53 replies to this topic

[hanra]

Now I think the LH manual shows the outrigger bush being installed ass about?? And the UC book shows it correctly?

So it this the correct installation of this bush...?








Its going to be a squeeze trying to get the legs in between the K-Frame... I think I have 71cm between the chassis rails and from the outter part of the bush on either side is approx 73cm... I know the bush will compress once fitted... but its getting it into place that will be the bugger...

Ill aim to try and use the ratchet straps around the legs and a couple of well lubed up scrapers...?

[S pack]

Now I think the LH manual shows the outrigger bush being installed ass about?? And the UC book shows it correctly?

So it this the correct installation of this bush...?








Its going to be a squeeze trying to get the legs in between the K-Frame... I think I have 71cm between the chassis rails and from the outter part of the bush on either side is approx 73cm... I know the bush will compress once fitted... but its getting it into place that will be the bugger...

Ill aim to try and use the ratchet straps around the legs and a couple of well lubed up scrapers...?

AFAIK they are supposed to be installed the other way around with the wide flange facing the centre of the car.

[hanra]

This is what Im up against Dave... What to believe....???? UC's were the ultimate car so I guess they had it right??

[S pack]

I see what you mean Brad.

The LJ has them installed the same way as the LH. When I did up my front suspension I installed the outrigger bushes so the flanged end sat agianst the chassis rail. Wasn't long after trying to put the crossmember back into the car that I found there was no way it was going to go in. Pulled the bushes back out, put them in the other way (which incidentally I read some years later on in a Dealer Service Letter, is the correct way to install them) and the whole shebang fitted up without much drama.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, and I've never worked on LH/LX/UC front suspensions, maybe there is a slight difference in the outriggers on the UC RTS suspension compared to the LH to allow for the thickness of the flanged end on the bush.
That said, even with the bushes installed in the LJ with the smaller tapered end facing the chassis rails there is still an interference fit between the rails but not impossible to overcome.

[hanra]

I hear what your saying Dave, taking measurements between the rails and how I have the bushes fitted, Im scratching my head as to how Im going to pull the legs in far enough to get it to fit in between the rails... i can see some spanner throwing happening...

I might spin them around and take some measurements that way also, see what Im up against!! im dreading getting this thing back in... pulling it out was easy!! Didnt have to worry about not scratching anything!!!!!

[dattoman]

Guess you want some pics of the unmolested ?

Too dark out there now to get proper pics...I tried
But looks like the LH pic is right to my car without a good inspection

[hanra]

Hahahahaha, Well I wont say no!!!! Im pretty easy! Hahahahaha


Yes please mate, once the sun makes an appearance I would be over the moon to see a pic! Ive seen this discussion come up a few times but this would put the question to bed!

Thank you!

[hanra]

Hey Rod!!!! Thanks for those pics mate! Interesting little tool you have there! Ill try the ratchet straps first as there is less chance of scratching, but just more chance of snapping and hitting me in the eye....

Maybe GMH just fitted the bus however the hell they felt like it... Wonder how they got the legs squeezed in at the factory?

[Tyre biter]

Brad,

I looked at this issue to for my LX SS because the diagram in the LH parts manual didn't seem right when looking at the profile of the bush - it doesn't make sense to have a cupped side that then is squashed flat against the chassis rail - why woud they make it in this shape if that was to occur...

I found a few threads on here (can't recall which now sorry), spoke to some club members with decades experience amongst them, and looked at some (supposedly) unmolested cars to assist, and all corroborated the UC diagram that you provided and the photos posted above by walpolla - simply it seems the big flat side of the bush goes against the chassis rail as would appear the right way to do it.

Cheers, TB

[S pack]

Brad,

I looked at this issue to for my LX SS because the diagram in the LH parts manual didn't seem right when looking at the profile of the bush - it doesn't make sense to have a cupped side that then is squashed flat against the chassis rail - why woud they make it in this shape if that was to occur...

I found a few threads on here (can't recall which now sorry), spoke to some club members with decades experience amongst them, and looked at some (supposedly) unmolested cars to assist, and all corroborated the UC diagram that you provided and the photos posted above by walpolla - simply it seems the big flat side of the bush goes against the chassis rail as would appear the right way to do it.

Cheers, TB

So the cupped end gets squashed flat up against a large flat washer - same difference isn't it?

Cheers
Dave.

[Tyre biter]

Not really IMO, and regardless the profile of the bush tells the story - it doesn't make sense to go the other way.

And we can't rely on the LH Parts or Service manuals - jeepers they have the tie rod ends going into the steering arms from the wrong direction - because of the taper they physically cannot fit the direction they are depicted - and so cannot be routinely relied upon. Whereas I see the UC manual as being more reliable because errors of this ilk are likely to have been remedied.

But by all means, if your level of knowledge about these 'out-rigger bushes' is more intimate than mine, then by all means please share. To be honest I know very little about it - I've gone by what I was told, what I have seen, what I have read concerning other more knowledgeable folk's appraisal of the matter, and (as I said) just having a look at the bush and working out as best I can what seems right.

Given walloper's post/photos I reckon I might just be for once... however, usually this degree of cockiness is short-lived for me, and ordinarily means I am about to be well and truly schooled in all things 'LH Torana Out-Rigger Bushes'...

Cheers, TB

[S pack]

Not really IMO, and regardless the profile of the bush tells the story - it doesn't make sense to go the other way.

And we can't rely on the LH Parts or Service manuals - jeepers they have the tie rod ends going into the steering arms from the wrong direction - because of the taper they physically cannot fit the direction they are depicted - and so cannot be routinely relied upon. Whereas I see the UC manual as being more reliable because errors of this ilk are likely to have been remedied.

But by all means, if your level of knowledge about these 'out-rigger bushes' is more intimate than mine, then by all means please share. To be honest I know very little about it - I've gone by what I was told, what I have seen, what I have read concerning other more knowledgeable folk's appraisal of the matter, and (as I said) just having a look at the bush and working out as best I can what seems right.

Given walloper's post/photos I reckon I might just be for once... however, usually this degree of cockiness is short-lived for me, and ordinarily means I am about to be well and truly schooled in all things 'LH Torana Out-Rigger Bushes'...

Cheers, TB

G/day Craig

Well I'm certainly not an expert in all thingsTorana, esp LH/LX/UC, but learning new stuff all the time just like everyone else thanks to this forum.

Please note that the following is related to the LC/LJ Torana, however as the LH uses the same outrigger bush it may be pertinent.

GMH Dealer Service Letter dated September 1973 advises Dealers that some Torana vehicles may have had the crossmember brace to frame side rail bushes Part Number 7211458 installed incorrectly.

Quote: This bush is designed so the larger diameter head accepts braking force and correct installtion is essential.

There is also a drawing showing the bush is to be installed with the large head facing toward the centre of the vehicle not the chassis rail.

Maybe this bush was installed differently for the LH Torana, however I suspect that the braking forces would be transmitted through the LH/LX crossmember brace in the same manner as in the LC/LJ's.

So, in my humble opinion the LH parts catalogue is showing the correct installation for the bush in an LH Torana.

Cheers
Dave

Edited by S pack, 04 July 2012 - 11:24 PM.

[A9X]

then it was installed incorrectly in every LX torana i've owned, ( 6) plus the lads LH.

If for point of argument we call it a T shape ( looking side on)

All of mine have had the larger diameter between the chassis and the outrigger, as shown in the above photo. I also agree it seems the common sense mounting .

While not arguing your bulletin, i would argue that LJ and LX are different

[A9X]

oh, by the by Brad, loosen of the sway bar when you are installing the frame

[S pack]

I think that it would be most important to have the larger portion of the bush between the x-member and chassis rail to prevent any movement from side to side . The outriggers are the only things on the front x-member that do this ( I know their primary function is to stop forward and backward movement under braking ect) , however I would be worried that fitting them the other way may allow the distance between the outrigger and chassis rail to vary when cornering. I always fit them with the large side sandwiched between x-member and chassis as per Walpolla (Rods) pictures . Nolathane bushes years ago (the last time I fitted them ) were 2 piece bushes the same size either side.

G/day Rob

I agree with you on some points and disagree on others.
Originally the HB and early LC Torana's had two piece bushes but sometime during LC production they changed to the one piece design.

I've given a fair bit of thought to the braking forces applied to the crossmember braces. Besides the braking force trying to push the whole front end straight back the braking forces applied to the lower control arms would be transmitted to the braces through the rear inner LCA bush (LH models) and be trying to push/flex the braces away from the chassis rails. Surely the larger head on the bush would do a better job of controlling this flexing than the smaller end of the bush, which incidentally is the only end of the bush that will go through the hole in the brace.

So to me the installation advice in the Dealer service letter makes perfect sense, not just for LC/LJ but LH etc as well.

That said, I'm not going to argue with the body of evidence presented from experienced LH/LX/UC owners as to how GMH originally installed these bushes.

Cheers
Dave

[hanra]

Very good point indeed about the braking forces Dave. What you say and what the letters states I feel would be correct. Very interesting discussion. If a Service Bulletin was issued, who's to say all staff read it.....? Im sure there were probably a lot of service bulletins about different models so trying to remember all the details of all bulletins could be hard.

Oh and point taken on the sway bar loosening!

Edited by hanra, 05 July 2012 - 06:40 AM.

[S pack]

Very good point indeed about the braking forces Dave. What you say and what the letters states I feel would be correct. Very interesting discussion. If a Service Bulletin was issued, who's to say all staff read it.....? Im sure there were probably a lot of service bulletins about different models so trying to remember all the details of all bulletins could be hard.

[S pack]

G/day Brad

Just so you know, Dealer Service Letters were only sent to the Dealers, they were not sent to the Assembly Plants, so what happened at the Assembly Plants would have been controlled by different channels like Engineering Bulletins.

The Dealer Service Letters come into play when a car goes in to a Dealer for service or repairs.
I'll bet that through the passage of time and staff turnover the content of these Letters have been forgotten so the mechanics just end up putting things back the same way as they come out, just like all of us home mechanics who don't know that something was originally installed incorrectly or that important modifications/part replacements must be made to maintain the reliability or safety of the vehicle.
And yes there are heaps of these GMH Service Letters pertaining to different models and variants.

Ahhh, the joys of working on 40 year old cars and trying to find people/businesses that know any more about repairing them than we do.

Cheers
Dave.

Edited by S pack, 05 July 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[hanra]

Here is the LC and LJ outrigger bush installation. Like you say Dave, if these things were installed ass about it would be very easy to miss once the dealer saw the vehicle. Ive spun my bushes around and fitted them as the LH manual shows. LC/LJ/LH all show it this way, its only UC that is different.

Edited by hanra, 07 July 2012 - 10:18 PM.