Did Chevrolet build it this way?

[Timothy B.]

I am continuing to investigate my front end alignment problem that I had posted about previously. I haven't had the car to a frame shop yet, but I recently noticed something that I thought this forum might be able to offer insight into. Basically, I have an alignment problem caused by the lower passengers side ball joint being positioned too far rearward. I can't quite compensate with the upper arm. The lower arm is far enough out of position that the right front sway bar link does not line up properly. You can see in the attached photo that it "appears" that there is a difference from left to right where the cross shafts attach. Of course there is no guarantee that the reference points I am using are correct, but If you use the center drain hole in the frame there does still appear to be a difference however. As long as we have had the car (since 1975) we have been dealing with this. Now as I restore the car and try to fix everything that needs addressing I would like to correct this too. Any comments from the group would be appreciated.

[Michael H.]

Re: Did Chevrolet build it this way?

Tim,

The difference in dimensions that you show is correct. Corvettes did not use the "on center" engine location so it, and the chassis front member in that area, will be off center. If I remember correctly, it was offset roughly 1" to the right.

I suspect you have a bent lower control arm or it's attaching bracket from some previoius collision damage which will result in the exact problem that you have with alignment.

Michael

[Timothy B.]

Re: Did Chevrolet build it this way?

Mike, I appreciate your reply. I am aware that the engine is offset but I have never heard that the suspension was offset too! Note in this new attached photo that only the rear of the cross-shaft appears offset but not the front.

[Michael H.]

Re: Did Chevrolet build it this way?

The complete suspension is symetrical, not offset. The only thing offset is the engine and I thought you might be using that as a reference. I can now see the offset that you are talkig about. It is possible that the lower rear control arm attaching bracket is bent inboard from a collision. That would be common as the impact would typically do exactly that. I believe the chassis overhaul manual has dimensions listed for the side to side C/L of these mounting holes and that would be a good place to start. What year is the car?

[Timothy B.]

Re: Did Chevrolet build it this way?

Car is a 67 conv SB. Yeah, I was suspicious of the rear attach bracket you mentioned too, but it appears normal and undamaged. Looks just like the other side.

[Michael H.]

Re: Did Chevrolet build it this way?

Ok, those brackets and the C/L of the holes in them, should be the exact same distance from the C/L of the frame. It may be possible to measure out from the hole C/L (or bolt head C/L) to a point on the outer frame rail to see if this dim is the same side for side.

I have prints of the frame (somewhere) but I don't remember any dimensions given for these hole C/L's. Hopefully, measuring out to the frame rail will show the problem.

Also, if someone with a known straight frame could supply the C/L to C/L dimension for this hole from side to side, that would be helpful. If your bracket is bent, your dimension would be less than the correct dimension.

[Bill W.]

Re: Did Chevrolet build it this way?

It sounds like you are worring about the wrong measurments. Measure from a good hole in the frame behind the cowl to the lower ball joint greese fitting on both sides. they should be the same . If not measure from the same hole to the core support mounting hole in the frame.If the frame is not the same you have a problem . if the ball joint measurment is not the same you have a bent lower control arm .