AL Bushings

[Dr. Tweak]

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.

Mark, you're right! That is a very good idea!

 

[Bizzy]

FWIW I know Mark has ring style bushings on his track 89 and I believe on his street cars too. For those of you that have seen his videos, his track car sees forces on the subframe and unibody mounting points that many of our street driven cars will NEVER see.

 

[SHODWN]

Uh Ill find his post but he said that he ran Josh's cup style.. ill find it.

Secondly My 97 has more races than Marks present 89, but WTF does that have to do with any of this?

And if you really want to know a STOCK car in stock trim and stock weight creates much more force where we are talking about. Your not selling these to racers, you are selling them A. because they are cheap. B. to mainly Stock cars..

What Honestly do you know/ You have yet to make a valid point other than there have been no problem YET.. You cant even challange the most basic points in this topic other than bringing others that YOU SAY run them..

The bushing in that pic for the last time is a Gen 3, maybe it was something noew in 94 I dunno bet that bushing was not installed in the other thousands of SHO;s out there.

All I can say is with your style the nut is not supported at all and because of that it has the possibilty of pulling through. You dont have that with a stock bushing wether its a gen 3 or not.

anyone can see with the pics above. if you can not support the nut properly than they are doing nothing for you. This ring style offers the least bit of support for the frame of the Aluminium and second worst only to a stock Gen 1/2 bushing for contact.

 

[Bizzy]

SHODWN:
blah...blah...blah...use ring bushings and you'll die in a firey crash of deformed unibody...blah...blah...blah...

well if it was something new in 94 that wouldn't matter in the least. Cause the pics are bushings from 92 and from a 93, where the heck does 94 play into this?

Kirk you've proved even less with this whole attack on ring bushings, mine or anyone else out there that has made them. You say that they will fail, yet you have no proof that they do, all you have is your speculation that they will. You say that the stock bushing supports the nut properly, then why do OEM bushings sometimes pull the nut thru the body? Why is it that 2 of the last 3 cars I have looked at have deformation there where the OEM bushing was, before any type of bushing AL or otherwise has been reinstalled?

Kirk you and your allegations aren't worth me wasting anymore time on. You know something? You win, have the last word, say whatever you will, try to convince ever SHO owner out there that bought a set of my bushings that they are dangerous. When it comes right down to it if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy at night that you are the savior of the SHO community, then so be it. If you believe it hard enough it must be true.


P.S. Bob - those pics you posted, the first two are only 1/2 of a front OEM SFB. The last pic is the rear SFB mounting point on the unibody. So would you like a half an apple or half an orange. (The pics didn't load for me till tonight)

 

[SHODWN]

wrong again those are stock rear mounts. Glad to see you know what you are replaceing with a worse product.

Good then take the CHEAP PLUG out of your Sig then if you give up..

 

[ncsu brandon]

wow this thread did get hijacked, but tis' fine, i got mine installed along with the new windstar endlinks and steering is awesome now, there is a little bit of increased cabin noise but when you consider my dash already has noises and plastic vibrating it's not that big of a deal, hopefully when i do my dash swap i can get rid of it all....another good experience from SHONUT thumb

 

[Bizzy]

SHODWN:
wrong again those are stock rear mounts. Glad to see you know what you are replaceing with a worse product.

Good then take the CHEAP PLUG out of your Sig then if you give up..

God I had thought I was done with this thread, but when something is so blatently wrong something just has to be said.

Um Kirk you are WRONG... hmm which end of a subframe has 4 nuts holding the bushing in? Those look like 4 studs on the bushing that look an alot like the ones on the front bushings. Really brings into question you're whole attack on ring bushings if you don't know the fronts from the rears.

"Cheap Plug"? How bout a paid for advertisement. Umm that's paid up till July, so sorry bub it will stay right there.

ncsu brandon - i'm sorry you're thread got hijacked, seems like every AL SFB thread gets Hijacked but the persons against ring bushings.

<small>[ March 13, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: AutoSHO ]</small>

 

[NotSoSlowSHO]

Just a quick note:

My '89 had identical bushings on all 4 corners.
Every one of them bolted on with the 4 studs.

Thats right, front and rear. Every one of them.

 

[AutoSHO]

Kirk does not sell subframe bushings.

And its your car, and your choice as to whether you would like to ruin your underbody or not...

 

[revhardSHO]

The bushing in that pic for the last time is a Gen 3, maybe it was something noew in 94 I dunno bet that bushing was not installed in the other thousands of SHO;s out there.

WRONG. I can vouch for Bruce. My 93 (this would be a Gen II) parts car has those same exact bushings, STOCK FROM FORD. Please get your facts strait before posting Kirk, thank you.

Like bruce stated, if torqued correctly you should not have a problem. If you're really paranoid; lather up the top of the bushing/subframe with never-seize compound to prevent rust from forming in there.

 

[Chris Benvie]

I had the ring style in my car, not sure if they were Bruce's or not, I bought them from Eric (SHOTIME) a while ago. I noticed after having them in for a little over 8 months they started chattering. When the 4th tranny was replaced they said it had something to do with the way that the subframe had moved due to the style of the way the bushings sat. So out the ring styles came and the Gen3 bushings went in.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the unsafeness of them.

 

[DHMag]

smithsil:

The bushing in that pic for the last time is a Gen 3, maybe it was something noew in 94 I dunno bet that bushing was not installed in the other thousands of SHO;s out there.

WRONG. I can vouch for Bruce. My 93 (this would be a Gen II) parts car has those same exact bushings, STOCK FROM FORD. Please get your facts strait before posting Kirk, thank you.

Like bruce stated, if torqued correctly you should not have a problem. If you're really paranoid; lather up the top of the bushing/subframe with never-seize compound to prevent rust from forming in there.

or squeeze a tube of silicone in the recess before final install. this prevents water intrusion. proper torquing prevents unibody deformation.

 

[AutoSHO]

I have not seen evidence that the unibody does not deform, even under proper torque... If anybody has some conclusive evidence, I'd like to see it. So far all I've seen are rusty, deformed underbodies.

It is very troubling to me that they take a part on your car made to be held in compression, and instead leave it in tension. That is not a force that area of the body is designed nor capable of holding for a long period of time.

 

[SHODWN]

Well I have not installed a set. All the cars I speak about are from 1 installer.. Mybe he can speak up about his install methods.

The last 94 that I stripped had the same on all four corners. and the NEW stock Bushings that Fred has in stock have the studs and they ar listed for the rear. This is the same car I installed you bushings to look at something I that I was pointed at, thets when I noticed the issue that they were built incorrectly and sold incorrectly.

Plus Bryans are cheaper and much better, help out your SHO buddies and point them in the right direction. You started this to help people out, not so you could live.

Facts? Look who your letting touch your car.. Those are not the bushings that came on your car, someone down the line, what are you the 5th owner? could have put that style in..

 

[Bob Gervais]

netviper:

SHODWN:
wrong again those are stock rear mounts. Glad to see you know what you are replaceing with a worse product.

Good then take the CHEAP PLUG out of your Sig then if you give up..

God I had thought I was done with this thread, but when something is so blatently wrong something just has to be said.

Um Kirk you are WRONG... hmm which end of a subframe has 4 nuts holding the bushing in? Those look like 4 studs on the bushing that look an alot like the ones on the front bushings. Really brings into question you're whole attack on ring bushings if you don't know the fronts from the rears.

"Cheap Plug"? How bout a paid for advertisement. Umm that's paid up till July, so sorry bub it will stay right there.

ncsu brandon - i'm sorry you're thread got hijacked, seems like every AL SFB thread gets Hijacked but the persons against ring bushings.

Well, being qualified to be able to tell front from rear by looking at the car, I can say they are stock Gen 2 rear mounts. I didn't take pics of the fronts, as I was running out of time.

This is not against you Bruce, it's against a faulty design. Take it for what it's worth. As far as hijacking threads, I don't view it that way. I would say the same things about any product that was a worthless piece of crap, in any thread, in any forum. Usually, people with integrity will inform a community that they care about of pending safety issues with a product that was advertised as an upgrade.

So, my point, in short: If there's a post about ring style SFB's that leave a gap, posing a safety issue, yes I will respond with the engineering data that we know to be true.

 

[john l]

how come it this long for a heated disscussion about SFB's. this should have been hashed out when the first non-stock bushings became available. instead of arguing, we should be working together to make the SHO the best v6 on the street. i'm sorry but i don't like the way that people talk to each other on this site and i don't think that community should be so negative when driving a SHO in general is a bad idea.

rarely johnny

 

[Dr. Tweak]

john l:
how come it this long for a heated disscussion about SFB's. this should have been hashed out when the first non-stock bushings became available. instead of arguing, we should be working together to make the SHO the best v6 on the street. i'm sorry but i don't like the way that people talk to each other on this site and i don't think that community should be so negative when driving a SHO in general is a bad idea.

rarely johnny

how true, how true.
****

 

[TimZ]

JDLangevin:

john l:
i'm sorry but i don't like the way that people talk to each other on this site and i don't think that community should be so negative when driving a SHO in general is a bad idea.

rarely johnny

how true, how true.
****

Agreed. This is precisely why I don't post here often.

Quite frankly, I have yet to see one bit of this "Engineering Data" and "Facts that we know to be true" in this or any other thread on this subject. All I've seen so far are some vehemently held opinions backed up by pictures of rusty ~10 year old unibody mounting points with completely unknown histories.

And a bunch of name-calling and nit-picking. You guys can say it's not personal all you want, but your actions speak much louder than your words. The other people reading this thread aren't stupid - it would be nice if you showed us all a little more respect.

Okay - back to this issue of the possibility of the nut pulling through. Didn't we already determine that the gap was only the thickness of the metal at the pass-through opening in the subframe? How thick was that? 0.060"? 0.080"? By definition, the ring-style bushing can only deform the unibody by that amount. The plate part of the plate nut is 0.188" thick. Additionally, one of the pics already posted shows that the plate is in fact supported by the ring-style bushing:

...Okay, so maybe I'm not very smart here - could somebody please explain to me how ~0.080" of deformation on the 0.188" thick hardened steel plate is going to make it fold up like a pretzel and pull through the opening in the ring bushing? Anyone? I'm interested to see the engineering data on this.

I'm also interested in why the deformation noted in the pics so far doesn't appear to be shaped like the plate nut.

The most valid critisizm that I have seen so far is the issue of whether the ring style bushing can deform the unibody far enough that the center section bottoms out, preventing any further increase on the clamping load. The main question to ask here is "Has anybody reported being unable to tighten this style bushing enough to prevent it from moving?" This would have to then be backed up with further investigation as to the root cause of the problem as it occurred on the vehicle in question. Has this been reported? Yes or No?

The most glaring issue that I see right now is the allegation that the deformation has been noted on vehicles that have never had solid bushings installed. If this is true, then there is the possibility that the cup style bushings could be at a significant disadvantage in such cases - this sytle requires the mounting surface to be flat or slightly concave for it to seat properly, whereas the ring style puts the contact area away from the area that is likely to be deformed.

If this is truly not a "Not Invented Here" issue and everybody is truly concerned about the safety of the SHO community, I would expect to see people looking into this issue with just as much concern, as this calls into question some of the basic assumptions as to the superiority of the cup design. So far, it doesn't look like anybody wants to look that deep.

It should not be lost on everyone that the "No failures have occurred YET" argument applies equally to both styles.

<small>[ March 14, 2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: TimZ ]</small>

 

[Bob Gervais]

Quite frankly, I have yet to see one bit of this "Engineering Data" and "Facts that we know to be true" in this or any other thread on this subject. All I've seen so far are some vehemently held opinions backed up by pictures of rusty ~10 year old unibody mounting points with completely unknown histories.

Well, the engineering data is in the form of common sense. In example, the stock bushing is held in compression, and the ring bushing puts the bolt in shear load.

<small>[ March 14, 2004, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Bob Gervais ]</small>

 

[masho95]

drivinhard:
Look at those NE rusty cars rofl

Mark you're just jealous it's not snowing there in GA now.

Anyways if you get this give me an email, [email protected]

I'm not sure if you changed your email when you moved.