Rear Camber arm solutions

So I have been putting thought into rear camber. The problem is when you lower a celica, the rear camber is non adjustable, and lowering it increases it dramatically. This is fine if I only raced the car, but I want to bring the rear into stock specs since this car will be driven on the street as well.

Most use rear camber bolts, and they seem to be a cheap solution, but with a few cons. I have read that they can loose their alignment when driving on rough roads. Also, they create an angle issue on the strut. I had read this can cause additional wear on them. Since my suspension was expensive and I am in no mood to rebuild it any time soon I want to do this right.

I looked into building my own, and there are affordable parts available to do so.
This dsm thread has some good info on it.
http://www.dsmtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223832
another DIY link.
http://www.club202.com/forums/showthrea ... amber-arms

The problem is, where we connect to the spindle we need a control arm bracket. Other than cutting the stock ones and welding I am not sure where we might get these. I sort of want to avoid welding if I can, and make this something that one can either assemble or pick up.
The 205 lower arm would be a possible solution. If one cut it, you might weld on threaded tube ends and use a solid threaded rod to make length adjustment.
http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/group. ... D=TUBEENDS

I started looking into other toyota rear camber arm options, and it seems the MK3 supra has a similar design to the 185. There is already rear arm options for the supra as well. What we have to figure out is if the connecting points are the same, as well as the length. This could be an off the shelf option. We use the supra aftermarket to possibly locate the bracket end too, and possibly build the rest ourselves to keep the cost down.

Here is a camber arm for the mk3.
http://battleversion.com/

Here are images of the MK3, 185 and 205 rear suspension.

What about a camber plate? One issue with that is the top opening is too small and would have to be modified so it could be adjusted.

looks pretty much the same but this might also be an option.
http://www.andysautosport.com/lexus.../rods_and_arms/megan_racing/mega00210886.html

carfunatic":1l5t5vcc said:

looks pretty much the same but this might also be an option.
http://www.andysautosport.com/lexus.../rods_and_arms/megan_racing/mega00210886.html

Click to expand...

I was looking into using these since I got them for my IS300

It goes in a different place, but if it fits that would be great. It might be too long. Only if we had a member with an IS300 to compare for us.

lol I'll measure them when I get a chance :wink:

Did you get a chance?

Hey I was under under an IS300 today and measured it to be 13.50" from the middle of the bolt holes. Will this work?

I doubt it, what we need is the dimensions of the connectors. If the adjuster tube is too long that is an easy, cheap replacement.

So you want the measurement from one side of the U connection to the other? basically bushing width correct? Next time I get one on my lift I'll measure it for you.

Yes thanks. I need to know exterior bushing dimensions and bolt size. If we can buy an off the shelf set of arms and modify the length with some tubes we will be set. I might just have to use my 205 arms and call it a day.

I am bringing this back from the dead. I am hoping to sort our rear camber. I am going to look into the cost of adapting the 205 rear arms before I look into something fully custom.

I hate to be pain but I believe there is flaw in your logic. The camber correction kits you are looking at (lexus and supra) where designed with a wishbone suspension (upper and lower control arm) in mind. Where the distance between the upper and lower pivot points is much smaller 6" - 10" vs. 20" - 24". Because of the shorter spindle the amount of adjustment to change angle is reasonable. But with an ISO strut (Alltrac design) that is another story. I used an triangle calculator to estimate the amount of adjustment required to change camber angle. With a 20" spindle. Adjusting the lower arm .5" will yield approximately 1.5 degree camber change. Where as with a 10" tall spindle .5" will give approximately 3 degree camber change. So with adjustable lowers on the Alltrac .7" of adjustment would be required to correct 2 degrees and that might put the toe out of range requiring another suspension part to be made not to mention would the cv shafts be ok riding around 1" shorter than intended.

I have installed many ISO camber correction kits in my line of work (alignment tech) and they never present a problem if tightened properly. I believe they are still the best option for our cars. I have known to be wrong tho please correct me if so.

codester":1h5lpodu said:

I hate to be pain but I believe there is flaw in your logic. The camber correction kits you are looking at (lexus and supra) where designed with a wishbone suspension (upper and lower control arm) in mind. Where the distance between the upper and lower pivot points is much smaller 6" - 10" vs. 20" - 24". Because of the shorter spindle the amount of adjustment to change angle is reasonable. But with an ISO strut (Alltrac design) that is another story. I used an triangle calculator to estimate the amount of adjustment required to change camber angle. With a 20" spindle. Adjusting the lower arm .5" will yield approximately 1.5 degree camber change. Where as with a 10" tall spindle .5" will give approximately 3 degree camber change. So with adjustable lowers on the Alltrac .7" of adjustment would be required to correct 2 degrees and that might put the toe out of range requiring another suspension part to be made not to mention would the cv shafts be ok riding around 1" shorter than intended.

I have installed many ISO camber correction kits in my line of work (alignment tech) and they never present a problem if tightened properly. I believe they are still the best option for our cars. I have known to be wrong tho please correct me if so.

Click to expand...

Its good for you to add some technical info to this discussion. It also now makes sense why we might not be able to adapt a arm from that type of suspension. So do the calculations of length adjustment change when a car is lowered or is everything relative. Rear toe is adjustable with a cam, so is it possibly that changing the camber can put things so out of whack that the oem settings can not compensate?

Well excessive negative camber on a lowered car is caused by the lower control arm's arc movement. As the car is lowered the lower control arm rides closer to horizontal thus "lengthening" it. So technically the amount of adjustment needed to change camber say .5 degrees would be slightly less. But I think this would be insignificant. My main concern would be the toe angle. Considering the arm with the toe eccentric is mounted close to the lower control arm the adjustment on both arms would have to be the same to affect camber while maintaining toe. there may be .75" (not much more) of movement in the factory eccentric but that would mean using the entire sweep to compensate for the camber adjustment. Possibly not leaving enough room for adjustment needed to compensate for worn/bent parts. If you could make both arms with adjuster sleeves that had significant movement then that would probably work well.
But once again the "crash bolts" work well and would avoid a lot of custom parts. Because adjusting camber from the top of the spindle would not affect toe much. Maybe you could even design a eccentric upper strut to spindle bolt (similar to the toe eccentric) with witness marks so two alignment settings could be used with out a visit to the machine. Just a thought.

My thoughts on this whole thing:

It would be nice to have a full pillow-ball rear arm setup - better control, etc. While you are at it, make it adjustable so that you can increase the track of the car by 1" to 2" (hmmm... might need longer axles then) while avoiding rear spacers, saving wheel bearings. You would then need to use a strut-bolt camber solution to bring things back in line.

I put on all ST205 parts on the rear and gained around 2* over normal lowering - one side required 2 crash bolts and the other 1 to get back in the 1*-1.5* range.

Using adjustable arms just for camber (and stock track) would be a waste. You would want to do it for the handling improvements, not the camber adjustability.

-Charlie