...because those cars needed the adjustability just to go in a straight line?
No, because Chrysler built them CORRECTLY. Nowadays, some settings like the caster are not adjustable. They depend on the strut tower being in the right place, and if the car ever gets body damage in an accident, the thing has to be fixed exactly right, or the caster will be off and the car will always tend to pull towards the side with more caster in it.
This kind of building is passed off as "ease" and "convenience" for the alignment techs having to work with only two adjustments (camber and toe) instead of 3, but really, it is just a half-assed take-the-easy-way-out design job.
And toe is always the last angle to be set, because if you set it first, then make changes to camber or even caster, it'll pull or push the toe and make it wrong.
An example of this is when these jackass boy racers slam their Honda Civics and similar cars to the ground and put those big stupid looking wheels on them and have them angled a lot (usually an extreme amount of negative camber) to just barely fit in the fenders. They have to use aftermarket caster/camber plates to alter the top strut mount location to get the alignment moved, and even then it is far off of where it should be.
When I lived in Los Angeles, I saw a lot of those idiots out there do the same thing, but with putting little tiny wheels and tires on a full size Cadillac or similar car. Morons. And I am sure they did not properly recalibrate their speedometer for the smaller tire size either.
