Packard Forum Index » Pre-War (1899-1942)

Three years ago I had my Delco shocks rebuilt (1940 1808). I replaced the pins, sleeves and bushings connecting them to the upper/outer support pivot.

Attach file:

---

  (70.22 KB)


  (125.09 KB)


  (80.18 KB)


  (93.83 KB)

Three years later, as I started preparing the car to paint, I found this. Just 5,000 miles later.

Attach file:

---

  (113.97 KB)

My first thought was that I tightened the castle-nut too much. But it has to be tightened enough so that you can insert the cotter pin. If you don't tighten enough, the cotter pin hole is not available.

Any other ideas of what went wrong???

Attach file:

---

  (102.08 KB)

Any other ideas of what went wrong???

I'll hazard a guess - if the rubber bushings were from Steele Rubber. Many folks that I speak with have had less than good experience with Steele suspension bushings, namely premature wear. I generally like Steele products, the look and fit just fine, but perhaps their suspension bushings aren't made from a suitable composition? It would be a good question for someone to ask them.

I think I got everything from Kanter, who may have gotten the bushings from Steele. Is there a better place to get bushings?

I've had a problem with Steele suspension rubber. It seems as though the composition isn't strong enough. I wouldn't shave the rubber down. Packard engineers determined how big it should be. I doubt any of us know more than they did. As Owen says they just don't seem to hold up.

Having been through this problem with "soft" suspension bushings any number of times, I toyed for a while with getting some polyurethane rod, freezing it solid, and cutting bushings in the lathe. Never pursued it, but it's still an intriguing idea to me. What hardness of polymer to get is an issue to be resolved if you wanted to pursue that approach. And yes, the parts you got from Kanters were almost certainly of Steele origin.

I have no basis for commenting on the quality of the Steele 338830 bushing other than to say I know other folks whose same bushings seem to wear "prematurely". Hearsay.
I will comment that the earlier style INLOX bushing used in the 35-38 cars hardly ever seems to wear out. My armchair analysis of the design also suggest a slightly stiffer ride, yet not as stiff as a urethane bushing might provide. I think the reason Packard went to the 338830 style was the ease of assembly/replacement. Gotta keep the service bays busy, and the INLOX style requires a press to get it in/out, which meant more labor, etc.
One other armchair comment that the cracking seen is in the exposed "squished" area, which doesn't surprise me having a very limited understanding of how rubber reacts to pressure. On the other hand, have you disassembled and evaluated the performance of the rubber along the axis of the bolt? Final comment, check the washer at the center of the squeeze bolt at the pinch of the shock arm and make sure that has not perished, my recollection is originally these were a reinforced material, kinda like a body mount, and if simply replaced with a soft rubber might also contribute to upper/outer problems.

Finally, just my opinion, I think there would be a market for a better bushing, as these 39-41 cars tend to ride very soft...

West, noticed in your photo of the deteriorated rubber bushings that there are two flat washers under the castle nut. Could the extra thickness put too much pressure on the shock absorber arm when the nut was tightened enough to get the cotter pin inserted? Just a thought.

John
You may be exactly right. I've gone back and looked at my original photos as I was taking it apart, and the photo only shows one washer there. Damn! I wonder why I did that, and where did I get the extra washer???

Attach file:

---

  (153.36 KB)