The Shelby GT 350 project (over the wall on the Classic Motorsports site) has a fresh update covering alignment. The settings we used were a little conservative for outright performance, but should work well for long road tours and getting around town.
Here's the update- http://classicmotorsports.net/project-cars/1967-Shelby-gt-350/getting-alignment-ou...
What do you think?
Interesting. I've never heard of aligning a car like that, but it makes a lot of sense.
I wish I could remember the settings I had on my 1966 coupe. I know it was based on some old road racing setups from the 60's. That car had all of the Shelby mods done to it, lowerd uca's and all. It wore front tires like they were going out of style, but the smile it put on my face while doing so was worth the price... :-)
In reply to Tom Heath:
Everything looks right except the camber pread and lack of caster spread. You shouldn't use more than a 1/2 spread on camber, and never use neg on one side and pos on the other. Either condition makes the car pull left. You also need a 1/4 caster spread between the sides to track straight on a crowned road. You don't do that with camber. The car may track fine, because that kind of spread on camber would make it pull left, but having no spread on caster would try to pull right, cancelling it out. I think you need to find a new alignment shop. 
bravenrace wrote:+1In reply to Tom Heath:
Everything looks right except the camber pread and lack of caster spread. You shouldn't use more than a 1/2 spread on camber, and never use neg on one side and pos on the other. Either condition makes the car pull left. You also need a 1/4 caster spread between the sides to track straight on a crowned road. You don't do that with camber. The car may track fine, because that kind of spread on camber would make it pull left, but having no spread on caster would try to pull right, cancelling it out. I think you need to find a new alignment shop.
FWIW, when I had my '65 fastback, I dropped the A arms to Shelby spec and replaced everything. I took it to Cobra Automotive and had Curt align it for "performance/street". It still handled like crap compared to my '89 Civic.
In reply to Woody:
That's because it was a '65 Mustang and not an '89 Civic.
I read the update as as one side is -0.50 degree camber, the other side is 1/4 degree less, so -0.25.
In reply to failboat:
I suppose that's possible, but if so, it's worded incorrectly. Postive camber means positive camber, not less negative camber.
Fairly normal set up. Not sure I would go with the camber difference. You must drive on a awful lot of crowned roads. The caster lead,as bravnerace said would be a better way to go. That used to be a standard setting on some cars. Seeing that stock caster is 1/4P. , 2.5 should make it track very well. Nice thing about caster, it gives the outside wheel negative camber in a turn.
Classic Motorsports wrote:On the right side of the car we put in about a half-degree of negative camber. To prevent tire wear and make the car drive better on a crowned highway, Geoff put in about a quarter of a degree positive camber on the right side.
So does it have -0.5 or +0.25 on the right side? You guys wrote right side twice.
If indeed one side is positive and the other is negative, I wouldn't want to drive it. The other guys are correct about caster lead being the better and more subtle way to go. Even then, I encounter so few center crowned two-lanes that I always align my cars even side to side.
Yeah, Here's what I would have used for overall driving:
Camber Right - 1/2 neg
Camber Right - 1/4 neg
Caster Right - As much positive as adjustment allows (only on a vintage mustang)
Caster Left - 1/4 less than the right side
Toe - 1/8" in
It's been a while since I've messed with a '67. Did they still use shims for the alignment or did that go away after '66?
In reply to Woody:
For camber the '67's have eccentric bushings on the lower control arm. For caster they have adjustable strut rods. My '65 has shims like a GM.
