Looks like you're fine with both sets based on 15.8.G.

Alrighty, I guess I'll just show up with some masking tape on Saturday and cross my fingers.

You're still using stock mounting points, so it looks like you're good. It doesn't say anything about having them installed where the factory didn't.

Well, the rule I'm thinking of was regarding using more than one camber adjusting item.

Dean may have to correct me, since I've (intentionally) forgotten the rules except for SM. But there was somthing about you can add camber bolts, or add camber adjustable top mounts, or add adjustable latteral links, but you can only do one. I'm not sure if that applies to adding two sets of camber bolts... but it looks like you're probably okay, since I'm starting to think those rules were only STX rules anyway.

I was thinking of that rule too, but it's in ST, and it says you can only choose between camber plates and lateral links on McStrut cars. It doesn't mention camber bolts.

In that case, I'm getting 8 of them.

Cool, I was already kind of kicking myself for ordering the OEM camber bolts instead of the H&R's (+/- 3 degrees of adjustability). I was really lucky that Sid had an extra set for the bottom. Seems like everything worked out pretty well...I just hope this alignment doesn't eat tires too bad.

Any opinions on the Progress adjustable RSB? I will need to upgrade the mounts since I have a bugeye and the Progress comes with them all for $175. Does Oakos charge for shipping?

What about the front? Will an upgraded FSB and solid endlinks help body roll? Is it a good investment?

Keep in mind when dealing with aftermarket camber bolts that any extra adjustability over the OE bolt is only going to be acheived by making the diameter smaller, so that there is more room for it to move around within the receiver holes in the spindle & strut ears. This might mean they require a lower torque value than OE (which means less bolt preload & clamping force). We tested some H&R camber bolts at MM in order to figure out if we wanted to use them on the Mustangs, but we couldn't torque them up to the OE spec so we passed.

Seems like this would also make it more likely for the bolts to shift between alignments, maybe Cody should mark the position of each bolt so he can tell if it's moved.

Interesting. Just out of curiosity, did they break when you tried to torque them to OE specs or did you just figure they would break/stretch if you did?

Everything I've read says the OE camber bolts on my car should get torqued to 120 while the Eibach (and most other aftermarket camber bolts) shouldn't be torqued to more than 80. I mentioned this to Sid and he agreed. I have read threads on Nasioc where people have had the aftermarket bolts slip but most people attribute this to overtorquing (and subsequent stretching).

Marking the current position is a great idea Khail. I bet I can get under there and mark it without taking off the wheels...I hope.

If you have your RP02s on, that shouldn't be a problem. I think I could change pads without taking off the wheels! :lol: It's nice to be able to see everything easily with these rims.

They didn't "break" like snap in half, they just yielded.

This is what I was talking about; that lower torque value of 80ft*lb carries with it a lower bolt preload, and thus less clamping force on the strut-spindle joint. A ballpark number for that 40ft*lb reduction is about 4000lbs less clamping force. This is why the alignment will slip easier.

Yah, these rims make me want nice brakes. Nothing like showcasing your rusty stock brakes! :lol:

BTW, I can tell by looking at the dust that sticks to the rear tires that about 2 inches on the outside of the contact patch doesn't even contact the road when driving straight now :eek:

Cody, a dialed alignment is important, but if you're having to crank those kind of numbers on your daily driver to keep from rubbing, you'd be much better off rolling the fenders. Running almost 2 degrees of negative camber, with smaller bolts everywhere, doesn't sound like a good combination for a car that not only has to deal with AutoX stresses, but daily driving on buckled roads, etc. My car is pretty low, and my fenders were narrower than a WRX wagon, but I can tuck 070's and other wide 225's way up into the wheelwells if necessary with no rubbing issues after properly clearancing the fenders.

That's just my opinion; I'd much rather get some fender space and run a less aggressive camber setting. I'm also not influenced by the the fact that I own a fender-rolling tool :p

Well, I do think that the rear wheels have too much neg. camber, but Sid seems to think this alignment will be ok for daily driving. I'll keep a close eye on my tire wear and go from there I guess. I'm also curious to see how bad my car understeers now.

What Sybir said, rolling the fenders will pay for itself pretty soon if you keep wearing out tires prematurely. Or you just need to stop going straight and turn a lot more often.

Fair enough. I know it's not camber that kills, it's toe combined with camber, so keep an eye on it. I'm sure Sid isn't trying to steer you wrong, but tires cost money and rolling the fenders is cheap and gives you a lot more options.

I can get the tool up to Reno if you need it.

Cool, thanks.

I'm also considering the cost of needing to upgrade my rear sway along with the cost of replacing tires if there is excessive wear. if either becomes an issue...I will be reducing the camber down to somthing like -1.5 in the front and -1.1 in the rear which might require fender rolling with these tires.