RE: Alignment settings goal review
...
LF Toe was +0.61 deg (out) now +0.03 deg (out)
RF Toe was +0.63 deg (out) now +0.03 deg (out)
these changes I'm happy with, I would have preferred a little toe-in, but 0.03 degrees is pretty close to zero
....
I just noticed this, to the best of my knowledge, if the TOE is a + number then it is a TOE IN.
The Ford E3450/E450 spec for TOE is +0.06 Degrees +/- 0.25. Therefor the range would be +0.31 (TOE IN ?) to -0.19 (TOE OUT ?).
RE: Alignment settings goal review
I just purchased my RV, and read and re-read and re-re-read this thread before bringing it in for an alignment. :) Just looking at it I knew it had too much positive camber, and it had worn the outside edge of the right front tire in only 7000 miles from new. (After looking at the "Before" readings this edge wear was likely more from the excessive toeout than the excessive postive camber)
I brought it to a place that does mostly medium trucks, but also a fair amount of cars. I purchased the Ingals 59400 eccentrics and supplied them. I told them exactly what I wanted (at least +5 caster, +0.5 more RH caster, near zero toe, near zero camber).
They installed the Ingalls, and improved the caster, but could not get anywhere near the +5 that I asked for. They said even with these eccentrics in, caster was now maxed out.
Question: Should I look for another alignment shop? If so, does anyone know an alignment shop experienced with this exact situation in the Northeast? NH, VT, MA?
Here are the details:
2007 Gulf Stream 6211 Class C 21' on a 2006 Ford E350 V10
LF Camber was +1.4 now +0.4
RF Camber was +2.3 now +0.3
LF Toe was +0.61 deg (out) now +0.03 deg (out)
RF Toe was +0.63 deg (out) now +0.03 deg (out)
these changes I'm happy with, I would have preferred a little toe-in, but 0.03 degrees is pretty close to zero
LF caster was +1.6 now +2.9
RF caster was +2.3 now +3.7
well, it did improve, and they did get more RF caster, but I was really hoping for a bigger improvement. Do you think that this is all I will be able to get even with the Ingalls bushings? Or do you think the tech just wasn't skilled enough. I know they were attentive and cooperative, and they did understand exactly what I wanted, but enthusiasm without requisite talent doesn't always make the goal line.
The RV seems to drive straight down the road... we are headed on a 6hr trip Thursday (to race at Pocono) so I will be able to see how it behaves then, but it certainly doesn't have a strong "return to center" steering
any help would be greatly appreciated!
I think I can see where this is going to go IF we do get the current Ingalls 594 settings.
The executive overview: A shorter and lighter E350 chassis may sit "high in the saddle". Because of less weight (both front and rear) we may have a "from the factory" more then normal +CAMBER (front end sitting high) and less then normal +CASTER (rear end sitting even higher).
If we were to assume the factory installed sleeves were CAMBER and CASTER neutral, and our desired results are best CAMBER and accept the CASTER, then the best we could do with the 594 sleeves is:
LF CAMBER was at +1.4 subtract 1.0 = +0.4 Degrees
LF CASTER was at +1.6 add available 1.75 = +3.35 Degrees.
RF CAMBER was at +2.3 subtract 1.75 = +0.55 Degrees
RF CASTER was at +2.3 add available 1.0 = +3.3 Degrees.
The resulting CROSS CAMBER is good at 0.15 Degrees.
The resulting CROSS CASTER is +0.05 Degrees, best at -0.50.
If this was the situation is my driveway I would TRY changing the RH to be:
RF CAMBER was at +2.3 subtract 1.50 = +0.80 Degrees.
RF CASTER was at +2.3 add the available 1.25 = +3.55 Degrees.
The resulting CROSS CAMBER is OK at 0.25 Degrees.
The resulting CROSS CASTER is OK at -0.20 Degrees.
So, I am retracting by initial opinion that the numbers after installing the 594s look to be suspect.
So the question becomes, which is better, sacrificing ideal CAMBER for +CASTER or sacrificing +CASTER for ideal CAMBER?
The answer may depend on SHORT 350s or LONG 450s. JMO
RE: Alignment settings goal review
I REALLY appreciate the help, and I will try to take pics and post them asap, but it will be next week, as I am scrambling to get packed leaving for a 5 day trip.
Please don't take my delay as ingratitude!
Also, when you have the camera out take pictures of both the side and front profiles FROM A DISTANCE. It almost seems as though your unit sits high in the front AND even higher at the back. Sort of like a "higher then normal" nose down attitude. I say this because if the vehicle were fore and aft level you should measure more caster. It is my current theory that a level vehicle with the CASTER at NEUTRAL should have about +3 to +3.5 Degrees of Caster. Your vehicle appears to be less then that even with the 594 sleeves supposedly set for more + then neutral, if you get my drift.
RE: Alignment settings goal review
Given the amount of camber correction that was needed, that was probably as much caster as he could get. I think they've done the best that can be done with the alignment.
This is true but let us remember that the abnormal amount of starting CAMBER was with bushings other then the Ingalls 594s. The big question in my mind is what is the (theoretical) CAMBER with the Ingalls 594s set to NEUTRAL. We will be able to reverse engineer the neutral CAMBER once we have the current setting of the Ingalls 594s.
It would be very unusual to have so much +CAMBER with the 594s at neutral unless the unit is very lightly loaded on the front axel, I believe this unit in question (lawtonglen) to be a 21 foot model. The uncertainity lies with having so little data to go by but having the current 594s settings should shed some light on the subject.
RE: Alignment settings goal review
Given the amount of camber correction that was needed, that was probably as much caster as he could get. I think they've done the best that can be done with the alignment.
Yes, this could be a significant factor in their decision making process. In my case I did the opposite, I went for the most available +caster at the sacrifice of camber. And yes, I seem to be a lone wolf. :)
I did a DIY check of my CAMBER. I took two sets of readings, the first set with the Drivers Side Air Bag needing pressure. The angle from level was about 0.75 degree drivers side low.
Drivers Side CAMBER was +0.56 Degrees
Passeng Side CAMBER was -0.22 Degrees
After I pressured up the drivers side air bag the angle from level was now 0.49 degrees drivers side low.
Drivers Side CAMBER was then +0.45 Degrees
Passeng Side CAMBER was then -0.39 Degrees.
The Ford Spec for CAMBER is 0.0 Degrees +/- 0.5 Degrees.
So, even though I am accepting what ever CAMBER I get with having an extra +2.0 degrees of CASTER I am still within the CAMBER spec.
From the FWIW department:
The above CAMBERs could be tuned out with the INGALLS 594s and still leave each CASTER with +1.75 out of the +2.00 Degrees max.
RE: Alignment settings goal review
Given the amount of camber correction that was needed, that was probably as much caster as he could get. I think they've done the best that can be done with the alignment.
Yes, this could be a significant factor in their decision making process. In my case I did the opposite, I went for the most available +caster at the sacrifice of camber. And yes, I seem to be a lone wolf. :)
I did a DIY check of my CAMBER. I took two sets of readings, the first set with the Drivers Side Air Bag needing pressure. The angle from level was about 0.75 degree drivers side low.
Drivers Side CAMBER was +0.56 Degrees
Passeng Side CAMBER was -0.22 Degrees
After I pressured up the drivers side air bag the angle from level was now 0.49 degrees drivers side low.
Drivers Side CAMBER was then +0.45 Degrees
Passeng Side CAMBER was then -0.39 Degrees.
The Ford Spec for CAMBER is 0.0 Degrees +/- 0.5 Degrees.
So, even though I am accepting what ever CAMBER I get with having an extra +2.0 degrees of CASTER I am still within the CAMBER spec.
RE: Alignment settings goal review
Given the amount of camber correction that was needed, that was probably as much caster as he could get. I think they've done the best that can be done with the alignment.
Yes, this could be a significant factor in their decision making process. In my case I did the opposite, I went for the most available +caster at the sacrifice of camber. And yes, I seem to be a lone wolf. :)
RE: Alignment settings goal review
I just purchased my RV, and read and re-read and re-re-read this thread before bringing it in for an alignment. :) Just looking at it I knew it had too much positive camber, and it had worn the outside edge of the right front tire in only 7000 miles from new. (After looking at the "Before" readings this edge wear was likely more from the excessive toeout than the excessive postive camber)
I brought it to a place that does mostly medium trucks, but also a fair amount of cars. I purchased the Ingals 59400 eccentrics and supplied them. I told them exactly what I wanted (at least +5 caster, +0.5 more RH caster, near zero toe, near zero camber).
They installed the Ingalls, and improved the caster, but could not get anywhere near the +5 that I asked for. They said even with these eccentrics in, caster was now maxed out.
Question: Should I look for another alignment shop? If so, does anyone know an alignment shop experienced with this exact situation in the Northeast? NH, VT, MA?
Here are the details:
2007 Gulf Stream 6211 Class C 21' on a 2006 Ford E350 V10
LF Camber was +1.4 now +0.4
RF Camber was +2.3 now +0.3
LF Toe was +0.61 deg (out) now +0.03 deg (out)
RF Toe was +0.63 deg (out) now +0.03 deg (out)
these changes I'm happy with, I would have preferred a little toe-in, but 0.03 degrees is pretty close to zero
LF caster was +1.6 now +2.9
RF caster was +2.3 now +3.7
well, it did improve, and they did get more RF caster, but I was really hoping for a bigger improvement. Do you think that this is all I will be able to get even with the Ingalls bushings? Or do you think the tech just wasn't skilled enough. I know they were attentive and cooperative, and they did understand exactly what I wanted, but enthusiasm without requisite talent doesn't always make the goal line.
The RV seems to drive straight down the road... we are headed on a 6hr trip Thursday (to race at Pocono) so I will be able to see how it behaves then, but it certainly doesn't have a strong "return to center" steering
any help would be greatly appreciated!
At the risk of an attempt to use logic here I think the settings read from the Ingal 594 have been installed upside down. When the cheat sheet says "M over G" if one is not careful it would be easy to interpert this as the Inner Sleeve (upper) be M and the Outer Sleeve (lower) be G. In reality the opposite logic is correct.
RE: Alignment settings goal review
Here are pictures of a 2004 E450 28 Foot with Ingalls 594s set to MAX +CASTER:
Notes about INGALLs 594s:
Inner sleeve thinest is opposite the slot and is a fine tuner compared to outer sleeve.
Outer sleeve thickest is opposite the slot and is a coarse adjustment.
Passenger Side (M over S)
Drivers Side (M over G)
Note that the slot for the outer (coarse) is hidden under the apron of the inner sleeve BUT in both cases is to the REAR of the vehicle (The head of the pinch bolt is at the front of the vehicle in both cases. Also, in the pictures, the front wheels are cranked full front out for ease of access to top of upper ball joint).
RE: Alignment settings goal review
Sorry, this post is meant for lawtonglen:
In my opinion, if your caster is only +2.9 and +3.7 and the Ingall 594s are set to MAX available +caster THEN it does not add up. There has got to be something else involved here, the Ingall 594 setting instructions are NOT easy to understand without a lot of study and concentration, for slow guys like me anyway. :)
Maybe if you could take a picture or two of the top of the upper ball joints and post it here we might be able to add some insight. If and when you do take pictures try and get an angle that will help us see the slot in the bottom sleeve because it will be covered by the apron of the top sleeve.
I really want to help you here because I think there is an explanation but I gotta see the settings of the 594s.
ON EDIT:
On second thought, I am thinking the caster has been adjusted backward in that he has subtracted caster instead of adding caster. It is easy to confuse caster. The upper ball joint must move toward the rear of the vehicle to be getting more +caster. If you think of the caster wheels on a shopping cart you can get the idea you move the upper ball joint forward. NOT SO!!! Please do not give up now. :)
RE: E450 Lube-Oil-Filter Notes
I had the same experience with an F53 Class A with the drive shaft parking brake. If you just loosen the Parking Brake Fill PLUG and see the oil seep then you may not need to go any further, because it must be full. The factory must fill this reservior in a position other then normal installed up and down in order to have it filled above the fill plug.
RE: fresh water back flow
Assuming it is a Shurflo pump, the check valve is inside the pump. The check valve is comprised of a number of rubber flapper valves. Sometimes, sand or grit causes these check valves to leak. Disassemble the pump and inspect for grit before you give up on the pump.
RE: Jackhammering water pump
Our pump does the same thing up until we rid the inlet filter of any air AND that is not as simple as it sounds on our unit. I would not waste the time and effort of replumbing as you plan unless it includes a means of passing the air in the filter through the pump quickly. In order to make that happen the pump would need to mount on a vertical surface (ie rotate 90 degrees) with the inlet filter on the bottom. JMO.
RE: Rocking While Driving
I can see it being a combination of things. The first thing I would do is verify the amount of front end caster on the unit (my experience would suggest a minimum of + 5 degrees). Also, does the unit have rear air bags?
RE: Awning Dead- Anyone know what this is (photo)
Quote: "Power goes in this thing but doesn't go out."
It looks like a small circuit board wrapped in heat shrink. There may be a signal wire input that turns on a transistor or mosfet.
On edit: It looks like there may be 4 wires, black, yellow, red and green. Is that so?
RE: Helpful vendors or scam artists?
We had a similiar experience at Palm Springs. Guy claimed he was following us down the hill etc etc etc....only problem, on that day we came out of Palm Springs to fuel up and were not on the hill. :)
RE: water hose
Filling the water tank at home is one thing BUT a hose at the campsite lying in the hot sun is another aspect of this topic. A dark hose can overheat and burst. And/or a dark hose with hot water can deform the plastic parts in the city water check valve of the RV.
RE: First Time TT Trip. What do I need?
There is a reason why, beyond the sanitation aspects, RVers use a "white hose" for city water. A white hose will not heat up as hot while lying in the summer sun. A dark hose will over heat and likely burst. Also, the city water connector has a check valve that is usually made of plastic parts. These plastic parts can deform from the dark hose hot water and then leak when you are trying to use the water pump without having anything connected to the city water connector.
