which body bushings should I get?

[Alerch]

Thanks for that tip on the longer bolts. I bought my car from down south so i have my fingers crossed that the bolts come out. Unlike my monte carlo that broke every bolt execpt the core support ones.

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

Jesus, so you had a little frame rot on your car, let it go...

If they're so bad, why did my 30 year old bushings have ZERO rot under or above them?
It's all about what the vehicle was exposed to during it's life. The mounts have nothing to do with it.

I used Energy kit 3-4141 like Jack recommended when I redid my wagon a few weeks ago...

The construction of the mounts are indeed a factor as well as environmental conditions they are exposed to and the grade of rust proofing coatings used. I am glad your car didn't have rot, but most G bodies do have frame mount rot and the poor construction of the stock mounts is a contributing factor to this. One that can be corrected by selecting mounts with better construction. To dismiss the design and construction of any car component as a nonfactor is the most asinine thing I have read. Just sounds like you are mad about choosing the wrong mounts and lashing out about it.

 

[mhsmonte]

I used the energy kit as well, nice kit just don't forget to get new bolts as well. Start spraying them now with WD40 to help your chances of them coming out

What size and grade bolts should be used on body mount bushings?

Position 1 uses GM P/N 10049638 (sold ea., 2 needed). Bolt is 12 X 1.75 X 95mm long.
95mm is not common so you have to use 100mm.

Position 3 uses GM P/N 14085301 (sold by pkgs. of 5, 2 needed). Bolt is 10 X 1.5 X 55mm long. Also need two nuts.

Position 2, 4, 6, 7 uses GM P/N 3524497 (sold by pkgs. of 5, 8 needed). Bolts are 10 X 1.5 X 80mm long.

If you buy from a hardware store get 10.8 grade bolts. similar to grade 8

Thanks for that info!!!

 

[pontiacgp]

Jesus, so you had a little frame rot on your car, let it go...

If they're so bad, why did my 30 year old bushings have ZERO rot under or above them?
It's all about what the vehicle was exposed to during it's life. The mounts have nothing to do with it.

I used Energy kit 3-4141 like Jack recommended when I redid my wagon a few weeks ago...

The construction of the mounts are indeed a factor as well as environmental conditions they are exposed to and the grade of rust proofing coatings used. I am glad your car didn't have rot, but most G bodies do have frame mount rot and the poor construction of the stock mounts is a contributing factor to this. One that can be corrected by selecting mounts with better construction. To dismiss the design and construction of any car component as a nonfactor is the most asinine thing I have read. Just sounds like you are mad about choosing the wrong mounts and lashing out about it.

these cars were not designed to last 10, 20 or 30 years so it's ignorant to say the bushings were poorly designed. The manuals tell you what to check on the car and when to change certain lubricants but never mention body bushings. The reason for that is the body bushings and frame were expected to last the life expectancy of the car and they did. Blake isn't upset about his decision to use Energy but you sure are pissed he did. I can't understand that, maybe you had a bad day.

 

[jiho]

Position 1 uses GM P/N 10049638 (sold ea., 2 needed). Bolt is 12 X 1.75 X 95mm long.
95mm is not common so you have to use 100mm.

Position 3 uses GM P/N 14085301 (sold by pkgs. of 5, 2 needed). Bolt is 10 X 1.5 X 55mm long. Also need two nuts.

Position 2, 4, 6, 7 uses GM P/N 3524497 (sold by pkgs. of 5, 8 needed). Bolts are 10 X 1.5 X 80mm long.

If you buy from a hardware store get 10.8 grade bolts. similar to grade 8

Class 10.9 Metric is equivalent to Grade 8 SAE. But if you use it you'll be stretching things with M10 bolts to apply 52 lb-ft of torque, as the factory manuals specify. 42 lb-ft would be more like it. For 52 lb-ft you really want Class 12.9, which is what my car had from the factory. But good luck finding 12.9 bolts; they exist, but only at the wholesale level that I could find (boxes of a few hundred).

Also, the two nuts are for Position 1, not Position 3. And while Position 1 is sometimes stated to be M12x1.75, M10x1.50 is stated elsewhere and makes more sense. Much lower torque is specified, Class 9.8 will do. My car had Class 9.8 M10x1.50x95 from the factory (with M10x1.50 nuts).

EDIT: And BTW, I called a dealer. They stopped selling those GM part numbers some time ago.

 

[ssbrewskyaz]

Wow, glad I missed all that. I only have guys telling me my motor combination won't work and my sound deadening choice is incorrect. ...

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

 

[pontiacgp]

Position 1 uses GM P/N 10049638 (sold ea., 2 needed). Bolt is 12 X 1.75 X 95mm long.
95mm is not common so you have to use 100mm.

Position 3 uses GM P/N 14085301 (sold by pkgs. of 5, 2 needed). Bolt is 10 X 1.5 X 55mm long. Also need two nuts.

Position 2, 4, 6, 7 uses GM P/N 3524497 (sold by pkgs. of 5, 8 needed). Bolts are 10 X 1.5 X 80mm long.

If you buy from a hardware store get 10.8 grade bolts. similar to grade 8

Class 10.9 Metric is equivalent to Grade 8 SAE. But if you use it you'll be stretching things with M10 bolts to apply 52 lb-ft of torque, as the factory manuals specify. 42 lb-ft would be more like it. For 52 lb-ft you really want Class 12.9, which is what my car had from the factory. But good luck finding 12.9 bolts; they exist, but only at the wholesale level that I could find (boxes of a few hundred).

Also, the two nuts are for Position 1, not Position 3. And while Position 1 is sometimes stated to be M12x1.75, M10x1.50 is stated elsewhere and makes more sense. Much lower torque is specified, Class 9.8 will do. My car had Class 9.8 M10x1.50x95 from the factory (with M10x1.50 nuts).

EDIT: And BTW, I called a dealer. They stopped selling those GM part numbers some time ago.

There are some retailers who still have the bolts. I copied that info and I'm not sure the positions the numbers are referencing but as the job is getting done it's obvious where the bolts go. As far as the torque goes the 10.9 10x1.5 can be torqued to the 52 lbs. I am not sure where you got your info from.

http://www.spirolcanada.com/library/sub ... ons_us.pdf

 

[jiho]

As far as the torque goes the 10.9 10x1.5 can be torqued to the 52 lbs. I am not sure where you got your info from.

http://www.spirolcanada.com/library/sub ... ons_us.pdf

In the PDF you link to, in the Notes at the bottom it says: "Torque for metric threads are Nm." So that's 54.2 Nm, not 54.2 lb-ft. 54.2 Nm is about 40 lb-ft.

Similar values are given in numerous other references I have seen.

The values GM gave for torque were generally for lubed threads. And people recommend putting anti-seize on the threads of these bolts, and anti-seize is definitely a lube. So the lubed figure is the one you need to abide by.

Anyway, if the bolts are plated, like with zinc or cadmium, that alone qualifies as a "lube." Only bare steel with no oil on it qualifies as "dry." The dry figure in your PDF is 72.2 Nm, which is about 53 lb-ft, so if you insist on 52 lb-ft with a 10.9 bolt, you'd need to use bare unplated steel with no lube of any kind. But you'd still be getting the same clamping force as a lubed bolt at 40 lb-ft, so there's no point in doing that.

 

[Blake442]

Jesus, so you had a little frame rot on your car, let it go...
If they're so bad, why did my 30 year old bushings have ZERO rot under or above them?
It's all about what the vehicle was exposed to during it's life. The mounts have nothing to do with it.
I used Energy kit 3-4141 like Jack recommended when I redid my wagon a few weeks ago...

The construction of the mounts are indeed a factor as well as environmental conditions they are exposed to and the grade of rust proofing coatings used. I am glad your car didn't have rot, but most G bodies do have frame mount rot and the poor construction of the stock mounts is a contributing factor to this. One that can be corrected by selecting mounts with better construction. To dismiss the design and construction of any car component as a nonfactor is the most asinine thing I have read. Just sounds like you are mad about choosing the wrong mounts and lashing out about it.

I'm not mad at all... In fact I'm happy as can be with the Energy mounts.
And you're right about picking a mount with better construction, though that mount is indeed the Energy mount, because it's built with the proper steel collar and insert like the originals.
Those collar-less mounts from Prothane you keep bragging about are cheap junk.
As mentioned before, that steel collar is to keep the cushion from being cut by the frame.
If the steel collar of the mounts touching the frame causes the rust, then by your logic shouldn't all of our cars be falling apart at every attaching point?
They didn't build cars like this for 70 years without thinking about what makes a good mount, so don't act like you're smarter than the fleet of engineers that developed the original mounts just because you think a shitty all-rubber mount is better.
Now corrosion can occur between two dissimilar metals like steel and aluminum, but that is not the case here.
What causes rust around the mounts is simply dirt, debris and moisture settling around the mount.

Have fun replacing your shitty mounts again when they get trashed...

 

[jiho]

There are some retailers who still have the bolts.

What retailers are those?

BTW, I'm not saying you can't ever get away with 52 lb-ft on lubed 10.9 bolts, I'm just saying that by everything I've read on the subject, it's not a good idea. Even if the bolts don't snap off in the socket (as some have reported happening), you have to assume that in service they will stretch more than normal earlier than normal, and lose more torque than normal.