Captain Obvious

You need a tube of the proper diameter to use as an anvil. I don't remember if I had to make something, or if I already had something laying around. Just like you did for the fronts, only the dimensions are a little more critical.

Glad you got rid of the clunk!! Just one comment/question. The rubber portion of those inboard control arm bushings are clamped into place by the brace you removed. With the brace removed, the rubber can rotate. Point is... If you had the wheels hanging when you took that brace off and put it back on, I believe there's a risk that those inner bushings rotated changed position. Did you do the final tightening of the hardware with the car on the ground (or the wheels suitably loaded)?

Kats, Here's a crude sketch of how I believe they made those lug nuts: They could have made the entire nut from one piece, but they would have needed to start with the lager rod and they would have needed to create the hex portion in a different operation. Making hex shapes on a lathe is a more difficult thing to do, so if you start with hex shaped material, then everything is simple lathe work. If you have to actually cut the hex shape, you need a more complicated machine. You may even have to transfer the parts to a different machine completely in order to cut the hex. Starting with hex shaped material allows them to do everything on simple lathes and also reduces the amount of total material they have to remove in order to create the final part. One other advantage to using two parts is that it allows them to use different materials for the two portions. I don't know if they did something like that, but for example, it could have allowed them to do something like use a hardened seat on the tapered locating washer while still having a more ductile unhardened threaded portion.

That schematic has Lucas written all over it.

Yeah, that's just not cool. Funny, but not cool!

I copied the bushing info over from the other thread. Thanks for the links and info. I'm sure there's something that would work. We just have to find it!! That first bushing from RIdetech looked interesting until I saw the ID. It won't fit over the bolt sticking down.

Here's a dimensioned sketch of the OEM bushing. For those of you who don't want to deal with my chicken scratch, the bottom line is: OD ~ 1.977 OAL of bushing outer wall ~ 1.575 after installation (1.985 reference before installation) length of center bolt cylinder ~ 2.565 ID of bolt hole through ~ .677 (clearance hole for 17mm dia bolt shank) Note that the 40mm after install dimension should be on the inside edges of the bent over flanges instead the outside as it's drawn. I'm no draftsman.

As a back burner project under @Patcon's guidance, I've been looking into this off and on for a while. The most promising bushings I've seen are things like engine torque strut mounts. The upper bar they strap on transverse mounted engines to keep the top of the engine from wretching around as the engine works. if you can't find something that has the exact same size as the original bushing, I muse that you could use something that is a little smaller than the stock bushing, and press it into a thin wall cylinder of appropriate ID and OD. Make the length of the cylinder long enough that there's extra material to swage over the mustache bar. Here's some pics of common cheap bushings that are probably large enough to consider. I bet with a caliper at a junkyard you ought to be able to turn up something .100 or so smaller than the original. There's got to be something out there. Little smaller OD than stock. Same or larger bolt through the middle. Length shouldn't matter so much. Here's some possible candidates. Next time I'm headed to the yard, I'm going to take my caliper: 73-79 Civic Camry: Excel: Paseo:

Do you still have your old springs? Maybe just throw them in there to see what happens? Also, if you're interested, I can walk you through how to measure the spring constant so you can compare the two.

Forgot something... About the rust (or lack of it), with a press fit of that caliber, it's pretty much gas tight. No oxygen, no rust.

Yes, I turned the small sides in. I found I liked the fit better with the short sides inboard towards the strut body. I found that if I reversed the bushings and centered them in the arms, I ended up with too small of a gap where the strut knuckle fit between the two bushings. Of course, since it's just rubber, I could have forced the bushing centers apart a little and forced the strut body between them, but I figured if things lined up naturally without having to do that, it would be better. With the small sides in, when I centered the bushings in the receiving cylinders in the arms, it worked out almost perfect such that the distance between the two bushings was very very close to the width of the strut housing. Seemed to perfect to be coincidental. So I don't know if they were really designed to be that way, but it worked for me. And if you're seeing the same small difference on OEM bushings as I saw on aftermarket MOOG, then I'm starting to believe it really might be intentional. Hark... Did I stumble across something that isn't even in the repair manuals?? If you haven't already pressed your old rear bushings out yet, measure the distance between the two of them, and compare that to the width of the strut body. As for how to fixture the press... I've done so many press operations over the last few years that I don't remember specifically what I used, but it was probably a long bolt passing through one of the bushings to press against the other bushing. Either that, or I managed to fit the control arm down between the parts of the press and straddled the anvil? I don't think I have enough room on my press to fit the arm down inside, so it was probably a long bolt. Something just a little smaller OD than a spindle pin.

Hi Kats, Glad to help! I'll draw up a sketch showing what I believe the manufacturing process to be. And one last thought on the stopper... The only thing that should stop that nut from going on any further is the tapered angled surface of the nut should contact a matching angled surface down inside the lug stud hole in the wheel. The four angled surfaces on the four nuts are what locates and centers the wheel properly on the car.

I also found a tiny bit of asymmetry with the rear spindle pin bushings as well. I don't know if it was designed that way, or if it was an accident, but I found a slight difference in the distance the metal collars stuck out of the new rubber bushings. One side was longer than the other, and all of them were consistent (as though it was done on purpose and not an accident). I put all four of them in such that the smaller distance was inward towards the strut body and the longer portion was on the washer and nut side. I found that with the bushing pressed into the center of the control arm recieving cylinder, the distance between the two bushings worked out to almost exactly the width of the strut knuckle casting. I found that if I reversed the bushings and centered them, I ended up with a gap where the strut knuckle fit. Of course, it was a small gap and would have easily clamped down as I tightened the spindle pin nuts, but I figued if I didn't have a gap in the first place, that would be better. Also, putting the longer end on the outside allowed more room for the rubber sealing washer. Don't know if all the aftermarket bushings do that, but I bought Raybestos 570-1030 - There are two bushings per box, so two boxes per car. If you squint right, you can see the asymmetry in this pic. See how the center sticks out farther on one side than the other:

Yeah, refresh my memory... Why did you change the springs? I remember having discussions about springs with someone a long while ago, but don't remember the details... Was that you?

Yes, I believe the shape of the baffle with the bends has a purpose. It's intended to seal the baffle around the entire perimeter except for the very back corner where it's open. Presumably, the designers thought there would be the least amount of oil spray flinging around back there. Then the bumps and valleys in the middle (in conjunction with the cast ribs on the inside of the valve cover) force that air to swim a crude labyrinth (up and down) in an attempt to separate the liquid from the vapor. Up over the baffle bulge, down under the cast rib. Twice. Before finally getting to the hole at the very highest top part of the valve cover where gravity should also help keep liquid inside while allowing vapor to pass. I wasn't there when they designed it, but that's my read.

Hi again Kats, It's kind of hard to describe machining operations with just words and I'm not sure if my description above makes sense. If it doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll whip up a sketch showing the parts.

Hi Kats, That's not a stopper, and in use, that surface should not be making contact with anything. Those lug nuts are actually made from two pieces. They machine the threaded portion as one piece, and the tapered section is actually a ring of separate material that is pressed on later. The surface you labeled as stopper is actually the end shoulder of the surface onto which the tapered ring is pressed on. They could have cut the whole thing from just one piece of material, but I suspect they made it out of two pieces because it's easier, and cheaper (since it requires less material with less waste in the form of chips from the turning operations). They probably started with hex rod for the inner part (that way they didn't have to machine the hex), but because of starting from hex rod, they couldn't have any feature larger in diameter than that hex, unless it came from a different piece of material. So they used a larger round rod and cut the tapered section from that, and then joined the two parts together at the end and plated them.

I've seen that. One stalk damped a lot more than the other. The check valve on the one that didn't damp wasn't working properly. IIRC, the center shaft was cocked off to the side a little and because of that misalignment, the check valve didn't work right.

If you use the proper backup method with the correct sized supporting anvils, you should be able to press those things in and out all day with the hydraulic press without damaging or crushing anything. Having a lathe helps.... My PO did the bushings in my car. He burned the rubber out and put so much heat into the arms that they went blue. Then he hacksawed through the outer bushing wall, and into the control arms a little. In numerous locations. And then he pounded the remains out with a cold chisel and cratered and upset the metal on the inside of the control arm hole. All four were junk by the time he got done with them and I replaced all of my arms and started over.

Here's a dimensioned sketch of the OEM bushing. For those of you who don't want to deal with my chicken scratch, the bottom line is: OD ~ 1.977 OAL of bushing outer wall ~ 1.575 after installation (1.985 reference before installation) length of center bolt cylinder ~ 2.565 ID of bolt hole through ~ .677 (clearance hole for 17mm dia bolt shank) Note that the 40mm after install dimension should be on the inside edges of the bent over flanges instead the outside as it's drawn. I'm no draftsman.

As long as the dampers stay fully submerged even at full height, then the amount of oil shouldn't matter. If you're able to tune the amount of resistance to lift by adjusting the oil volume, then you don't have enough oil in there. They should be to the full mark, and at the full mark, they should both feel the same.

Well I would guess in todays litigious times, maybe he thinks he could be held liable for selling you something that drew more current than the original system was designed for. Especially if your lawyers came calling after your car burned to the ground. With you in it. And a nun. On a bridge that then subsequently collapsed and crushed an orphanage. Or maybe he just doesn't like guys named Granny?

I had to read what you wrote about six times before I figured out what you were talking about. Just in case it wasn't just me having troubles... What Zed Head is suggesting is that it would be possible to cut a hole in the stock baffle plate and then connect a tube to that new hole. Then you could also cut a hole in the valve cover anywhere you want, and bring the other end of the new tube out that hole. The end result would be a stock baffle performance, but you could relocate the exit hole anywhere on the valve cover surface. Assuming there's room inside to run said tube without it interfering with the camshaft or valve train.

Well here's a theory then... If you hadn't messed with perfectly good needles in the first place and made them richer everywhere with the exception of at idle, then maybe you would be able to drop the nozzles a little and end up with the mixture where you want it... Even at idle. Haha!!! Sorry. Just had to! I agree that 35 mpg would be hard to walk away from. So if you pull the lid off the air cleaner and lift up on the pistons: Are the pistons hard to lift? (Are the dampers damping?) Are the two dampers the same?

Really? Cut off? Did you and he discuss the destination application for the bulbs? Did he know you were putting 80/55 bulbs into a vehicle originally designed for something less? That's some strong CYA!!