Bearing carrier adaptation

["Dave & Tracy" <dave-tracy.sherratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul,
when I took out the carrier  & peeled back the rubber , The surface of the
metal that it was bonded too was very rusty. The Angle of the prop shaft was
set when I replaced the rear Tranny mount & rebuilt the Tranny 5 years ago.
The carrier that failed was the rebuilt one.
Regards
Dave.
----- Original Message -----
From: <RandalPark@xxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: IML: Bearing carrier adaptation


> Dave, that part should not be failing so often in your car. You should
verify that there isn't another problem. Some examples to look for would be
incorrect driveline angle, or broken or incorrect rear axle housing support
struts.
>
> Jack rabbit starts don't help either, but I am sure that you never do that
with your LeBaron, right? <wink>
>
> Paul
>
> In a message dated 3/31/2004 10:14:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Dave &
Tracy" <dave-tracy.sherratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >First of all I must thank Ernie for the centre bearing carrier Idea. I am
in the process of retro fitting one to my Le Baron, which is not an X frame
car. The only difference is how the carrier will bolt down. ( a simple
modification of the bracket is all that's needed ) I.M.H.O The S10 carrier
is a better long term
> >repair as it is a mechanical assembly rather than a chemical bond to the
metal & rubber . As we all know it is the bonding on the originals that
gives way, this will be the 3rd time that in the last 9 years I have had to
repair / replace the carrier. The previous two original carriers were a nos
& a remanufactured one ! all had the bond between the metal & rubber fail.
> >
> >Regards
> >Dave
> >with out the clunk clunk !
> >
>
>