AL Bushings

[Bizzy]

Beth - I didn't take anything you said personally in the least. You're the first person to come into this that I don't think has an ulterior motive.

I'm not going to even respond to what Bob has to say, save one thing. As someone Chris has pointed out, any and everytime something is written by Bob about myself or my bushings, there is an attack.

the one thing - I'm moving to a cup style bushing not because of a lack of confidence in the ring design, but becasue I AM SO F***ING SICK of 2-3 ppl making me waste all this time defending a product that has been around for YEARS and does exactly what it is supposed to do. I will continue to use the ring bushings on my cars.

I'm done with responding on anything relating to SFB design or attacks from here forward. Seems that every thread that is about AL SFB's even if I'm only offering advice on install or tq settings (regardless of the design being installed) turns into this big freaking arguement about how dangerous ring style bushings are.

People just have to ask themselves one question. Why is it that 95% of the respected SHO ppl out there have not seen fit to get involved in this?

 

[Bob Gervais]

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.

Back when this discussion actually had some technical merit, I posted sketches and calculated load drawings, then that thread was deleted. Then it took up at Super High Output, and I helped in a technical manner only, I did not bash Bruce at all. Honestly, I could care less about prior dealings, they are water under the bridge.

They are not stupid petty insults, they are facts. Here's a different way of explaining it. If I did not have any technical knowledge about something, I'd either find the information I needed through research, or not tackle the project. I didn't mean any harm by what I said, just pointing out facts, as I have tried to do in the past. Take it as you will.

It's unfortunate that Bruce had improper information to work with, and I am not defaming him, just the bushings in this case. It's a matter of being in the wrong place, with the wrong design, at the right time.

With the amount of bithcing that you guys do over here, it's amazing that anything gets accomplished at all. Everything is taken personally, and you, Chris, will not let threads go on with technical information. So by cleaning my act up, do you mean I should shut my mouth and not tell people about a faulty product? There is no possible chance of that happening. Perhaps you should re-think your duties as a staff member of a public forum. This, and any other forum, exists to help its' members. How can you help them by deleting technical information, and not informing them of a faulty product, especially when this forum was used as one of the ways for this product to be sold?

Whatever the case, the shims (to correct another vendor's faulty design) will be tested, and sold if they work. If they don't work, the idea will be scrapped.

I'm off to "clean up my act" rofl Thanks for that, BTW, I needed a good laugh this morning.

<small>[ March 11, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: AutoSHO ]</small>

 

[Bob Gervais]

People just have to ask themselves one question. Why is it that 95% of the respected SHO ppl out there have not seen fit to get involved in this?

Because some of them already have, off line or off forums. In fact, the engineer for Ford that works on suspension design commented as well. Most knowledgable people are not willing to get involved, so that they don't get dragged into a pissfest like this. I don't blame them. Short of marrying my ex-wife, this may be the single worst thing I've decided to get involved in and attempt to correct. oh

 

[Bob Gervais]

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...

Sorry I missed this one. I don't have pricing as of yet, my machinist wants to verify that the shims will work first. Then, based on the amount of sets needed, he can make a set price. Obviously, the more sets we order, the cheaper the price per set. I've given him a target price of less than $20 a set though, and he's said that should be doable. Proper information will be posted once the prototype set is verified.

 

[AutoSHO]

Bob Gervais:
With the amount of bithcing that you guys do over here, it's amazing that anything gets accomplished at all. Everything is taken personally, and you, Chris, will not let threads go on with technical information. So by cleaning my act up, do you mean I should shut my mouth and not tell people about a faulty product? There is no possible chance of that happening. Perhaps you should re-think your duties as a staff member of a public forum. This, and any other forum, exists to help its' members. How can you help them by deleting technical information, and not informing them of a faulty product, especially when this forum was used as one of the ways for this product to be sold?

Apparently, you missed the class on what the difference between "Technical discussion" and "Member bashing" is.

I'm not quite sure where you get that I don't allow technical discussions... I remove ******** - not technical discussion.

You want to have a technical discussion? Then quit naming people (or one person) every time you post. You can just as easily say "ring bushings" and not "Bruce's..." and it will have the same effect, only you come off looking the wiser.

As for the good of the community, once again, you don't have to put a name on everything in order to get the information across. I'm not saying you always do, but I'll be damned if every time I read an Al. SFB thread up to now you've gone after Bruce at least once.

I'm not here to stand up for Bruce, or anyone else. I don't like Bruce's product at all, I think it is a horrible design and gave reasons why above. I also gave reasons why your shims are a bad idea and will not serve their intended purpose, but apparently thats not technical enough for you. Maybe if I hurled insults at you all around my information it would be more "technical" and you'd take note.

 

[Bob Gervais]

quit naming people (or one person) every time you post. You can just as easily say "ring bushings" and not "Bruce's..." and it will have the same effect, only you come off looking the wiser.

That's not alltogether true. FPS's design of ring bushings works well, because it is engineered correctly and includes a shim, so that a minimal amount of space (less than .020") is left between the bushing top and the unibody mount. If I simply said "ring bushings", I'd be including FPS also, which I don't intend to do. When discussing this particular bushing, I don't see any other way to articulately explain which ones we are speaking of. I don't view this as member bashing, if I was bashing I'd be calling Bruce names, and bringing things into the discussion that are non-related just for the sake of busting balls.

Either way, IMO, the discussion should be an open and shut case. The ring style bushings that leave a large gap when installed suck. Some people will feel comfortable with them, and that's fine. It's their car, after all. Some people won't however, and we as a community need to educate people who may not know why the design sucks, and possibly offer them a solution that would save them the money and PITA of swapping bushings to a safer style. That is my intent, to educate and help those who need it. If toes get stepped on and feelings get hurt, it's unfortunate, but I don't see a way to accomplish this without naming names at some point.

Without defining exactly where the bushings in question came from, how will members know which ones we are speaking of?

So moving on, if you can suggest a way to define the bushings in question, and only those, and not mention any names, I'm all for it.

In fact, I'm willing to do this, if anyone has questions pertaining to this, and doesn't feel comfortable asking or posting about it, call me. The number is 401-954-3694. It's a cell phone, and it's on all the time.

*edit-knew I forgot something*

Chris, you are correct, to an extent. In one post in one thread, I was out of line, and personally attacked Bruce. I apologized, publicly, and moved on. Since that date, I have not bashed him at all, just stated facts.

<small>[ March 11, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Bob Gervais ]</small>

 

[AutoSHO]

I still do not like the ring bushing design because even if FPS only leaves the small (.020") gap, it is still leaving the unibody unsupported across that gap. Chances are its gonna pull the body down against there, reducing the clamp load on the subframe. Thats why I feel the ring bushings are inadequate for use: They leaave the unibody in tension, unsupported, whereas the Cup-style leave it well supported and in compression.

As for the vendor issue - I guess I didn't make that very clear. All I meant was that you didn't need to call Bruce out personally in your posts. I have no problem saying "Bruce's Ring Style SFBs are not a good replacement for the Taurus Subframe bushings." I just meant that the other comments toward him are not technical discussion, and I would appreciate it if they were minimized. Making statements like "maybe you could copy them properly" isn't technical discussion, its just to push his buttons. I don't have any problems with product related feedback or on topic technical discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Bizzy]

To ease the load on this conversation, I say we should limit it to things such as:

1. What the differences are.
2. What is thought to be happening.
3. What could be caused in the future (whether it be next week, next year or 5 years from now)
4. What can be done to fix the issue.

This way no flames are started, or statements taken the wrong way and the topic can be talked about in an adult and mature manner. We fix or solve absolutely nothing when fighting. It is my honest opinion that when safety could be at risk, then it needs to be discussed. That's part of why this board is here. And this goes for any product regardless of who makes it. (ie: subframe connectors, subframe bushings, roll bars, nitrous systems, whatever and etc. etc.)

<small>[ March 11, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Bizzy ]</small>

 

[Bob Gervais]

AutoSHO:
I still do not like the ring bushing design because even if FPS only leaves the small (.020") gap, it is still leaving the unibody unsupported across that gap. Chances are its gonna pull the body down against there, reducing the clamp load on the subframe. Thats why I feel the ring bushings are inadequate for use: They leaave the unibody in tension, unsupported, whereas the Cup-style leave it well supported and in compression.

As for the vendor issue - I guess I didn't make that very clear. All I meant was that you didn't need to call Bruce out personally in your posts. I have no problem saying "Bruce's Ring Style SFBs are not a good replacement for the Taurus Subframe bushings." I just meant that the other comments toward him are not technical discussion, and I would appreciate it if they were minimized. Making statements like "maybe you could copy them properly" isn't technical discussion, its just to push his buttons. I don't have any problems with product related feedback or on topic technical discussion.

Thanks.

Point taken, and I agree with you on styles. I feel much safer with the cup style too.

 

[SHODWN]

Chris, you are right and a few of us are with you.. This was NEVER just against Bruce, it was started because I found something when doing some measureing.. Thats it, some of these babies think of it as a witch hunt, well its not, at somepoint someone will pull the nut out of the deformed bushing. when that happens maybe more will listen.

Bruce, Dont think for 1 minute that any of this is about you.. You give yourself to much credit..Yep I could care less if you fell off the face of the planet, but I can keep my disscussions ON TOPIC and only about the product, if you sold a good product I would tell anyone who asked about it that it was ok.. This one is not, and therfore Ill be in every single post about it wether your in it or not. Our problems will be resolved on a personal level, not on the forum. That I will personall guarentee you.

Also being the bushing specialist that you are, you releize as most other members do the pic of that rusted pic with the SHADOW in it is of a GEN3 bushing and not a GEN2. a Gen 2 has a pedastall with the washer on top and would not allow the nut to be pulled at all.

Now take a tape and measure the size of the hole on the PICt'd one from you(the Gen 3) and measure the hole compared to the 2 +" hole of the ring style.. there is a huge difference..the NUT dont fit in the hole of the Gen 3 bushings, the nut is larger as the pics on SHO.com showed.

Also what is with useing a shim guage with a thumb wheel? the thumb wheel it taller and would not let (your straight edge ) Gauge sit flat.

 

[Chris Benvie]

kirk

<small>[ March 12, 2004, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: AutobahnSHO1130 ]</small>

 

[Bizzy]

Sorry Kirk, but those are not gen 3 bushings. The pictured bushing if from my Green 93, which till I bought it never had the subframe down. I can verify this by the PITA it was to get the car apart. Aslo a nother member of the SHOforum who was nice enough to allow me to use his garage for the work, was right there when the SF came out. So ford must have been putting gen3 bushings in 93 cars stock from the factory I guess. I'll go snap a few pics of the other set of used rear gen 2 bushings I have and then we can compare them yet again. Kirk with all the cars you chop up I'm sure you have to have a set of used Gen3 and gen2 rears laying around perhaps in a subframe, that you could snap a quick picture. I've never even seen a gen3 rear bushing, but I know the one in the pic I used is a gen2.

All we could find at the time to be a straightedge was a feeler gauge. Are you going to try and deny that a feeler gauge side is not straight? Yes if the body was flat the wheel would get in the way, but when there is already a "volcano" type deformation from under the OEM gen2 rear bushings that puts the wheel far enough away from the body of the car that it's not hitting anything. When I work on that car again I'll take pictures of it with a proper straightedge if that will make you happy.

<small>[ March 12, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: netviper ]</small>

 

[Bob Gervais]

A feeler gauge edge is straight, but the gauge is also flexible, making it hard to check flatness with it. Proper tools would be a plus. thumb

 

[Bizzy]

Bob Gervais:
A feeler gauge edge is straight, but the gauge is also flexible, making it hard to check flatness with it. Proper tools would be a plus. thumb

yes the gauge is flexible, but umm using it on the edge it really dosen't lend to flexability.

 

[SHODWN]

like the great Johnny Carson used to do (reading the card again me head).

The feeler gauge
1. to short
2. is not flat because the thumb wheel is larger.
3. is a feeler gague and not a straight edge

The bushings:
1. the one in the pic is not stock
2. Gen 2 stockers had a pedalstal with a washer
3. Verfied by a non witch hunt member before i said anything.
4. difficulty in taking the SF down? its call inexpirence. bolts in the NE can rust solid in months even with the never seize stuff all over it.

You keep grasping at straws here, too bad its a handfull of short straws.

see here that the nut, barely has any support on the ring style. Also you can see the nut on the gen3 style bushing. contact and support. Im not making this stuff up, its only the truth.

<small>[ March 12, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: SHODWN ]</small>

 

[Bob Gervais]

netviper:

Bob Gervais:
A feeler gauge edge is straight, but the gauge is also flexible, making it hard to check flatness with it. Proper tools would be a plus. thumb

yes the gauge is flexible, but umm using it on the edge it really dosen't lend to flexability.

Sure it does. If the blade flexes, the edge is not longer flat. That's why they make straightedges out of material thicker than a few thousandths. Whatever, though, you were working with what you had on hand at the time.

 

[masho95]

SHODWN:
Also what is with useing a shim guage with a thumb wheel? the thumb wheel it taller and would not let (your straight edge ) Gauge sit flat.

The point of the picture was to show that the "volcanic" type deformation of the unibody, and that at the top of the "volcanic" deformation was in no way near level to the rest of the unibody. The thumb wheel wasn't touching anything in the picture, and no the feeler gauge didn't bend or deform in anyway, there was just enough pressure to hold the gauge against the unibody and it didn't flex. The side of the feeler gauge was flat against the "volcanic" deformation and touching nothing else...again it was just to show that part of the unibody not being completely flat with the rest.

 

[Bizzy]

SHODWN:
like the great Johnny Carson used to do (reading the card again me head).

The feeler gauge
1. to short
2. is not flat because the thumb wheel is larger.
3. is a feeler gague and not a straight edge

The bushings:
1. the one in the pic is not stock
2. Gen 2 stockers had a pedalstal with a washer
3. Verfied by a non witch hunt member before i said anything.
4. difficulty in taking the SF down? its call inexpirence. bolts in the NE can rust solid in months even with the never seize stuff all over it.

You keep grasping at straws here, too bad its a handfull of short straws.

see here that the nut, barely has any support on the ring style. Also you can see the nut on the gen3 style bushing. contact and support. Im not making this stuff up, its only the truth.

SO I reiterate make with a picture of a gen2 SFB?

Yes inexperience played into the time it took to get the SF down. So freaking what? What the **** does that prove? It was my first full subframe removal to do the clutch, the car had never been apart, original clutch, original bushings. Sorry if I don't take multiple cars apart on a weekley basis.

Bushings off a 92 stock OEM rear bushings

looks alot like off my stock 93

 

[PaulRuffo]

I really dont want to get in the middle of this debate. I dont know the difference between the gen 1/2 and 3 bushings. I do know that the bushings Bruce posted did come from a 93. Whether or not they had been replaced with gen 3 bushings I dont know. Judging from the shape of the bolts, (which we had to cut), and the bushings which were very beaten up, I would speculate that they were original, but I have no knowledge about the previous history of the car so ???

 

[drivinhard]

Look at those NE rusty cars rofl

If one has a "ring style" bushing and was concerned about any of the above listed "problems", simply install them fliped upside down, mill off the bottom part of the ring flush with the snout, and use the OEM bolt washer. Virtually the same thing as a "cup" set up.