Bill Ball

These are not real simple bushings. You would have the get a new bushing off a new arm. The two bushings operate differently. The bushings housings are torqued differently. The front one is supposed to be torqued after the car is on the ground. If not, the bushing can break free, which I think is what happened in Bill's case. If the front bushing has broken free from the arm, it is toast.

AO

If it is indeed molded to the arm, the only way (that I can think of off the top of my head) to come up with a replacement would be to have an exchange service. Obvoiusly this increases the price as it's hard to do a large run. But if you could used a pour-mold for urethane, it might work.

Does anyone have a picture of the front control arm without the bushings?

Giovanni

"The front one is supposed to be torqued after the car is on the ground"

I never knew this. I guess I was lucky for once.

Mongo

Sorry to hear about the control arm man. My car is on the 'green rag' here with a needy radiator end tank.

Rob Edwards

D'oh! Really? Either I got lucky too, or I'm such a lousy driver that I don't realize that I've got trashed front bushings.......

Ron_H

I also torqued mine before the car was lowered to the ground after replacing my shocks. Maybe that explains my wandering steering. I will also be interested in a source for new bushings, and the prices Andrew mentioned are not objectionable at all.

BC

I bought a set of the lower control arm bushings from this Australian guy a few years ago when he still had them. I put them on a later arm after powdercoating them. I have not installed them, but we will see if this was a good idea. It not a small process. The bushing at the back is fine once you have taken the old one off, but the front one with the metal carrier over the arm's shaft was a doosey. I put them together with a bit of urethane compliant grease.

These lower bushings seem to take a real beating. It would be a good idea to get something (realistically priced, not geared to ream people since they aren't available, ahem) going for these.

Bill Ball

The WSM doesn't say "on the ground" exactly. It says something about suspension or damper loading. Can't remember the exact wording, but that's what it means. The front is torqued to 88 ft lbs and is meant not to move but flex. The rear is torqued to 66 ft lbs.

Bill Ball

I used to torque mine in the air as well. The saving grace in my case is I also torqued it incorrectly, both front and rear to just 66 ft-lbs.

Bill51sdr

Having a little trouble understanding/visualizing why that is. The front bushing has the metal sleeve around it and would seem to be less adversely affected by how it is torqued. The rear bushing, on the other hand, has no sleeve bonded to it, but is held to the cross-member by a separate aluminum clamp. I can understand the need to torque THAT one while under load, but not the front one. In any case, I will final torque both under load.

Bill Ball

Not sure, Bill. Look at the beginning of the WSM section on the front suspension and you will see a cryptic comment about the torque for the front bushing. Marc T said they can split if not done correctly.

worf928

It's the rear bolts of the lower control arm. WSM says to leave two threads showing until suspension has settled and then torque to spec. WSM 40-15.2

BC

Ah, thats why I was looking cross eyed. I thought it was the rear ones. That locks it close to its normal arc, and therefore will not rip the inside seal's contact to the arm. I have seen arms ripped before.

Bill Ball

OK, memory failure again...front versus rear. That's why I have everything printed out in folders in a file cabinet and I pull the suspension folder when I go to do the job. Even after a dozen timing belts, I still take my TB/WP folder with me too.

worf928

Just to be precise in case someone saw my first (deleted now) post - it is the rear two bolts of the lower front control arm.