which body bushings should I get?

[Longroof79]

Somewhere, I've read that 52 ft lbs is the given torque spec for body bolts. I believe I've read it in an Olds factory shop manual.
My bolts have been torqued at about that. If I recall correctly.

 

[Alerch]

My GM service book for the olds states 52lbs of torque for the body bolts.

 

[pontiacgp]

I used the 10.9 metric bolts with the Energy bushings and all the bolts were torqued to 52 ft lbs with no problems

 

[jiho]

Yes, I know the factory manual says 52 lb-ft, that's why I raised the issue. As I said, my car had 12.9 from the factory, and there is DEFINITELY no issue for LUBED 12.9 bolts at 52 lb-ft, according to all the information I have seen. But this same information says LUBED 10.9 bolts are being pushed beyond safe limits at 52 lb-ft. The information comes from people who sell bolts, and who might have liability issues, so it's probably conservative. Whether it's too conservative, I can't really say.

Those of you who torqued 10.9 bolts to 52 lb-ft, did you treat the threads with any kind of lubricant? If so, what?

Like I said, untreated threads at a higher torque have the same clamping force as treated threads at a lower torque. That's the difference between the grades, 10.9 is rated for a lower clamping force than 12.9.

Me, I tend to be conservative about these things, so if I can't get 12.9 bolts like my car had from the factory I'll probably hedge with a lower torque. I'm not sure what the consequences of that will be. So I guess it's conservative in one way and not so conservative in another.

 

[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.

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...

It's easier to change mount bushings than weld in more repair washers. Areas around bolt holes and even welds rust faster than areas that aren't joined to another piece of metal. I have seen plenty of clean panels with rust only in the welds. Joints are a weak point of any assembly. Why do you people have such such a hard on for Enegry Suspension?

Also the molded in inserts are a stress riser that causes the bushing to split, or when the inserts rusts out it renders the bushing hollow and no longer can do it's job, but will still look fine from the outside as it eats your frame away. Some of my old rubber bushings looked fine from the outside but were hollow on the inside because the inserts were gone, just powder and you won't know until you take it out. That won't happen with my solid Prothane bushings and if they do go bad at least I can see it without having to take them apart for inspection like a bushing with inserts would require.

My car was rarely driven in the winter has hasen't seen salt in over 14 years now. I live in NJ where they only salt the roads 4 months out of the year instead of 11months like the frozen wastelands of MN. Every mount had rusty molded in inserts and a few were just gone. Other than the number 2 mount, the rest of the car is rust free. You see, the molded inserts acts like an anode which is why they rust out so quickly. The edge of the frame mount hole acts as a cathode which corrodes slower, and if you are lucky you may catch it early before there is damage. A solid poly bushing lacks an anode which reduces corrosion. An bushing with a molded in insert will have an anode which sets up corrosion.

Even a group of engineers can make mistakes, cut corners, and group think that allows bad ideas to happen. G bodies have plenty of design flaws such as the poor HVAC drain that rusts out the number 2 frame mount combined with the poorly rust protected inserts, rear sway bars that cause suspension binding, flimsy frame, not enough frame crossmembers, front suspension design that is really bad by even 1950s standards, too many firewall seams that are poorly sealed, etc.

Man I just give my 2 cents and you clowns have to keep jumping down my throat, you are like a bunch of snotty highschool clicks, (some adults never outgrow highschool). Just alot of people here drinking the groupthink kool-aid I guess. Perhaps you are just butthurt that GM made a few shitty parts? But have fun lifting the body off your frame to weld in repair washers when those shitty molded in inserts you love so much turn to rust powder in 5 years and takes the frame with them!

Here is a picture of a metal roof rusting out where metal contacts metal. Metal to metal contact points are rust prone areas. But science can't be right.

Also poly-graphite bushings are garbage and isn't needed for a static joint. All graphite does is make the poly weaker like swiss cheese. It also does nothing to solve binding in rotational joints either, just makes the bushing weaker.

 

[pontiacgp]

Man I just give my 2 cents and you clowns have to keep jumping down my throat, you are like a bunch of snotty highschool clicks.

really?....

 

[pontiacgp]

Yes, I know the factory manual says 52 lb-ft, that's why I raised the issue. As I said, my car had 12.9 from the factory, and there is DEFINITELY no issue for LUBED 12.9 bolts at 52 lb-ft, according to all the information I have seen. But this same information says LUBED 10.9 bolts are being pushed beyond safe limits at 52 lb-ft. The information comes from people who sell bolts, and who might have liability issues, so it's probably conservative. Whether it's too conservative, I can't really say.

Those of you who torqued 10.9 bolts to 52 lb-ft, did you treat the threads with any kind of lubricant? If so, what?

Like I said, untreated threads at a higher torque have the same clamping force as treated threads at a lower torque. That's the difference between the grades, 10.9 is rated for a lower clamping force than 12.9.

Me, I tend to be conservative about these things, so if I can't get 12.9 bolts like my car had from the factory I'll probably hedge with a lower torque. I'm not sure what the consequences of that will be. So I guess it's conservative in one way and not so conservative in another.

You are making an error saying the 10.9 m10 1.5 bolt cannot be torqued to 52 ft lbs. The Fastenal reference states the 10.9 m10 1.5 can be torqued to 53.2 ft lbs. That is the dry specs. If you add lubrication the torque specs that are given achieve the 53.2 ft lbs at the lower torque. GM specs do not say anything about lubrication for the torque so the torque spec of 52 ft lbs is for dry conditions.

go to page 43 for the reference table...

http://www.fastenal.com/content/documen ... eGuide.pdf

 

[Blake442]

It's easier to change mount bushings than weld in more repair washers. Areas around bolt holes and even welds rust faster than areas that aren't joined to another piece of metal. I have seen plenty of clean panels with rust only in the welds. Joints are a weak point of any assembly. Why do you people have such such a hard on for Enegry Suspension?

It has nothing to do with what brand makes them, it's the fact that they make them properly like the originals, not just a cheap alternative.
I'm starting to think you work for Prothane the way you keep hyping them and trashing Energy...

Also the molded in inserts are a stress riser that causes the bushing to split, or when the inserts rusts out it renders the bushing hollow and no longer can do it's job, but will still look fine from the outside as it eats your frame away. Some of my old rubber bushings looked fine from the outside but were hollow on the inside because the inserts were gone, just powder and you won't know until you take it out. That won't happen with my solid Prothane bushings and if they do go bad at least I can see it without having to take them apart for inspection like a bushing with inserts would require.

Go look at some older cars (30's, 40's & 50's) when you get the chance. They didn't use collars or sleeves either and guess what? They still rusted out! Imagine that.
Like every other component of a vehicle designs constantly change and evolve. They stopped using all-rubber mounts because they fail. Period.

My car was rarely driven in the winter has hasen't seen salt in over 14 years now. I live in NJ where they only salt the roads 4 months out of the year instead of 11months like the frozen wastelands of MN. Every mount had rusty molded in inserts and a few were just gone. Other than the number 2 mount, the rest of the car is rust free. You see, the molded inserts acts like an anode which is why they rust out so quickly. The edge of the frame mount hole acts as a cathode which corrodes slower, and if you are lucky you may catch it early before there is damage. A solid poly bushing lacks an anode which reduces corrosion. An bushing with a molded in insert will have an anode which sets up corrosion.

I'll ignore the irony of somebody from New Jersey calling my state a wasteland...
So your car only had one rusty mount, yet you scream your propaganda in several threads about how flawed they are?
Since you're such a super-sleuth and concluded that the hvac drain was the cause for this already, it doesn't seem like there's any blame left to point at the mounts themselves... only the collection of debris and moisture, which is what I've been saying the entire time...

Even a group of engineers can make mistakes, cut corners, and group think that allows bad ideas to happen. G bodies have plenty of design flaws such as the poor HVAC drain that rusts out the number 2 frame mount combined with the poorly rust protected inserts, rear sway bars that cause suspension binding, flimsy frame, not enough frame crossmembers, front suspension design that is really bad by even 1950s standards, too many firewall seams that are poorly sealed, etc.

It's not down to a single group of people that make the decision and that's how it is for eternity.
These things are addressed by hundreds upon hundreds of different teams of people over decades using their research and experience to design a quality part.
Your comment about the front suspension on our g-bodies being bad by 1950's standards really shows how little you know about the progression of the automobile.

Man I just give my 2 cents and you clowns have to keep jumping down my throat, you are like a bunch of snotty highschool clicks, (some adults never outgrow highschool). Just alot of people here drinking the groupthink kool-aid I guess. Perhaps you are just butthurt that GM made a few shitty parts? But have fun lifting the body off your frame to weld in repair washers when those shitty molded in inserts you love so much turn to rust powder in 5 years and takes the frame with them!

I keep jumping on you because you're throwing around your uneducated opinions as fact, and I don't want somebody who actually wants to find the correct parts to be misled.
Right at the bottom of this page is a link to your last thread where you threw around these same statements and were met with just as much disapproval.
And I'll keep jumping on you in the future too.
There's a lot of good info on the internet, and unfortunately thanks to people like you that jump too quickly to conclusions and run their mouths, there's even more bad info.

And don't act so smug about your picture of that metal barn roof rusting at the seam.
Everybody knows that there's tar sealer in between those panels and that's what traps the moisture... and if there isn't, then the shifting panels and easily rub off their galvanized coating leading to rust.

And finally, without a sleeve or collar to act as a sacrificial anode, guess what will... The bolt!

 

[Alerch]

Man, clone tie pilot wont let this subject go..... haha

 

[jiho]

You are making an error saying the 10.9 m10 1.5 bolt cannot be torqued to 52 ft lbs. The Fastenal reference states the 10.9 m10 1.5 can be torqued to 53.2 ft lbs. That is the dry specs. If you add lubrication the torque specs that are given achieve the 53.2 ft lbs at the lower torque. GM specs do not say anything about lubrication for the torque so the torque spec of 52 ft lbs is for dry conditions.

go to page 43 for the reference table...

http://www.fastenal.com/content/documen ... eGuide.pdf

I know you can torque to 52 lb-ft dry. That isn't what I said. That's why I asked if people treated their threads.

The Fastenal reference was the first place I noticed this issue.