Morris Minor Owners Club

Well a good nights sleep has settled the nerves.

Would like to add, that odd camber angles between front wheels on a Minor is not that uncommon, especially if the chassis legs have been replaced at some time. While not desirable, if tyre wear isn't uneven, and if the error is say only 1 degree I would leave well alone.

On my traveller, I have 0.5 degrees negative camber on the N/S wheel and .75 degress positive on the o/s wheel. Tyre wear is even across the treads, and the car drives in a straight line.

Perhaps what is even more important, is to check the eyebolt is square to the chassis leg, and not at an angle due to chassis leg corrosion.

Very valid point in previous post above, about packing eyebolt out, and ending up with a car that crabs if the wheel ends up the wrong distance from the center line of the car.

Before doing suspension geometry changes, I would advise doing a chassis datum point check on a level garage floor. Investigate the cause of any significant errors. A chassis rail that has been replaced with even a small angular error between center cross member and the front chassis rail, will give camber error.

jommetry

Now thats my sort of word

While not desirable, if tyre wear isn't uneven, and if the error is say only 1 degree I would leave well alone.

Tyre wear is uneven, with the outer shoulder of the offside tyre wearing very significantly more. The nearside tyre is wearing evenly across the tread, so I don't think it's hard cornering that's done it...

Before doing suspension geometry changes, I would advise doing a chassis datum point check on a level garage floor. Investigate the cause of any significant errors. A chassis rail that has been replaced with even a small angular error between center cross member and the front chassis rail, will give camber error.

As soon as I've found a flat surface I'll do that, but I have to reassemble the front of the car first. I can start now by measuring the chassis rail separation at various points along the car. If it changes toward the front I know where to look in more detail. I'll dig out my 4-foot level and hold that against the chassis, too.

The location points for the upper link damper are very strong - and unlikely to move unless the car has been in a pretty big shunt! So - any abnormal camber is v likely to be down to the chassis legs. I would say better to have the wheels both the same as far as camber - and not worry too much about small variation from centreline. MT - I would bring that +ve camber front wheel up to same as the -ve wheel - it's bound to be better!

Sorry about the delay in responding to the castor discussion, but we are kinda slow over here. Assuming the tie rod can be used to adjust camber overlooks the suspension design. Extra strain would be put on the eybolt bushings and the torsion bar would have to curve. Under this assumption simple suspension travel would cause castor changes. The tie rod bushings take up these variation and the bushings couldn't support the strain required to pull the lower trunnion forward enough to change castor. It really doesn't need to be stated but if castor is out then there either was some structural damage or the chassis leg was not repaired properly.

The lower suspension arm is mounted in bushings - the tiny angular movement for the small castor changes required is easily handled there. The torsion bar certainly doesn't 'curve'!

bmcecosse wrote: MT - I would bring that +ve camber front wheel up to same as the -ve wheel - it's bound to be better!

I've thought about it Roy but tyre wear is very even across each tread, and chassis rail alignment is spot on each side from center line. If I added a 5mm spacer to go from 1 degree Pos to 0.7 degree neg on the offside, that means the offside wheel would be an extra 5mm out from car centre.

One of my bumper main support bars than comes through the front panel, is slightly off to one side (Offside) and is out from center line. I suspect the car may have had front accident damage before it was restored in 1997.

That said, the damper cross member behind the engine is true, and to be honest, I cannot figure out why I have that Positive camber on the OS wheel.

The car drives straight as a die hands off wheel, so I am just currently following my own creda of, "If it aint busted don't fix it"

Mine too - "Si fractum non sit - noli id reficere". Used it for years. Well - if the tyre wear is ok maybe best left - but i doubt 5mm off centre line would be noticed! Is the car dead level both sides equal height from ground ? In the middle pic above it appears slightly down on the driver side (but maybe just the picture giving that effect) - and will obviously go down more when you sit in ! May be worth lifting that side a little until it sits level with driver on board -and then check the camber like that ?

The lower the front suspension, the more the lower wishbone needs to be spaced out, just to maintain the standard geometry. Mine are about 10mm out each side, which is the limit for the eye bolts that I have. This results in 0.5° -ve camber and nearly 1° more castor, which for me is a good thing as it gives improved 'turn in'. The steering is a bit heavy at zero speed parking, but probably not really, just compared to 'modern' power steering?

I haven't checked what the castor is with standard ride height (it hasn't been there for nearly 40 years!), so it could be more than standard in the first place.

Not sure why there should be a concern about increased track, other than the wheels should obviously be the same distance from the car centreline - but within what tolerance? The combination of the eye bolts being spaced out, Midget disc brake hubs and wider wheels, gives nearly 4 inches more track at the front, and nearly 3 inches at the back (no spacers or hub changes) and the stability at any speed and road surface is superb. Nothing upsets it, not even a cross wind.

And - the wheels fill out the arches v nicely too!