robgee1964
Member
Really appreciate the advice Harvey, and yes its very hard to judge when I've only ever owned or worked on this one example.
I have also noticed despite the fact that I replaced all four tyres with 165's that my steering is also heavy, so I imagine my camber is out. The problem I have is that not many so-called tyre companies have any clue on what should be the correct spec. Please let me know how you get on. I still have other electrical issues to resolve before I can get my car back on the road. I really love my car and like many on this forum, it is a labour of love...Hi Dave, someone has already asked that and its on 165R14's standard size. I keep them pumped up a bit harder than the book says too, around 28psi or so. You are dead right though, even a small increase in tyre width could make the steering heavy - I remember that from the non-PAS car's I owned back in the day.
On this car its quite likely the camber is a bit out of whack, which I think explains the higher steering force when turning right. But at parking speeds it's truly muscle building stuff. I'll change these link bushes as soon as I get chance, but I'll wager the steering is still heavy, even after that. Like I first said though, you soon forget what some non PAS cars were like!
When its all jacked up off ground, you can grab a wheel and steer it left to right, albeit with quite a bit of resistance. Thing is I don't know how freely they are meant to move, with wheels up. The only other cars I've got here have power assisted rack and pinion, so are useless to compare with.
Interestingly I was watching a youtube video a few days ago, by a fella with a 2200TC who reckoned his steering was quite light, which made me think at some point it would be interesting to drive another car by way of comparison.
Incidentally I've found some slim spring compressors which look like they would do for getting the spring out, sealey ak3846 or possibly ak3841.
Thanks again for all the helpful replies, this forum really is a great community!
That's not right, from the 1967 factory manualI believe the standard caster angle for the P6 can be measured as 8.5° on the vertical on the steering upright @harveyp6 can confirm this.
I idea is the steering pillar is at 8.5° which is equal to 0-1° of camber as the ball joints are offset at the ends.That's not right, from the 1967 factory manual
1) camber : 0deg +/- 1deg
2) castor: 0.5 deg positive +/- 0.5degree
3) swivel pin inclination: 8 deg
1) is the angle of the wheel when viewed from the front, negative means the wheels splay out
2) is the angle of the king pin (steering axis) when viewed from the side. Positive means it leans backwards
3) swivel pin inclination is the king spin (steering axis) when viewed from the front, in other words the angle of the suspension upright.
2) can't be measured directly, you have to turn the steering through two known angles and measure the wheel vertical angle at both points.. There is a formula you use to work out the castor, from those readings. Professional equipment such as laser jigs does this for you.
Too much negative camber would make the steering heavy. Thing is, the way that front suspension works the camber changes a lot as the wheel goes through the full travel. On full rebound the positive camber is of comic-book proportions, so it makes you think that as the suspension gets to full bump it's going to go the other way, and get more negative. Taking that reasoning a step further, I wonder if the following is likely? tired front springs -> lower ride height -> negative camber -> heavy steering?