Chevy Impala SS Forum banner
181 - 200 of 201 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
I have original and mine. Mine are equal and have more rubber than stock. And you can trust me, coz in 2012 i have a two complete stock factory original gm kits.
Mine are in One thing are not equal: absent molded metal to upper(black) mount. But think this is not problem to use as discribed. Know how to easy fix.
 

· Premium Member
1993 RMW, 1996 RMW, 1992 OCC
Joined
·
590 Posts
There's a bazillion threads on this, and info is all over the place. Did we ever determine that the boxy gen body bushings (up to 1990) are completely interchangeable with the curvy gen (1991-1996)? I ask because some reproductions are starting to come up.

Bushings:
The Parts Place (worst url ever? quite possibly!)

Washers:

Bolts:
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,852 Posts
Anybody do any updates on this? I'm starting to lean towards removing the frame on my roadmaster wagon to clean and paint it, as well as replace the body bushings while the frame is out.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,125 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,265 Posts
Just looked these up:
Softer durometer, less bushings

Firmer durometer, more bushings

If only there were a way to get ALL of the softer bushings ...
Very similar to the ES offerings. Still poly. But at least can support a smaller a local business. They'd always have a little trailer set up at the Englishtown spring/fall swap meets way back. I think his name was Tom. BIG dude. Used their bushings on the mustang. Can't say they were any better or worse.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,125 Posts


What I don't get:
PST goes out of its way to mention 'polygraphite' - very well lubricated polyurethane
Energy Suspension makes no mention of 'polygraphite'.
Yet PST & Energy Suspension use the same part numbers.
Still willing to bet that 3.4145 has less bushings than 3.4136.

Remember:
Impalas SS and other civi B-cars were OE spec'd by GM with fewer softer body bushings.
EDIT: For unknown reasons, civi SEDANS lack body bushings that WAGONS included.
9C1s were OE spec'd by GM with 'all' the stiffer body bushings.
 

· Premium Member
1993 RMW, 1996 RMW, 1992 OCC
Joined
·
590 Posts
I think that's because PST positions itself as an alternative to ES, and using the same part numbers makes the interchange more obvious. They've been competing that way for endless decades
 

· Premium Member
1993 RMW, 1996 RMW, 1992 OCC
Joined
·
590 Posts
So if one bought 2 of the lower-durometer kits, would that be enough bushings to do the whole car and then some? 😁 Seems so wasteful.

And while it's true that sedans were specced with fewer bushings, wagons never were, and they used the softer bushings. Why not make a kit that's correct for wagons?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,125 Posts
So if one bought 2 of the lower-durometer kits, would that be enough bushings to do the whole car and then some? 😁 Seems so wasteful.
Wasteful indeed.
To my memory - somebody, PLEASE correct me! - civilian sedans are missing some 'rubber' at 4 distinct spots ... ?
?
Instead of ordering 2 kits, it should just be possible to order more bushings - but after two decades, these kits still share the same quirks as GM's OE 'specs'.
And while it's true that sedans were spec'd with fewer bushings, wagons never were, and they used the softer bushings. Why not make a kit that's correct for wagons?
I understand this aftermarket quirk even less.
You don't need to prefer wagons to agree that aftermarket discrimination against wagons is not in any way cool or helpful.
 

· Premium Member
1993 RMW, 1996 RMW, 1992 OCC
Joined
·
590 Posts
I'm 99% sure that if aftermarket companies made a kit that's correct for wagons (and would therefore also be correct for sedans but with 4 extra lower bushings), owners of sedans would happily use the entire kit, including the "extraneous" 4 lower bushings. I'm really not understanding the logic going on here with omitting bushings
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,125 Posts
I'm 99% sure that if aftermarket companies made a kit that's correct for wagons (and would therefore also be correct for sedans but with 4 extra lower bushings), owners of sedans would happily use the entire kit, including the "extraneous" 4 lower bushings.
I'm really not understanding the logic going on here with omitting bushings.
You and I are not the only ones who share this position about adding the bushings GM omitted.
I've admittedly foggy memories of several pre- Aug 2009 threads expressing this still-unaddressed complaint.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
My bushings now successfuly works in 96 impalass. Yes, it possible to sell them. Total box weight is about 7kg.
I can sell them with minimum additional cost+ for testing to anyone. But it must be minimum 3 guys who wants them.
Other way is to use AutoPro BM1032. Its better and cheaper option for USA.

Mine:

 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
I've admittedly foggy memories of several pre- Aug 2009 threads expressing this still-unaddressed complaint.


I would like to see another copy of the TSB:43-20-01, titled "Information on Body Mount"

At some point someone suggested a 1976 Chevelle (Malibu) kit for hardware and rubbers. These are reproduced in the differing densities rubber for different positions. I do not know if anyone followed up on this.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
Well you so suffer with these body mounts? It is necessary to be easier with them, but without fanaticism. no need to delve into measuring with a durometer and similar matters. There is no point in this. Body mounts around the perimeter can be put all the same! Verified personally 100500 times!

So at this time three cases:
autopro, mine and others
 
181 - 200 of 201 Posts
Top