AL Bushings

[NotSoSlowSHO]

I have been following all of these SFB threads very closely, and agree that the ring style does present an issue of pulling the mount through the unibody if over torqued. This is related to the size of the gap, and the size of the mount (recall hardware).

That is the only issue I see even worth bothering with. So, instead of modifying, or swapping SFBs, I modified the mounts to better suit the SFBs.

I will provide pics later, whenever I have the time to pull the carpet and pad back to take some decent pics, but I drew up a crude diagram in PAINT to illustrate:

Recall hardware in purple.
Hardened washer in green.
SFBs in grey.

The washers are the exact same diameter of the SFBs. I spot welded the recall hardware to the washers. Also, in order for the new 'mount' to fit properly (clearance issues), one side of the washer must be cut/ground flat.

 

[Dr. Tweak]

Hey, that's great idea. What about just putting the heavy duty washer between the top of the ring bushing and the unibody? Wouldn't this be similar (not as good I know) to the cup style SFBs?

I think I even have some of the Ford recall washers laying around my garage... ****

<small>[ March 09, 2004, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: JDLangevin ]</small>

 

[COliveira95]

JDLangevin:
Hey, that's great idea. What about just putting the heavy duty washer between the top of the ring bushing and the unibody? Wouldn't this be similar (not as good I know) to the cup style SFBs?

I think I even have some of the Ford recall washers laying around my garage... ****

I believe that would not be a good idea either. For one, doing this will lower the subframe a bit (rasing the front of your car slightly) and IMHO it's not safe. That may help to not allow the nut come through but you still have a ring style bushing there which to me just doesn't make enough contact with anything.

 

[91taurisho]

I was thinking you could find a washer that fits inside the ring and sits closer to the subframe... That would minimize, if not remove, all possibilty of deformations of the unibody. I know we could find some steel washers a little smaller than the ID of the ring but still be able to fit over the bolt...

Scott

 

[Mr Anonymous]

91taurisho:
I was thinking you could find a washer that fits inside the ring and sits closer to the subframe... That would minimize, if not remove, all possibilty of deformations of the unibody. I know we could find some steel washers a little smaller than the ID of the ring but still be able to fit over the bolt...

Scott

Bob Gervais is working on a shim to fill the gap in the ring style bushings as we speak. Last we spoke about it a few days ago, he thought he was going to be able to start offering them (at cost, no profit whatsoever) within a couple of weeks.

Please don't email him asking about them until he posts that they have been made and are available!

 

[DHMag]

i have no way of hosting pics/drawings so try and follow me.

just for example, im going to make up some measurements for this explanation.

on the ring style bushing: bottom half is 3" tall. ring section is 1.5" tall. when mated OFF the car, they fit flush with each other.

how about this...

bottom half is 3.0" tall, remachine the top half from 1.5" down to 1.15". given the subframe is .3125" in thickness. when bottom half of SFB is installed and ring is installed on the subframe, you are left with .0375 clearance between the unibody and bottom half of the SFB. this minimizes unibody deformation and doesnt change the ride height of the subframe.

i mentioned this earlier in the thread but immediately got knocked down. if you want to get technical about raising/lowering the subframe, if anything, the ring style SFB lowers the subframe/raises the body.

if i recall, the factory SFB top portion is only about an inch in height when installed. i know for a fact that the ring style upper half is taller than stock, while the lower half maintains stock specifications.

 

[SHODWN]

Dale your right about the subframe being lowered and the body being raised up a touch.

Only other thing is the the subframe has two different thicknesses. The rear of the subframe is constructed with two peices one on top of one another for support. The front is thinner.

I dont why you or anyone would "have" to have them fixed, if thier is a problem and its beggining to look that way, Bruce needs to solve this on his own and atleast if nothing else contact the users about it that are in the Salt belt.

If you are going to fix the problem (anyone) with washers or machineing the bushings you also need to pound your unibody back into shape, the fix with washers of a correct fit will still be sitting on the section that has been pulled down making little contact.

 

[DHMag]

Kirk, i have no problems with mine, the ring style. im just trying to help find a viable solution for all this hooplah. i know what its like to live in the rust belt. born and raised in Indianapolis for 23 years, been digging my grave in Texas for 5 years now.

you bring up a good point though. if one has a problem with something, fix it, dont bitch about it. IMHO, the stretched unibody pic is bolt torque related. i wouldnt necessarily put Bruce at fault for this though.

again, ill stand my ground, my ring style SFBs are great.

 

[AutoSHO]

Shortening the upper bushing, or putting a shim in, is a very BAD idea. Yes, it will minimize the amount the unibody can deflect, but as soon as the unibody deflects far enough to go solid with the lower half of the bushing (or the shim) you are removing the clamp load on the subframe. As soon as you do that it will start moving around, and no amount of overtorquing will fix it. If you machine the bushings, when the body deforms this far the bushings will have to be remachined to be able to use them again, until the body deforms further and you repeat the process. If you use a shim, you can take it out and let the body deform more.

I don't have a problem with anybody who sells the ring bushings, I just think they are a terrible design, plain and simple. I very sincerely doubt there was any engineer involved. They allow an area of the underbody that should be in compression, and supported, to be left in a high load tension situation with absolutely no support. That is a very bad idea in my book.

 

[Bizzy]

NotSoSlowSHO:
I have been following all of these SFB threads very closely, and agree that the ring style does present an issue of pulling the mount through the unibody if over torqued. This is related to the size of the gap, and the size of the mount (recall hardware).

That is the only issue I see even worth bothering with. So, instead of modifying, or swapping SFBs, I modified the mounts to better suit the SFBs.

I will provide pics later, whenever I have the time to pull the carpet and pad back to take some decent pics, but I drew up a crude diagram in PAINT to illustrate:

Recall hardware in purple.
Hardened washer in green.
SFBs in grey.

The washers are the exact same diameter of the SFBs. I spot welded the recall hardware to the washers. Also, in order for the new 'mount' to fit properly (clearance issues), one side of the washer must be cut/ground flat.

I've actually talked to my machine shop about making a piece of steel milled out to fit over the mounting tabs in the rear of the SF in the frame rail, so that the nut could sit on top of it. I've seen many a car with the tabs sheared off and even from stock OEM bushings the body is pulled down.

See Kirk likes to portray the facts as see from his view. Yes Midwest SHO pulled my bushings off his site not because of a saftey issue, but because of the whole argument about them, and he still doesn't offer any AL SFB's anymore. He pulled them to be objective in the discussions. He also sent them to be tested to see if there was a saftey risk. From what I've been told nothing was found that requires any action. The potenial for the body to deform is there, I have never denied that, but if the proper install specs are followed then the chances of it happening are minimal. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I have seen 3 cases already where the OEM bushings in the rear have caused the type of pictures Kirk is providing, Kevin Hanks, Erik Balser, and Mark (i didn't catch your last name) all saw this on Kevin's 92. The OEM bushing has no support under the nut for 1.3in, which is where the body deforms to fit the bushing. Also the steel ring of the OEM bushings can push up the body leaving a gap under a "cup" style bushing. I have access to a set of cup style bushings and will be looking at the potential there for a space to be trapped between the bushing top and the body with a cup bushing. This would only be a concern to rust belt cars too, cause moisture and salt can get in there and could cause acclerated rusting over a wider area. Makeing the problem just bad if not worse than with ring bushings. Hmm a 3in round section of body rotting and breaking apart vs a settion of body being pulled down like the OEM bushings do. I have also found who sent me the plans for the bushings, I'm not going to name names cause I don't want to get anyone ****** at him, but it is someone that knows FPS very well, lives near there, and he may have even been involved with the design of them way back when.

I've already made changes to my ring style to change them over to a cup style bushing, it ain't rocket science. I'm doing this because of one thing, well two actually. First I'm sick of all the negative remarks comming from one little section of Mass. Second Cause I want Kirk to have to find something else that he can crusade against. Can't wait till I do motor mounts or UDPs. I haven't made a batch up yet cause of financial reasons right now, and I'll be keeping the ring ones that I have on my cars there cause I have never been concerned about them in the least. Oh yeah and I live in the rust belt, and I still stand behind the design as working as intended, with no failures. Oh btw Kirk likes to point out the word "YET", there are plenty of people out there with ring style bushing, without any type of shim in there, and have never had a problem or a concern. One has to wonder why so many other well respected "been around the SHO for a long time" SHO people have not even bothered to get involved in this. I'm not gonna get into a whole big ******* match over all this again, frankly wasting hours posting about this will go nowhere. Cause in the end ther is one person that always no matter what no matter where on in the SHO community HAS TO BE RIGHT. shrug

<small>[ March 09, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: netviper ]</small>

 

[SHODWN]

Your right its not worth it. Why?

Because your looking to make a support for the unibody and your now making the CUP style. I see that you saw your own errors and switched to the better and much safer style.

I know one thing, If I made a product and sold tons and acted like im behind what I did 100%, I would stick to my guns, evidently this is not the case.

Quoted directly as he has deleted his own posts before:

"I've actually talked to my machine shop about making a piece of steel milled out to fit over the mounting tabs in the rear of the SF in the frame rail"

AND

"I've already made changes to my ring style to change them over to a cup style bushing, it ain't rocket science. "


Anyway, Dale how was your unibody when installed? Lets check it out when Im down, Murphy and a few others are coming over on Sunday and we could drop part of your subframe, just for curiosity, Id like to see if there is a difference from a SB car to southern car. Plus Id like to talk to you about a few other things.

 

[AutoSHO]

This post is going to stay fact based, not turn into another ******* match. I will edit or delete posts without any concern for feelings. This can be a technical discussion or it can be deleted.

 

[Bob Gervais]

Mr. Anonymus is correct, I have received the prototype set of shims for the ring stle bushings. I'll be installing them on the only set of these I have installed, and it was on a customer's car. The car is tentatively set to come in next Friday, so I should have results, along with photos and instructions then. In the event that the shims will not work, or it doesn't look to be a safe alternative, I'll have a set of cup style on hand to replace the ring style.

As stated also, I don't intend to make a profit on these, just looking to help out. They will be sold for whatever the shop charges me, plus shipping.

I also don't see the need for a ******* contest. The design of the ring style is inferior, and it was proven by more than just a few people. The sky isn't falling on this one, however I wouldn't be taking chances.

*edited-spelling*

<small>[ March 10, 2004, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Bob Gervais ]</small>

 

[91taurisho]

I finally had a good idea and you get to it first Bob! squint I would like to know a price for a set of those though...

 

[DHMag]

SHODWN:
Your right its not worth it. Why?
Anyway, Dale how was your unibody when installed? Lets check it out when Im down, Murphy and a few others are coming over on Sunday and we could drop part of your subframe, just for curiosity, Id like to see if there is a difference from a SB car to southern car. Plus Id like to talk to you about a few other things.

Kirk, ill be coming down but riding with Murph and Don. id love to bring my car down for an example but frankly, im flatass broke. ill talk to the guys and see if they wanna take my car or not.

to answer you, my unibody was in perfect shape when i installed the Al SFBs. never had any trouble with the bolts being seized or whatnot. again, lemme check with the guys and see if they wouldnt mind taking my car. (that means i gotta get all my tools and spare parts out).

 

[Bizzy]

I will be completely biased here as I am nobody to say one is right and the other is wrong. This post serves as my observation input and to express my concerns.

These pictures are taken from the bottom of a 1990 SHO. This car is currently still being worked on. It had the subframe re-attached with the ring style bushings, the mechanic doing the work noted no deformation prior to installation. Due to the transmission needing to be removed, the subframe bushings were removed along with the subframe. These pictures were taken just after the subframe was dropped. This car has seen no miles with the bushings installed.

Bruce, with all due respect, my concerns are with the future and possible issues is a great one. It took Ford how many years to "discover" the issue with the plate nut and they devised a plan of action to correct the issue. But how many cars got crunched to make that discovery? I personally have been on the receiving end of what happens during subframe nut failure and damn near had a head on collision because I couldn't straighten the wheel up. When the subframe in the rear drops, in particular if you're in a turn, it is very hard to straighten the wheels back up. I thought that I'd broken a tie rod in fact when it happened and I could have been hurt or killed when it happened as I was crossing a busy 4 lane intersection and the bolt pulled through in the middle of the turn. So my issue is not in who is right or who is wrong here, do not mistake this post for that. My concern is completely with the safety of the driver and/or passengers in the car IF failure were to occur. Nothing more, nothing less. It could be catestrophic if they fail and pull through.

Picture one shows where the rear subframe bushing goes through the unibody and into the plate nut, the underside of that is clearly visible.

High resolution image can be seen here

The front subframe bushing pictures here.

High resolution image can be seen here

Like I said, I'm in no position to say who's are good and who's are not. I am in a position to voice my concerns.

<small>[ March 10, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Bizzy ]</small>

 

[Bizzy]

for the record I have had my own subframe drop on my 95 SLO. Well just one corner which happened before I was notified of any recall back in 2000. It was definately interesting, but nothing that I would call life threatening. the car pulled hard to one side, but with in 1 second both hands are on the wheel to compensate. I liken it to having a tire blowout at a decent speed, which I to have also experienced.

the slight deformation I see there I have seen on 3 cars with stock bushings. Those pics you have there don't show the massive deformation that pictures that Kirk has protrayed in the past. Now look at the shiney circle shaped section I've drawn arrows to in you pics. You say the car hasn't been driven with AL SFB's on it, then by that one can only say that the shiney spots are from the OEM bushings that were on the car. Cause the AL bushings wouldn't create a spot like that if the car wasn't being driven around.

I wish there was some way to measure that shiney spot, cause I'll bet money that it nearly matches up with something like this.

See a familiar ring there? Anything towards the inside of the shiney spot on the car or on the OEM bushing is 100% unsupported. you can't support metal if there is no metal there to support. Look at an OEM bushing and how it slopes into a conical shape. One would almost infer from looking at it that Ford might have indended for some deformation to occur to cup the OEM bushing. Though I can't even begin to understand the how's or why's.

No look at this, a car that had OEM bushing pulled off at ~8*k miles and a set of my AL SFB's were installed. This car was stock to that point, and look at the "deformation" that is already there. Putting a set of cup bushings in there would have left the only area making contact with the body of the car being the top nut of the SFB bolts. I doubt that the nut was designed to do all the work.

I can admit to that the possibility for the body to deform is there, but if installed properly, then the risks are no greater than the OEM design.

I'm sick of wasting time on this subject. Last time I checked, a certain SC SHO out there in the New England area had ring bushings on it, and a whole bunch of people have told me that they aren't concerned in the least about the claims of one small group of ppl about the supposed safety issues.

Again I'll reiterate, since my previous post was deleted, and for those that didn't get to see my response to Krik's remarks.

"Quoted directly as he has deleted his own posts before:" --- I have deleted 1 thread and one thread only on this matter, because some individuals decided to Hijack the thread about ceramic coating exhaust manifolds and turned it into a "bash bruce's ring style bushings". Deny it if you'd like but I got a copy of the thread.

"I've actually talked to my machine shop about making a piece of steel milled out to fit over the mounting tabs in the rear of the SF in the frame rail" ----- yes I have spoken to them about this, but it was not because I believed that MY ring design was faulty, but I saw the inhierent issues with the way Ford attaches the subframe to the car. How many people out there have mangled thier mounting tabs in the frame rail. What I was proposing was a large flat washer to fix that as well as provide more of a way for the tabbed nut on top to further spread it's forces agains more of the unibody. Which NO bushing does now, cup, ring, or OEM.

"I've already made changes to my ring style to change them over to a cup style bushing, it ain't rocket science." ------ I have made design changes for one simple reason. I'm sick of wasting time on this matter. Because certain individuals think that cup busings are soo much better, I'll make cup bushings just so that they have to find some other thing to attack in life.


"Because your looking to make a support for the unibody and your now making the CUP style. I see that you saw your own errors and switched to the better and much safer style.

I know one thing, If I made a product and sold tons and acted like im behind what I did 100%, I would stick to my guns, evidently this is not the case." ---- I am leaving my ring style bushings on my personal vehicles, becasue I have NO concerns that they aren't safe. I've got 25k on the AL bushings that are in my Opal Frost and I'm not concerned in the least. Mark Nunnally replied in an email he sent to me when I asked him about concerns of ring bushings (which he uses BTW) and said that the way the SF is held on is the last thing he was concerned about, people should be more concerned with rear control arm ears on the hub unit.

PS. I'd like to thank all the persons that have spoken up either publicly or via PM/emails. It's funny how many of you have been dead on right about certain aspects of this whole debate and how it's been carried out.

<small>[ March 10, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: netviper ]</small>

 

[Bizzy]

There is nothing in my post for you to take personally Bruce. I merely stated my concerns with what I feel could be an issue and the one case that I have seen with my own two eyes and took pics of with my own camera moments after the subframe was dropped.

I do not know the history of the car that they came out of, nor do I know if they had stock or other bushings on there before. I'm not speculating on that, nor am I speculating if one is better than the other. The only thing I'm doing is telling what I saw for myself. I, otherwise, have in the past and will continue to stay quietly out of this topic.

<small>[ March 10, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Bizzy ]</small>

 

[Bob Gervais]

Here are pictures of a 92 SHO, bone stock, 157k miles. There was no deformationof the unibody at all. The pictures were taken before I cleaned up the mounting surfaces, so everything is untouched.

Also included are pictures of the stock mount and nut. Since the nut's main force area is concentrated over the bushing, it's impossible for it to deform the sheetmetal of the unibody.

Reading through past posts, and given how long this issue has gone on, I'm surprised that you are still sticking to yor guns Bruce, sort of. The fact that you've changed bushing designs tells me that you are not confident in the ring style though. If I were you, I would admit that to my customers, and offer some sort of fix.

I know on the 95 I'm doing, the owner will not pay to have the bushings replaced, and it is the prototype car for the shims I'm making, so I will not be charging him labor. What about other people though, who have to pound the unibody back into shape? Are they to pay their mechanics to do it? Suppose there is a failure? What then?

Honestly, I'm sick of hearing all the BS about there being nothing wrong with the design. It's been proven, no matter how much it was thought to be a witch hunt, engineering data doesn't lie.

I just hope that you copied the cup style correctly, as opposed to the ring style.

Perhaps, since so many vendors sell the bushings, it's time to move on to another product. Given the lack of engineering and technical knowledge you have, it would be a good idea.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing a trend here. First the GM strut bars, now SFB's. Perhaps SHO parts in general are not a good idea.

 

[AutoSHO]

Bob Gervais:
I just hope that you copied the cup style correctly, as opposed to the ring style.

Perhaps, since so many vendors sell the bushings, it's time to move on to another product. Given the lack of engineering and technical knowledge you have, it would be a good idea.

There is nothing Bruce could have done to "Copy" the ring style correctly. The ring design sucks, period. There is nothing you can do to make it a good design. No matter how you build it, they leave that section of the unibody unsupported.

Every time I've read a post from you about aluminum subframe bushings, you've always had something defaming Bruce. I'm 100% done with it, and any more posts you make to that effect I will edit or remove. We understand you don't like each other, but keep your feeling off the forum. Myself nor anyone else on this board cares one bit what you two think of each other, and as such nobody wants to read your stupid petty insults. Clean up your act.

<small>[ March 10, 2004, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: AutoSHO ]</small>