Negative Camber?

[shortcircut65]

so in order for my plow frame to sit level and true, i have to have my torsion bolts all the way in. from what i understand of the front end geometry, the lower the vehicle is, the more negative camber you have, and the higher it goes, the more positive camber you have. my truck looks like an air-baged s-10 sitting on the ground, the wheels are that angled! would this be a ball joint issue? because i think they may need replacement in the near future. im not saying that my tires look like this: / \, but they are close. any help?

Ken

 

[CtChevy427]

Ken, if you cranked the T bars did you get an alignment after?

 

[921500Z71]

Ken, if you cranked the T bars did you get an alignment after?

Exactly, make sure you get an alignment after cranking. I had keys and cranked my tbars on my 92 a few years ago, I wish i had a pic of that, I had to clear 35x12.50s. So it looked like both tires were riding on their sidewalls. But after an alignment all was straight and true. Just wore out suspension parts quicker and rubbed alot.

 

[shortcircut65]

i did not, and i plan on doing it, but from my understanding of the geometry of the front end, something aint sitting right. i thought i should have positive camber, not negative. just thought i might get this figured out before i get it aligned, then have to change out ball joints, and have it set off again, and need another alignment.

Ken

 

[btfarm]

Cranking the t-bars also throws the caster out of whack. Makes it wander all over the road.

 

[shortcircut65]

gonna have to watch for that. i havent drivin it in over 10 days, and the last time was when it snowed and had the plow on it. the back-up truck i borrow has a rotted rear diff cover. napa cant get it, advanced takes 3 days to get it. i guess thats what i get for using a ford '92 with 62,000 miles. you do the math

Ken