I realize that this forum gets more than its fair share of "camber" questions, but my search results really seem to focus on people trying to reduce rather than increase their negative camber.

I have a 92 civic hatchback that I autox and do track days with. I would like to look at some options for increasing negative camber without resorting to lowering the car any further. I am currently about 1" lower than stock and have 0.5 to 1.0 degrees of negative camber. I would like to be able to get 3-4 degrees in the front and 2-3 degrees in the back. I am currently looking at the Skunk2 adjustable upper control arms for the front and rear. My concern is that these kits will likely limit me to about 3 degrees of negative camber. Is there anything else that has more flexibility? I have seen that MFactory is developing an upper control arm that claims +/- 6 degrees of range using a spherical bearing in the place of the ball joint and am considering that as well.

Thanks

 

I think TunerN00b can chime in here. He's running SPC front upper arms (I think) for additional negative camber. I think he's at around -4 up front, but not sure how much lower than stock.

As for spherical bearings, that would be good if it's a track only car, or a car that sees very limited street use. If the car sees any regular street use during inclement weather, though, it's probably not a good idea to be using spherical bearings.

 

unless they are doing some crazy stuff that UCA is going to be LONG and run into issues of hitting the upper metal in the wheel well. Never mind the fact that the spring and shock combo is another limiting factor in how much camber you can get on our cars.

I have around 1/4 inch of room between my spindle and the spring.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">unless they are doing some crazy stuff that UCA is going to be LONG and run into issues of hitting the upper metal in the wheel well. </TD></TR></TABLE>

That's what I was thinking.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Never mind the fact that the spring and shock combo is another limiting factor in how much camber you can get on our cars. I have around 1/4 inch of room between my spindle and the spring. </TD></TR></TABLE>

This is the first that I've heard of this. How much camber do you have to give you that clearance?

 

ingalls offset or eccentric bushings will bring the cambe rarms in a bit more without the extra mass and less space of the skunk2 type arms.

have you ever held one of those skunk2 type camber arms? they are grossly overweight.

 

No I haven't. I'll look into the Ingall's pieces as well.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think TunerN00b can chime in here. He's running SPC front upper arms (I think) for additional negative camber. I think he's at around -4 up front, but not sure how much lower than stock.

As for spherical bearings, that would be good if it's a track only car, or a car that sees very limited street use. If the car sees any regular street use during inclement weather, though, it's probably not a good idea to be using spherical bearings.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I am running SPC UCAs, and like the Skunk2 units, they are both taller and heavier than stock, even being forged aluminum. I'm also currently sitting at around a 2" front lowering, and an alignment of -4.0* camber and +4.0* caster up front (had to flip the UCAs left to right to get that much caster).

I also have a couple of dents in my shock towers from contact with the UCAs, as I'm only running 400 lbs/in front springs, and they're just not stiff enough.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ingalls offset or eccentric bushings will bring the camber arms in a bit more without the extra mass and less space of the skunk2 type arms.

have you ever held one of those skunk2 type camber arms? they are grossly overweight.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I tried to use a set of Ingalls sliding UCA bushings to increase camber, and ran into issues with it.

I couldn't adjust them all the way in, as the UCA itself started hitting the shock tower. I suppose a BFH could have "fixed" the issue though. Allowing the front adjuster to be pushed further inboard than the rear adjusters, removed all caster but allowed me to get increased camber.

Also, the alignment tech had trouble adjusting them perfectly even (front and rear adjusters on the same side), and I ended up with quite a bit of cross caster with perfectly even camber. Something on the order of -2.2* front camber, but 0.1/0.8 left/right front caster.

The Ingalls UCA bushings also hang lower than stock (mounting surface to pivot point is longer), which will change the UCA angle, bring in the instant center, and raise the static roll center. You might not care about such things, and I have no clue how much of a difference it will really make to handling, but it deserves to be mentioned, if for no other reason than
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SCCA 2007 Solo Rulebook &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
14.8
L. Subframe mount bushings may be replaced, but must attach in
the factory location(s) without additional modification or changes.
Subframe position may not be changed. The amount of metal in
a replacement bushing may not be increased relative to the
amount of metal found in a standard bushing for the particular
application. Solid metal bushings are specifically prohibited.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Since the Ingalls camber adjusting UCA bushings relocate the pivot point, they do not meet the requirements of this rule, as the subframe position is changed.

I could also be misreading that rule. Someone more knowledgeable please correct me if I am wrong.

 

oh wow, interesting note there. I never would have thought of that or known that.

But I remember someone asking about using washers between the stock UCA bushings and the shock tower, and I knew that would increase the angle of the UCA with respect to the ground, and increase negative camber ever so slightly.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nikolai. &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

This is the first that I've heard of this. How much camber do you have to give you that clearance?

</TD></TR></TABLE>

If you look at the suspension it makes sense.

i have 3.5, and 3.7

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Since the Ingalls camber adjusting UCA bushings relocate the pivot point, they do not meet the requirements of this rule, as the subframe position is changed.

I could also be misreading that rule. Someone more knowledgeable please correct me if I am wrong.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I don't read it that way. The upper control arm is not a subframe, nor does it attach to one. The intent of that rule is to allow mounting bushings positioned between the chassis and a subframe to be changed - a "subframe" being an engine cradle or similar chassis crossmember, like the beams that the lower control arms and the steering rack are attached to in a Civic.

That's my interpretation. There may be another rule in the book that addresses the issue here more specifically.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Targa250R &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I don't read it that way. The upper control arm is not a subframe, nor does it attach to one. The intent of that rule is to allow mounting bushings positioned between the chassis and a subframe to be changed - a "subframe" being an engine cradle or similar chassis crossmember, like the beams that the lower control arms and the steering rack are attached to in a Civic.

That's my interpretation. There may be another rule in the book that addresses the issue here more specifically.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I was interpreting with the thought that the metal housing which holds the rubber bushing, is a subframe itself.

If that piece can be changed to one of different dimensions, then couldn't one relocate the UCA inner pivot point arbitrarily?

Eh, I'm certainly no rules expert though. Just clarifying what I stated earlier.