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

That seems a little loose to me but I'm not an expert so I'll let those who are chime in with the specifications. When I rebushed the one in my 1940 110 many decades ago, it wasn't a simple matter of ordering bushings so I made them and I made the bolt too so everything was quite snug. Once the shocks were rebuilt to go along with it, the difference was amazing!

I have a NOS arm too but not sure what it for. Is there a casting number on yours that might help? At least it will me what mine isn't.

Hey Don, thanks for weighing in; I have 'intended' to do this for some time but kept putting it off because it was such a bear of a place to get at, but once I pulled the engine out, it was so accessible I thought it would be quite straight forward. I had been told by Fred Kanter, that if you grabbed the center arm where the tie rods connect and try and move the whole assembly vertically, up and down, there should not be any appreciable looseness. Mine would go up and down 1/2" to maybe 5/8" and thus I ordered the new pin and bushing. when I compare the new bushing with the old, it is such that you can feel a slight ridge when sliding your fingers up and down the OD's of the two bushings when held one on top of the other. I'd guess 20 thou. The old bushing, while quite sloppy on the old pin re the inside diameter, is a tolerance fit going back into the center link hole. Therefore, I'm not surprised the new one won't go in. I'm not sure if this is just lack of tolerance on the repro manufacturing, or if it's supposed to be that way and reaming is standard procedure (like with king pin fitment). It even occurred to me, it might be the wrong pin, but it is so identical looking to the original that I suspect the former rather than the latter. There is a bit of a machine shop here in my small town and I can probably get it machined to fit, but that would seem unduly complicated and costly for a pin that should fit. Lots of guys have R&R'd these things and I was just hoping for somebody to weigh in with some guidance. I think the arm does have a number on it, Don and I'll check it next time I'm at the car and advise. In the meantime, ANYBODY know???? Thanks, Chris

As you wrote, it is not uncommon for new bushings to be reamed and burnished to fit their pins. It seems reaming the bushing would be the preferred way to go.

Thanks John - at the machine shop 'as we speak'; the machinist said the new bushing felt too much bigger than the original to him, that reaming the center-link hole might not do it, thus it may have to be horizontally bored, which would be a little more $$'s than reaming but still not 'stoo-pid expensive'. I'll report back once I get it returned.

it seems to me, if I recall correctly, that I neither bored nor reamed the bushings but rather I honed them.

I was taught that honing is not recommended for soft metal bushings as abrasive particles from the honing will become imbeded in the bushings and will cause premature wear of the pins or shafts. Reaming and then burnishing the bushings is the preferred method. At least this is what I was taught.

That is very true. I was using oillite bronze that sent out so much oil that it wasn't an issue and I was removing only a few ten-thousands. Burnishing also has its issues as it tends to force shut the pores that let out the oil. If using regular bronze, though, boring or burnishing are both okay.

Where does one get a tool for burnishing with? I notice Packard recommends burnishing on many of their bushings when installed.
John

Interesting info Don & John... keep in mind here, that my new pin and bushing are a perfect fit, one-inside-the-other. The issue I have is with the OUTSIDE diameter of the bushing, not fitting into the receiving hole in the center-link. Therefore, any reaming or boring must be performed on the ID of the center-link hole so it will receive the bushing. Which leads me to another question: with the way the grease zerk feeds grease up into the joint, It would appear that it should reach the OD of the bushing as there is a hole in the bushing and a slight indent around the OUTSIDE circumference of it. That would lead me to believe that the bushing should be able to turn freely in the center-link hole. (the old one does) What could possibly be the purpose of this??? If the pin through the frame can pivot in the bronze bushing in the center-link, why isn't that sufficient? I see no purpose in the 'double movement' of the bushing/pin. Have I explained this well enough that you can see my question???

I may be wrong but I don't think that the bushing itself should turn in the hole! It should be a press-fit. The only reason I can think of for the OD being oversized as you describe is to allow for wear and out of roundness that may occur over the years of the bushing getting sloppy so perhaps having to make the hole round and to size again is expected. Did you ask the supplier if this might be the case?