SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am re-doing the front suspension on my 67 1800. Today I pressed out the old bushings on the lower A- arms and put new rubber ones in there. As I was going to re-assemble it I started realizing this doesn't work the way I would have thought. Evidently the long bolt doesn't turn in the bushings of the A-arms, it turns in the steel tube in the crossmember. The rubber bushings just provide cushioning. Is this correct? The long bolt turning in the crossmember would be steel on steel - doesn't seem right to me but that's the way it seems to work.
Maybe I'm not seeing this right.
Jim S.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,305 Posts
The long bolt and the inner sleeve of the bushings clamp tightly to the crossmember and do not rotate. The bushing itself does - well technically it doesn't rotate but the rubber flexes and allows the outer part to rotate relative to the inner. This is why it is important to load the suspension before tightening the through-bolt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks, I see now how that works. Sort of a wierd way to have a pivoting part, but it seems to work just fine. That explains why they don't have poly bushings for the lower arms.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,305 Posts
It was cutting edge in the late 1950's. :D

One big advantage is that there is no actual moving part in the joint, therefore no clearance between them, so less noise. The earlier front ends had lower bushings like the uppers, and boy do they hurt after a few years of holding the car up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,612 Posts
You can get poly bushings for them, just not through the normal Volvo circles for some reason. I can't remember if it was superpro or superthane or where, but I know someone on here found some that fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
SuperPro pale dark blue poly upper and lower control arm 2-piece bushings.
Only ones I know of that aren't too stiff for me.
And I haven't lately heard of any new rubber ones that weren't kinda crap...



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Are you using the stock long bolt for the lowers? What keeps the bolt from turning in the crossmember? Maybe if the arm pivots easily on the bushings the bolt won't turn anyway.
I've already got mine put back together or I would look into this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
On the later setup, where the lower inner bushings get pinched static by the tightness of the bolt and the serrated mating surfaces of the bushings and the tube that's part of the crossmember, both the bolt and bushing are fixed - the elastisicity of the rubber flexes with the motion of the lower control arm.

I'm not so sure on the earlier setup. IIRC the inner lower control arm bushings are the same as the uppers - the bolt doesn't crush metal - note the Nyloc type nuts (or are they crenelated and the through bolt has a hole for a cotter pin) on the end of the bolt. I would suspect that they are tightened up so far and then "locked" and neither the bolt itself nor the bushing is prevented from rotating. The loads may keep the rod from rotating, but I believe the resulting wear on the rubber bushing was the reason they went to the later bushing.

This appears to be the earlier setup as evidenced to me by the grease nipple of the upper ball joint and the different lower control arms. I believe that they are a completely different part than the later arms - the inner rubber bushing pops into a sleeve which is different that the arm which receives the later bushings which had both and inner and outer metal sleeve which are pressed into the arm.

Then again I could be thinking of the PV arms. I'm older now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
--The earlier, simpler, less rugged LCA bushings (same as the uppers used throughout the model run) were upgraded with intro of B18/12 volt cars in '62, as shown with my '62 front end...
--Grease-able upper (and lower) ball joints were used till '65, changed to sealed joints with makeover of rear suspension for '66.
--The long stout LCA bolts are shouldered behind the threads; tightening the locknut against the large flat washer does not "crush" the LCA bushings. The pressed-in LCA bushings cannot rotate even without the bolt in place.

If cared for, with quality parts, legendary simplicity and durability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
But can you tell me if I'm correct in that the earlier LCAs are different. You can't use earlier bushings in the later arms and you can't use the later bushings in the earlier arms. There may be other differences as well, but is this the case?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
OK here goes...

There were a total of 3 LCAs used '56-'70:
-Earliest version (653343,44) through late '61 (B16), uses 87033 bushings (same as all UCA bushings) with simple U-clamp, no long thru-bolt.
-Two "later" LCA versions (B18/20) both use 663675 press-in bushings, long thru-bolt, no clamps. Earlier version 663661,62 (P120 thru 188800, P130 thru 132690, P220 thru 27300) used greaseable BJs and single-bolt lower shock mount. Later version 671351,52 had sealed BJs and two-bolt lower shock mounts.
In no way is the earliest and either later LCA bushing setups interchangeable or intermixable, though the two later types are interchangeable and intermixable.

And regarding UCAs, only total 2 types used. Both used same 87033 bushings.
-Early 658910 (B16/18 thru~'66) used greaseable BJs,
-Late 671440 (B18/20) BJs were sealed and shaped differently. Complete UCAs were interchangeable.

Good enough? As you can tell, above applies specifically to Amazon and generally to P1800.
Regards, Michael
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top