|
Rare Parts does not have any in stock I already talked with them. He also said they he expected about .005 interference which would be about right with my bore measurements. From: Henry Schleimer <henry.schleimer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Found this site in 3 minutes googling. It claims the bush is 1.508 inch. Don’t modify the control arm or the pivot pin. Just get the right parts. Henry From: 'James Douglas' via Chrysler 300 Club International [mailto:chrysler-300-club-international@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
I am aware that the torque on the bolt is SUPPOSED to keep the inner from moving. But that assumes that the bolt fits the hole. With the flat across the entire bolt, the bolt can move in the direction of the flat and the two ends, the bolt
head and the nut will have to hold against that movement. The factory design had the bolt just a little smaller than the inner sleeve ID. With the flat it has a lot more. IF the bolt sleeve interface wants to move, if the ends cannot not hold it against the stress, the unit moves very little with
the factory design. With the replacement part, it can move much more. A degree or more of movement can toss off the alignment. What I may do, if I need to use the replacements is to mill a part that would take away the long flat. It just needs a tack weld then ground off to keep it on as once in place it cannot go anyplace. On the control arm bushing, I have sent an email to Rock Auto and to Delphi asking for a measurement of their part number TD4833W. If anyone has a 1960 t0 1964 NOS (MOPAR) or an old pre-1990 MOOG bushing on the bench and could give me a three decimal point OD, that will help establish what the interference fit is supposed to be. James From: John Grady <jkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
James more on this later ,( part of something quite important) but it makes no difference that that flat goes all the way across ; you have to understand how that works . The bolt is not a moving pivot ,— i relearned by recent experience that the pivot action is within the rubber ,,and important to the suspension action in many ways , specifically keeping the normal upper ball joint clearances in close
contact in all vertical motions , like upward, especially as normal wear happens . The rather high torque spec on our control arm bolts is to bend the frame ends inward so that the inner cylinder of the bushing is clamped or frozen to the frame . Also why
don’t tighten to full torque unless loaded with car weight to center that rubber spring action . Given that, the shape of the bolt core is immaterial . However I think there is a design error of sorts there , as the spec torque is too close to max allowed of a bolt of that size having 360 degree threads . As a result the bolt is often stripped . NEVER leave it “ good enough “ as then the
inner sleeve will rotate on the bolt and start to saw through it . Got that? I suggest finding a tall profile nut , or we have in a pinch used an acorn nut to gain a long thread and so securely reach the axial clamp load on the inner sleeve, caused by the high torque ; a thick washer there might help move the
nut out to new threads using old parts too . Why are you changing the bolt? Anyway heads up . More later , on this re: upper ball joint . Sent from my iPhone
--
For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chrysler 300 Club International" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chrysler-300-club-international+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chrysler-300-club-international/CY5PR19MB61715DDB604EF94D75B4D21293CBA%40CY5PR19MB6171.namprd19.prod.outlook.com. |
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap