Lower Control Arm Bushing Fitment
 

Putting on new urethane bushings on the front end. Using Prothane. The uppers fit beautifully. Now the lowers seem to fit strange. There is about 1/16 inch on between the bushings and the end washers. Is this correct? Seems like that would allow quite a bit of float. Thoughts?

That certainly looks "off", Where did you purchase the bushings? I would call up the manufacturer to talk with their tech line. I assume that the inner spacer was supplied in the kit, so there should not be a reason that you would have to "trim to fit". Is it possible that you switched the upper and lower spacers?

Got them through Jegs. I've used Prothane on other cars with much success.
No switching of the upper and lower spacers. Totally different sizes anyway.
Interesting that the uppers use fitted washer on both sides of the bushings and the lowers use none. Just flat washers on the tower side of the bushing. Makes me wonder that they are suppose to be this way. The old bushings were such a mess that it is hard to compare the way they fit.

When I did mine yeras ago, I remember spacer washers front and rear of each eye of the lower arm. They were serated on one side, which went towards the bush, and when secured, "locked " the inner sleeve on the metalastic style, which of course was the reason that style required pre-loading the suspension prior to final tighten.

I reckon you got washers missing, maybe still stuck to the mess that can be old lower bushes.

The specs call for two of those washers per side plus the main washer and castle nut. They are on the car. The washers are serrated on both sides. They are positioned inside between the bushing/sleeve and the hole in the spring tower. On the outside there is the giant cap head on the back side and a washer/castle nut on the front.

What appears to happening is that the sleeve inside the bushings is tad too long and is keeping the bushings from being compressed, IF they are suppose to be.

What leads me to think they are not suppose to be compressed is the fact the washers are way to small to contact the whole of the bushings.

OK, as I said, it was memeory and many, many years ago.

The washer/s however many there is will be different for poly bushes, coz as you said the sleeves appear too long, and I agree. You would NOT want serated washers rubbing away those faces in my opinion.

The washers for poly should just "kiss", I think you guys use "snug up" to the face of the bush, without any "crush" on the bush, and the sleeve is held firm, so that the bush rotates as such on the sleeve. I reckon there should have been some specific washers for this in the kit, but apparently not, so I reckon you will have to do your own thing with it.

I have never used poly in that particular area, as I figured that the original lasted 20+ years, and if the poly let go earlier, which has been reported down here, they are a pain to replace, so genuine Metalastic have always gone in when I have had to do them.

Spoke to the Prothane tech. Less than helpful unfortunately. Did confirm that their sleeves/spacers are 1/16 of an inch longer than the original bushing sleeves. So that explains the additional distance on each side. The Prothane tech could not explain the added length. I tried to tell him that space may be the reason their are reports of lower poly bushing going tits up in only a few years. He said he'd make a note. Great.

Prothane doesn't make a shorter sleeve so I am going to try and grind this one to the stock length and see if that solves the issue.

That is the response I would expect, these mobs have NO idea.

Shortening the sleeve is the right thing to do, but also washer selection will require attention. A decent flat washer, to act as a bearing face will be the best.

I remember reading an old Jaglovers thread where someone used stainless steel washers to keep from having a rusted washer eventually tear up the bushings. Seemed like a good idea.

Here I found what I was talking about (guess he was working on the uppers though):

Lennart Hellberg: "I changed my upper wish bone bushes in 1991 (ref.: CAC.9295 /C.33745/1), The rubber had deteriorated due to friction against the washer (C.29975) and due to the fact that this washer had become rusty after being attacked by water, salt and grit for some 13 years. Then water and grit washed the grease away and the plastic (Teflon?) sleeves in those bushes were destroyed, the sleeves started to wear heavily and then tires were eaten up on the inside. It is a common problem on those cars. I did not find an aftermarket slipflex bush and had to turn to Jaguar. They were not cheap stuff, and I really felt that something had to be done to prevent such quick deterioration. Instead of buying new thrustwashers (C.29975), or cleaning and plating the old ones, I had new washers made in stainless steel, then I mounted them and greased all those parts with extra water-resistant grease (I think it was some silicone based stuff from Molykote, maybe ref. 111, but I_m not sure). Quite recently I was there again to realign the wheels, and I took the upper wishbone assembly apart to see if it was starting to deteriorate or not. I was glad to discover that the slipflex bushes were as new, and the rubber maintained a watertight seal, protecting the innards of this assembly. I suggest therefore that a change of those bushes be accompanied by a replacement of the thrust-washers to home made washers in stainless steel. Stainless steel do not become rough and therefore the rubber will stay in god shape for a longer time period. I had my washers done by a local workshop that since then has closed down, so here is a business idea for an entrepreneur with a lathe. A decent price would be around a buck each, there's eight on one car. If anyone starts to manufacture those washers, please let me know."