I installed the Borg delrin AF bushings into the RLCA's night before last seemingly paying attention to the instructions. Today while cruising through the instructions and admiring my work I noticed something that really got my attention. It appeared I installed the rear bushing incorrectly according to the illustrations. They show in 2 places the shorter of the bushings has a narrow flange and the longer has a wide flange. See figure 1 and figure 6. I noticed on my install I had the narrow flange of the rear bushing to the outboard side of the lower arm which according to figure 6 is incorrect, like figure 1 it shows the wide flange bushing as the longer of the two which is installed from the outside as instructed in step 9 under "Bushing Installation". Step 10 under figure 6 references figure 1 and figure 6 when describing the location of the short and long bushings, again the diagram indicates flange width consistent with overall bushing width. I pushed the inner sleeve back through the bushing and found the longer of the bushings on the rear mount WAS installed from the outboard side correctly, however it had a narrow flange and it's opposing short side bushing has the wide flange contrary to what the instructions indicate. So now I am a bit perplexed as the orientation of the flange thickness would alter how they fit in the cradle by the difference of the flange thicknesses. I thought I would post this before tomorrow when I can call Borg and see if he can explain to this dummy what'

Figure 6

Figure 1

Step 9

Long bushing with narrow flange - rear lwr mount outer.

Narrow flange/long bushing on right/rear lwr mount outer

Front lwr mount - wide flange/long bushing on outer

Front lwr mount from inboard narrow bushing
s up.

 

I looked back at install info in my build thread but there's nothing there or in my memory to help you.

When I swap things in my head like this I just take them fully apart and reassemble them all again so I know I don't run it on a botched setup.

 

I think I may be over thinking this however I am a draftsman who puts a lot of stock in illustrations being correct. There is a flange width difference of 2mm, I don't know the tolerance of the 2 mounts of the lwr CA on the cradle to each other location wise but I guess I could believe +/- of 2mm though that seems like a lot.

 

Well it's obvious that the instructions you have were created with Microsoft draw in Word Would it have killed them take pictures of the actual parts? How lazy can you get?

 

I agree on the shitty illustration. Maybe they have a guy from IKEA doing those.

 

I thought it was very effective when I went through. I'd rather have it accentuate the drawn picture so I "get it," because the opposite problem can occur easily where someone else would say "but I thought it looked like the picture - I can't tell the difference on a printed piece of paper"

 

As a line stroker for years drawings were my world. Crazy drawings as the plan view (from above) is drawn right on top of the side view which to the eye appears to be a jumble of lines and curves..which it is. One would think after years of that a simple illustration I could figure out, lol.

 

Reminds me of the spatial awareness part of the DAT exam.

 

I think we got Charles sorted over PM's, but for anyone stumbling across this in the future, yes the thicknesses on the RLCA-F are opposite of all other positions in terms of lip thicknesses. That means the long bushing has the thinner lip and the short bushing has the thicker lip. I never caught that in the initial drawings in the instructions. They are long overdue for a revisit from the days where it was just me trying to bootstrap things from scratch. I'll get that corrected in the next iteration.

My apologies for the form submission on the site being down. We're still trying to figure out why some of the Shopify apps aren't playing nice with things when we haven't changed anything on our end.

 

When you get that done, shoot me a copy or post one here maybe? I installed them all to the uppers and lowers but the suspension is not yet on the car fully so if I erred I can easily correct.

 

Thank you much Lane for helping me out, much appreciated Sir!

 

I can post them here but it's not a near term thing. As long as you put the long bushing halves in from the outside and the short ones in from the inside, you're good to go. On the C7, the thicknesses align with the bushing length. On the RUCA's, they either align with bushing length (aluminum frame cars) or they don't matter (steel frame). The RLCA-R on the C5/C6 is the only one that is different. One of the many reasons I'm not a fan of the rear suspension design of these cars.

 

Of course. Again, I apologize that the submission form on the site wasn't working for you.

 

Hmm. I just put mine in recently. Everything installed fine. Now I’m wondering if I missed something.

 

Mine installed fine, it was the diagram I had problems with. Of course and as usual I was overthinking the entire thing. Lane got me squared away proper. Another example of excellent customer service!

 

You should be fine. Because the stock bushings are rubber, the tolerances on the arms supplied to GM can be pretty broad. I tried to accommodate as much of the range as I could with the design and we machine things to much tighter tolerances than industry standard (perks of having your own machines). In the rare instances that there are issues, we'll ship replacement parts, most likely custom machined to the specific components on the customer's car so that the bushings perform as expected.