There is nothing special about the new Mustang 5.0 with IRS compared to setting up a Corvette or current generation Camaro; alignment principles are basically the same to collect relevant data on the road courses. None of those scenarios involve having more negative camber in the rear than the front.If you're looking for max performance with race slicks and spherical bearings, you might want to consider: -3.2 Front, -2.3 Rear, with Caster at 7.5. Front Total Toe at 0 degrees with rear Total Toe at -1/8" (0.33 degrees).
I agree with you mostly. Please keep in mind, we have been developing, offering and using components on IRS cars for a long time now. We may not have the reputation for "handling" in the Ford SRA world, but we do in the GM IRS world. As a matter of fact, the PWC Camaros run our rear IRS suspension pieces.
As stated above, we were not looking to run such a split in negative camber. We were going to slot the struts, OR test some new HD Crash Bolts....but after getting the fronts to fit, we were stuck using the -1 camber up front due to inboard tire to strut clearance.
On the rear, we do not have our prototype adjustable upper camber links complete yet....and even if we bottomed the OEM offering outboard, we would still be left with much more negative camber out back, than up front.
Since we cater to the average Joe, and not the guy who chops his car up, we did not want to modify the cradle because of the fact our camber may not "match" what everyone else uses.
So please don't think we just settled on what we have, because we thought it was the magical setting, or what is "right". We are limited on negative front, and positive rear camber. So due to that, we figured we may as well run it how I pictured above, then bring in the 2 additional degrees of negative camber up front as time goes by.
For our Camaro, G8, GTO and one of my old IRS Cobras (all IRS) we typically run somewhere around -2.8F and -2.0 to -2.5 rear.
The 03-04 Cobra, I always went as negative as possible out back, and it really seemed to add more stability, the further I went.
I guess when you're stuck in a situation you'd prefer to not be in, you might as well try to make some lemonade out of it. Or something like that.
Kelly - I have barely more than 1mm clearance between my track wheels (see sig pic) and their tires to the strut bodies (and needing an 0.025" "spacer" on one side to get that much), so I do understand how an inability to achieve camber the way that was initially planned could happen. I've even heard of having to adjust in the positive direction at the knuckle for tire clearance and hoping to gain it all back and then some at the upper strut attachment, but I guess that would have taken time that wasn't available.
Was trying a little less tire instead ever considered, if only to get a feel for the balance with a more negative front camber setting?
Norm
It went like this.
The day we ordered the car in May, we decided we wanted a square 18x10.5" set-up with 295 Hoosiers.
We ordered the wheels from HRE (it took foreverrrrr to get them)
We got the wheels literally, like 2 weeks ago.
We crashed to get the car together, and noticed that when using a 12.6mm spacer, the tire still rubbed. We ordered a 5/8" spacer, but it did not get here in time. With the 5/8" spacer, we were going to have about 3mm~ space, and we planned to slot the struts and bring the tire back in to where we could get a business card to fit between the tire and the strut.
So anyways, we will eventually be where we want to be...and I will keep everything noted and share what we come up with.