Rear strut bearing verses bushing

[IdahoKidd]

I've been chasing a rattle in the rear of my 72 (auto) car coming from the strut tower area. After tearing it down last night thinking the insulator was bad (I could see chunks of rubber missing) I discovered the nut in the tube that holds the strut cartridge in place was loose allowing perhaps 3/8 inch of cartridge travel. So, fixed that. I had an insulator from a 280 parts car I had intended to use and discovered the 240 has a rubber puck whereas the 280 has a bearing. I am guessing the bearing was a later evolution and therefore a better idea? I could see no reason at all not to put the rubber puck back in, so I put the bearing in. Any reason not to have done so?

Edited December 21, 2010 by IdahoKidd
clarification

[zKars]

I'm betting the PO put that bearing in place in the rear as the original rubber bushing was missing or deteriorated and the only thing that is the "same" and readily available is the bearing intended for the front (same size). Unless someone at Nissan was having a very early thought about HICAS rear steering back in the 70's, there is no need for a bearing in the rear.

[John Coffey]

I discovered the nut in the tube that holds the strut cartridge in place was loose allowing perhaps 3/8 inch of cartridge travel.

There's pretty good chance that shock is ruined.