GM A body rear bump steer with raised control arm pivot points?

[HemiJoel]

Hi, I have a 1967 Olds 442 with a Moser 9-in rear end that has the brackets for the upper control arm bushings raised up higher than the stock geometry. Just like guys have been doing for 50 years on the 10 bolts and 12 bolts with the no-hop bars. The car has very noticeable bump steer in the rear. It has the original control arms with new, high durometer bushings and the original rear sway bar. I have visually inspected everything, nothing looks bent, broken, cracked, or loose.
Is bump steer inherent to this geometry change? Has anyone else experienced this?
If that's just the way it is, I can live with it. But if it's not right, I want to figure out why.
Thanks, Joel

[RCJ]

We always called that roll steer. As you put more angle in the links it causes more steer. That's why z links ,4 links etc... are popular you can get some anti squat with out a lot of roll steer. One thing you can do is check the toe on the rear-end housing ,set each side at 1/16 inch in.

[Rick!]

We always called that roll steer. As you put more angle in the links it causes more steer. That's why z links ,4 links etc... are popular you can get some anti squat with out a lot of roll steer. One thing you can do is check the toe on the rear-end housing ,set each side at 1/16 inch in.

A guy might want to put the car on an alignment rack and see if the thrust angle is pointing true north. It’s hard to envision true bump steer (toe change that physically turns the wheel) on a stock gm pseudo 4 link. I certainly can see excessive camber change, causing a pull to the highest positive side.
Maybe take the springs out and check if all the pivots play well together when jacking up the middle or either side of the axle housing.

[HemiJoel]

Thanks for the replys. Sorry for the slow response, I've been off on a road trip for the big Iola swap meet.
I'll check the rear toe, and check the movement with the springs out and see what it looks like.

[pitts64]

Try Pro Touring..