which body bushings should I get?
- Thread starter Alerch
- Start date
- Status
That's all well and good, but one of those is 2001 and the other is 2006. What does either have to do with the 1980s?
I've looked for that kind of statement in the material from the '80s. No one else can come up with anything there either, I take it.
So we're really all still left reading between the lines and applying common sense based on what we can find out about particular fasteners, and their specs as particular fasteners in particular situations.
I might add as a footnote, for them to now tell people not to treat threads is ridiculous. The one statement I do have from GM (Buick) in the '80s is the warning that dry threads make torque readings unreliable.
I've looked for that kind of statement in the material from the '80s. No one else can come up with anything there either, I take it.
So we're really all still left reading between the lines and applying common sense based on what we can find out about particular fasteners, and their specs as particular fasteners in particular situations.
I might add as a footnote, for them to now tell people not to treat threads is ridiculous. The one statement I do have from GM (Buick) in the '80s is the warning that dry threads make torque readings unreliable.
Keep forgetting to get back in the service manual so I can quote you chapter and verse. The weekends come and go so damned fast I'm lucky if I get anything done on the car.
If it's any consolation, I was writing service manuals for General Motors in the late 80's early 90's. We always assumed the threads were dry with the exception of otherwise stated i.e. cylinder head bolts etc.. I wrote owner manuals, service manuals, did labor time studies, technical assistance, service development, parts and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few other misc jobs I did.
I have forty years with GM this year, thirtyfive of which has been is service. Not that you need or care about my creds, but I've had some of these conversations with folks regarding what the plants did or didn't do back in the 70's and 80's. Usually they are so in denial I refuse to even go there any more. Fortunately, things have changed considerably and we now have the best quality in the industry. ...
Scott, ...
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:
If it's any consolation, I was writing service manuals for General Motors in the late 80's early 90's. We always assumed the threads were dry with the exception of otherwise stated i.e. cylinder head bolts etc.. I wrote owner manuals, service manuals, did labor time studies, technical assistance, service development, parts and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few other misc jobs I did.
I have forty years with GM this year, thirtyfive of which has been is service. Not that you need or care about my creds, but I've had some of these conversations with folks regarding what the plants did or didn't do back in the 70's and 80's. Usually they are so in denial I refuse to even go there any more. Fortunately, things have changed considerably and we now have the best quality in the industry. ...
Scott, ...
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:
I'm not worried about your cred now, I'm worried about GM's cred in 1983! 
But seriously .... I suspect that if GM spelled this out then, it must have been in some publication of a more generic nature that I don't have, because I don't see it in the car line shop manuals.
Meanwhile, for these body mount bolts, the spec must be dry, because the cars were designed for Class 10.9 and 52 lb-ft would certainly be dry for 10.9.
(How my car came to have 12.8 remains a mystery, since GM had already disowned 12.8 over two years prior, and SAE was preparing to do the same even as my car was making its way down the assembly line.)
But seriously .... I suspect that if GM spelled this out then, it must have been in some publication of a more generic nature that I don't have, because I don't see it in the car line shop manuals.
Meanwhile, for these body mount bolts, the spec must be dry, because the cars were designed for Class 10.9 and 52 lb-ft would certainly be dry for 10.9.
(How my car came to have 12.8 remains a mystery, since GM had already disowned 12.8 over two years prior, and SAE was preparing to do the same even as my car was making its way down the assembly line.)
jiho said:I'm not worried about your cred now, I'm worried about GM's cred in 1983!
But seriously .... I suspect that if GM spelled this out, it must have been in some publication of a more generic nature that I don't have, because I don't see it in the car line shop manuals.
Meanwhile, for these body mount bolts, the spec must be dry, because the cars were designed for Class 10.9 and 52 lb-ft would certainly be dry for 10.9.
(How my car came to have 12.8 remains a mystery, since GM had already disowned 12.8 over two years prior, and SAE was preparing to do the same even as my car was making its way down the assembly line.)
there is no need to say dry, it's understood that if there need to be lubrication the type of lubrication will be stated as different lubrication will affect the torque differently. Do you also question the bolts and nuts on GM cars since GM never give the designation of right hand threads in their service manuals? They don't state everything in the manuals, they assume people will have a basic knowledge of the specs
jiho said:
This has thread lubrication stuff had been explained to you correctly multiple times in multiple ways. This thread needs to die or be locked.
ve3oky said:
I certainly agree with you about the thread, long since already. In any case, the original issue I had with my bolts was resolved.
But about the "correct" explanation .... Why, then, did GM feel the need to spell this out in more recent manuals, where they didn't back in the '80s? And why did they go off the deep end, claiming one should never treat dry threads unless one has written permission from GM? Where does one even buy dry bolts, should one be fool enough to pay any attention to this "correct" explanation?
These questions drove my last comment.
- Status
Similar threads
