It could be aby of the arms but the subframe or its body mounts may be misaligned. Are you sure ALL the rubber bushes are good as these are critical to correct sterring alignment.

Apart from the garage readings (who may not be doing them correctly anyway) what are the problems - these cars were not built to identical book tolerances although side to side should be equal normally

Toe in OK though!

[Eric R]

The garage didn't have computer info on the P5 but they have used Rover 2000/3000 Series and 1965-73 2000 TC/SC basic data.
This is for just info - if we had the correct detail for my P5 Mk1 they would be able to overwrite the data and save it for future customers.
So i guess they have just found substantial differences between left and right and they have tried to balance them out with the results previously shown.
I assume that the professional restorers would have set all the mountings and bushes which i provided. There were some advisory MoT notes about front suspension arms having play in the ball joints which you had replied to last September.

[Phil Nottingham]

There seems to be something wrong but if the subframe is said to be OK and fitted to body mounts without trouble then it probably is - If the bushes are new and have not been damaged on fitting it will not be these. There would have to be serious wear/slop apparent in one or ball joints to make the tyres wear so quickly.

I have not got the equipment to test camber and castor angles and I am not sure how this could be adjusted anyway short of cutting the subframe to move the mounts very slightly and rewelding. I cannot see such drastic action would be necessary. Camber angle is affected by torsion bar adjustment as well so if TB height adjustment unequal side to side then this would easily affect camber by that amount but I doubt it would cause such tyre wear

I still cannot stress how important it is to get ALL the rods lengths to the dimensions per the WSM data - this is dead easy to do as well and it can be checked on the car without any dismantling - it really is worth doing this again

Toe in/Toe out can still be spot on but if the rods are not EXACTLY equal length and to the dimensions stated uneven tyre wear to that degree will happen quickly - I had this problem on mine and I had several garages "checked" everything - once I reset the lengths the tyre wear disappeared

If these are OK perhaps you have odd radius arms or ball joints - the ball joints on early 3 litres like your are different but interchangeable in pairs. Do you know what has been done by the restorers

The track rods and steering links (top & bottom) were same throughout production on power steered cars only manual steered track rods were different as were the actual track rod lever arms that bolt to hubs were different between drum braked cars and disk braked cars and early disk braked arms had 3/8th╪ holes to fix them later ones had 7/16th ╪ holes - again matching pairs are essential in all cases.

After simple measuring/comparison side to side trying different arms/links etc may be worthwhile before butchering a good subframe

PS

What was teh extent of the accident damage - it would take a serious shunt to bend a bottom/top link/radius arm but it could happen I suppose

[Eric R]

Another conundrum!
WSM (k p17) states caster angle 1 deg negative, camber angle 2 deg positive.
Autopress manual p150 states caster angle 1 deg negative but camber angle 2 deg negative.
Can they both be right??

[Phil Nottingham]

I would go with the Rover manual although they too contain errorS!

[Eric R]

It does occur to me that the settings given in WSMs will be for the cross ply tyres originally specified which were 6.70in x 15in and not today's radials.
It has been recommended to me that I contact Hankook whose tyres I now have, to ask their opinion of the best settings given their product experience.
Also I'm now advised that instead of doing all the settings and finding the steering wheel at 10 o'clock I should have started with the wheel at 12 o'clock and worked backwards!
Hey-ho!

[Phil Nottingham]

No - you set the box drop arm in centre as per WSM then adjust linkages then adjust S wheel last

as per Castor - contact Hankook but the important thing is both sides are the same - I have Hankooks and as far as I know steering geom is standard with no tyre wear