When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Good info. Thanks. I figured because someone was talking about bushings that I would ask about....bushings. are polyurethane bushings better for the tl? I didn't have the best luck when I put them on my old 96 police caprice.
I have an old british car I tinker with and poly is the best way to go.
Fit and forget for one and they resist oil, British cars leak oil.
However, they can make the ride harsh, but for a TL, this is no big deal. I call Prothane and they don't have any. The other company u mentioned dont have stuff for the TL.
Is Prothane any good? they make stuff for the British car I have.
I have an old british car I tinker with and poly is the best way to go.
Fit and forget for one and they resist oil, British cars leak oil.
However, they can make the ride harsh, but for a TL, this is no big deal. I call Prothane and they don't have any. The other company u mentioned dont have stuff for the TL.
Is Prothane any good? they make stuff for the British car I have.
Sujit
TL's aren't known for leaking oil.
Is yours leaking oil? Isn't fixing the oil leak a better solution than adapting the suspension to deal with leaked oil?
Poly isn't fit and forget. It requires constant re-grease. Or...apparently, it requires install on a car that leaks oil to constantly lubricate the bushing.
And the lifespan of a typical polyurethane bushing is extremely short as compared to rubber.
I'm only telling you this because it seems that your perception of poly bushings is incorrect.
Which bushing on your TL is torn? If it is the compliance bushing....think of how bad of an idea it would be to make that bushing LESS compliant by installing a polyurethane one. Compliance is literally the name of the bushing.
Its your car to do with as you want. But poly bushings aren't used by OEM's for quite a few very good reasons. If they were as miraculous as companies that manufacture them claim they are...then why do OEM's use rubber or metal for bushings?
I have an old british car I tinker with and poly is the best way to go.
Fit and forget for one and they resist oil, British cars leak oil.
However, they can make the ride harsh, but for a TL, this is no big deal. I call Prothane and they don't have any. The other company u mentioned dont have stuff for the TL.
Is Prothane any good? they make stuff for the British car I have.
Sujit
I would get OEM replacement bushing due to how the LCA articulates about the "dog bone". I am talking about the front most LCA bushing that has a bolt that is perpendicular to the road surface. The poly bushings won't articulate like the OEM bushing and is why you don't see them in the aftermarket. The PCI spherical is the best alternative option but is subjective to NVH and your tolerance to more read feel.
OEM's don't use poly bushings because their goal is to make the most compliant ride possible, IE isolate you from the road for a smooth ride.
OEM's don't use poly bushings because their goal is to make the most compliant ride possible, IE isolate you from the road for a smooth ride.
Compliance? Yes, where needed. Isolation? Sure. But...a lot of manufacturers use metal bearings with teflon liners instead of bushings. Almost no isolation. But lots of compliance.
The TL's rear toe arms have bearings instead of bushings on the chassis side, for example. Porsches, BMW's, and "factory hopped up" cars like the STi use bearings extensively.
Why do OEM's choose to use expensive bearings (that don't isolate) in order to gain compliance and performance? Why not use the MUCH cheaper option of polyurethane? Because of the huge drawbacks of polyurethane bushings.
NVH is an easy way to explain away why OEM's don't use poly. But its not the correct explanation.
OEM's use different hardnesses of rubber...or they use bearings. They skip polyurethane altogether.
Compliance? Yes, where needed. Isolation? Sure. But...a lot of manufacturers use metal bearings with teflon liners instead of bushings. Almost no isolation. But lots of compliance.
The TL's rear toe arms have bearings instead of bushings on the chassis side, for example. Porsches, BMW's, and "factory hopped up" cars like the STi use bearings extensively.
Why do OEM's choose to use expensive bearings (that don't isolate) in order to gain compliance and performance? Why not use the MUCH cheaper option of polyurethane? Because of the huge drawbacks of polyurethane bushings.
NVH is an easy way to explain away why OEM's don't use poly. But its not the correct explanation.
OEM's use different hardnesses of rubber...or they use bearings. They skip polyurethane altogether.
OEM's select the bushing design that is driven by the program budget and performance targets. I work for OEM's on the chassis side. Don't say it's not correct, it's not the whole story howevet NVH is what the end user "customer" can quantify.
I am fairly certain that the subframe side of the rear toe link on the 3G TL uses a rubber bushing.
Could you help me out and point me to said "Teflon liners"?
OEM's select the bushing design that is driven by the program budget and performance targets. I work for OEM's on the chassis side. Don't say it's not correct, it's not the whole story howevet NVH is what the end user "customer" can quantify.
I am fairly certain that the subframe side of the rear toe link on the 3G TL uses a rubber bushing.
Could you help me out and point me to said "Teflon liners"?
I sense some condescension.
I'll address your cost and harshness statement:
Polyurethane is cheaper than bearings for sure. It's probably a little cheaper than the rubber used to make rubber bushings. So it seems to have an advantage in cost.
It deflects more than metal....which would reduce some of the impact harshness associated with bearings. So it has an advantage over bearings in impact harshness.
OEM's still don't use it. They would rather use more expensive materials, and spend time/money designing around the impact harshness of bearings when performance is of importance.
Because poly bushings are not as advantageous as they seem. I didn't say NVH was a non-factor. But it's not the main contributor to why OEM's choose not to use polyurethane.
NVH is an easy way to explain why you wouldn't use polyurethane over rubber. But it does not completely explain why you wouldn't use polyurethane over metal. And maybe you're right in that NVH is only *some* of the story even in that case. It is, in fact, a concern. Since bearings have very little resistance to movement on multiple axes, they cause less bind in the suspension, they don't to the spring rate, and they do reduce ride oscillation and added binding over dips and bumps. But they do still add arguably more impact harshness than polyurethane.
You're *pretty sure* that 3G TL's don't have bearings on the chassis side of the rear toe arm? Why would you even state this? Just say, "I don't know/haven't looked". If you had looked, you would be COMPLETELY sure that I am correct.
Bearing joints use some sort of low friction liner. PTFE is pretty normal. Break open a modern, sealed ball joint or tie rod, or end link, or spherical bearing. You'll find some sort of liner. Chances are that it's a polymer. Polymers are self lubricating and can be made to an interference fit to ball studs while still maintaining smooth articulation. Maybe you're more used to metal liners? Greasable joints sometimes use metal liners. I am not aware of sealed joints that use metal liners. But...maybe you know something I don't.
Originally Posted by sujitroy
Just to get closure. I did go for OEM bushes.
Regarding poly bushes. The best ones for old classics are from an Australian outfit
I'll address your cost and harshness statement:
Polyurethane is cheaper than bearings for sure. It's probably a little cheaper than the rubber used to make rubber bushings. So it seems to have an advantage in cost.
It deflects more than metal....which would reduce some of the impact harshness associated with bearings. So it has an advantage over bearings in impact harshness.
OEM's still don't use it. They would rather use more expensive materials, and spend time/money designing around the impact harshness of bearings when performance is of importance.
Because poly bushings are not as advantageous as they seem. I didn't say NVH was a non-factor. But it's not the main contributor to why OEM's choose not to use polyurethane.
NVH is an easy way to explain why you wouldn't use polyurethane over rubber. But it does not completely explain why you wouldn't use polyurethane over metal. And maybe you're right in that NVH is only *some* of the story even in that case. It is, in fact, a concern. Since bearings have very little resistance to movement on multiple axes, they cause less bind in the suspension, they don't to the spring rate, and they do reduce ride oscillation and added binding over dips and bumps. But they do still add arguably more impact harshness than polyurethane.
You're *pretty sure* that 3G TL's don't have bearings on the chassis side of the rear toe arm? Why would you even state this? Just say, "I don't know/haven't looked". If you had looked, you would be COMPLETELY sure that I am correct.
Bearing joints use some sort of low friction liner. PTFE is pretty normal. Break open a modern, sealed ball joint or tie rod, or end link, or spherical bearing. You'll find some sort of liner. Chances are that it's a polymer. Polymers are self lubricating and can be made to an interference fit to ball studs while still maintaining smooth articulation. Maybe you're more used to metal liners? Greasable joints sometimes use metal liners. I am not aware of sealed joints that use metal liners. But...maybe you know something I don't.
lol likewise.
The front LCA bushing of the TL would not articulate correctly with a poly bushing, it doesn't offer the required movement in the desired axis. That is why this bushing isn't offered in a poly material only OEM rubber and PCI's spherical.
*Pretty sure* is because I don't want to lay on the ground in the winter to verify something for a stranger online.
Your words
"Compliance? Yes, where needed. Isolation? Sure. But...a lot of manufacturers use metal bearings with teflon liners instead of bushings. Almost no isolation. But lots of compliance."
It sounds like you are confused with the term compliance. I think you mean DoF. Stiffness is the inverse of compliance. higher stiffness equals less compliance.
Don't think you can put metal bearings and remove all the compliance. The whole chassis has a stiffness to it, the bushing material is only one piece of the system.
It's pretty subjective on what a person is willing to accept for ride quality and steering wheel feedback. For the OP I would recommend OEM. Most people get aftermarket engine mounts that are poly and quickly realize why the OEM's use rubber engine mounts. My track car has upgraded bushing, increased spring rates and the whole ball of wax. YOU FEEL EVERYTHING, that's what I want on a track car but, it's not what you want on a regular street car.
The front LCA bushing of the TL would not articulate correctly with a poly bushing, it doesn't offer the required movement in the desired axis. That is why this bushing isn't offered in a poly material only OEM rubber and PCI's spherical.
*Pretty sure* is because I don't want to lay on the ground in the winter to verify something for a stranger online.
Your words
"Compliance? Yes, where needed. Isolation? Sure. But...a lot of manufacturers use metal bearings with teflon liners instead of bushings. Almost no isolation. But lots of compliance."
It sounds like you are confused with the term compliance. I think you mean DoF. Stiffness is the inverse of compliance. higher stiffness equals less compliance.
Don't think you can put metal bearings and remove all the compliance. The whole chassis has a stiffness to it, the bushing material is only one piece of the system.
It's pretty subjective on what a person is willing to accept for ride quality and steering wheel feedback. For the OP I would recommend OEM. Most people get aftermarket engine mounts that are poly and quickly realize why the OEM's use rubber engine mounts. My track car has upgraded bushing, increased spring rates and the whole ball of wax. YOU FEEL EVERYTHING, that's what I want on a track car but, it's not what you want on a regular street car.
I'm not confused about any nomenclature. An arm with bearings in it will comply (as a system) to movement. The bearing itself will not deflect virtually at all. But will allow free movement of the arm as a system. It will allow the system to comply with the road surface.
An arm with bonded bushings or even floating poly bushings will resist movement and act to increase wheel rate. Wheel rate will be STIFFER (there's that word you used), and thus will not comply with road irregularities.
I understand flex or "squish" also means compliance. I addressed that portion by saying words like "isolation" or "deflection".
I also never originally asked you to verify if there were bearings in the rear toe arms. I said that there were for sure bearings in the rear arms.
"I didn't know the arms had bearings in them because I've never confirmed one way or the other" is different than "I'm pretty sure the arms have rubber on both sides even though I've never looked or confirmed to justify my thought".
There are other ways to confirm. Google doesn't require lying in the snow.
But we're both in agreement that manufacturers don't use poly for a bevy of reasons.
The TL's rear toe arms have bearings instead of bushings on the chassis side, for example. Porsches, BMW's, and "factory hopped up" cars like the STi use bearings extensively.
You're *pretty sure* that 3G TL's don't have bearings on the chassis side of the rear toe arm? Why would you even state this? Just say, "I don't know/haven't looked". If you had looked, you would be COMPLETELY sure that I am correct.
There are other ways to confirm. Google doesn't require lying in the snow.
6spd-GERCO is correct. I thought the same, but dug up this old pic to confirm. You're looking at the chassis side of an OEM toe arm that I had to cut out.
Don't really care what you think it looks like. That's a toe arm off my 04TL that I had to cut out because the eccentric bolt was frozen in the bushing.
Here's another photo of a toe arm clearly showing it's a bushing on the chassis side (last photo):
Don't really care what you think it looks like. That's a toe arm off my 04TL that I had to cut out because the eccentric bolt was frozen in the bushing.
Here's another photo of a toe arm clearly showing it's a bushing on the chassis side (last photo):
...I am fairly certain that the subframe side of the rear toe link on the 3G TL uses a rubber bushing...
CORRECT
Originally Posted by BROlando
...You're *pretty sure* that 3G TL's don't have bearings on the chassis side of the rear toe arm? Why would you even state this? Just say, "I don't know/haven't looked". If you had looked, you would be COMPLETELY sure that I am correct....
No, you're still wrong. The chassis / subframe side where the eccentric bolt goes through is definitely a bushing as proven by 2 different photos of where the eccentric bolt was cut, clearly showing a bushing.
Hmmm. Now I’m curious to when I took off my OEM arms to put ingalls toe & camber (which sucked) and then removed, if the OEM arms were reinstalled correctly! I haven’t had time to check, but still have a slight clunking when going over small undulations/bumps. Wonder if this, could be the cause?
Hmmm. Now I’m curious to when I took off my OEM arms to put ingalls toe & camber (which sucked) and then removed, if the OEM arms were reinstalled correctly! I haven’t had time to check, but still have a slight clunking when going over small undulations/bumps. Wonder if this, could be the cause?
While there certainly is a bearing on one side, I do believe it should go on the SPINDLE side.
I think maybe I remember it backwards because I was laying under the car, looking up? IDK. No real excuse.
It makes more sense for it to be on the spindle side. The spindle bushing would benefit more from articulation. Its the same concept as your wrist having more degrees of freedom (DoF) than your elbow. Your wrist joint is more beneficial at your wrist than your elbow.
Honda likes to use rear passive steering. In the case of the TL rear suspension, the rearward arm and frontward trailing arm have fairly stiff bushings. The toe arm is close to perpendicular to the wheel/spindle plane. So my thought is that the bearing on the spindle side of the toe arm allows the spindle to be steered by the other arms without binding up at the toe arm.
Yes there is a bearing on the spindle side but not on the subframe side. I was wrong about the bushing being on the spindle side as well. The rubber boot on it made it look like a bushing. I looked at the toe link closer when I was fixing a leaky ABS loom and it is indeed a bearing joint of some type. I will update the diagram.
FYI it was made with snagit, glad you understood it. Cute screen grabs BTW.
Impressive you two kept it civil through the entire d*ck swinging contest.
I find these conversations interesting since generally the final outcome is great detail that probably isn't important in the bigger picture, but very informative.
Well...we did both agree that poly bushings aren't the dazzling marvels that poly bushing manufacturers say they are.
My opinion is that they're a cheap solution for budget projects where the user doesn't mind getting beat up a bit and doesn't mind comprimised performance from the suspension, as well as decreased lifespan and increased maintenance. BUT...they are resistant to breakdown from oil exposure. If you're the type of person that prefers swapping bushings instead of fixing an oil leak...then...I guess you found your product. The leaking oil will lubricate the bushing. So you win twice. Player.
Hi all, first post. I acquired my first Acura, a 2005 TL and ended up here as the lower control arm bushing was shot. Being a huge fan of urethane, I quickly noticed the offerings wouldn't quite work out in the case of this bushing which constantly travels in an arc. I saw the spherical bushings but the price shied me away and I don't think I'd like the harshness of a solid mount on a street car. I currently have a 1985 Z28 all urethane front and back, and a 1991 Accord I also installed the full urethane kit on.
Doing some research I found that MOOG made a spherical bushing encased in rubber for a few Honda's. Part #K200799. The bolt diameter is the same, the shaft height is slightly taller, so it can be milled to desired height, but the outside diameter is about 1/8" smaller than the inside diameter of the stock bushing.
The plan will be to clean all the rubber out of the stock bushing, use sheet steel to take up the clearance issue, and spot weld into place. The spot welding will have to be done slowly so as not to melt the rubber encasement. I'll post pictures up as I progress, should get it done sometime next week.
So, mixed results and lessons learned for next time. My excuse is it was late, after the days work was done, and needed the rack clear for the next days work. That's my story and I'm stcking to it........
Lesson one, pay attention to the metal used. I stuck a piece of galvanized in there (duh) and the welds suffered. I wasn't turning back at that point, so on I went.
Lesson two, gotta turn the heat down or protect the rubber. I didn't even notice the rubber seal had degraded until I was done and flexing the heim joint. The rubber immediately tore. The joint itself was still solid so I packed some extra grease in there (yes, to attract sand...) and rolled with it.
The passenger side was wasted as well, so while I had the tools out and up on the rack I pressed in the rubber bushing on that side. That said, the difference is noticeable. Right hand turns are very crisp and accurate, left hand turns a but less. So, I'll be ordering another of the heim joint style bushing and installing it at a future date. Also noticed the front sway bar needs a little stiffening up and have seen lots of ideas here on the site. Thanks!!!
The best news is the alignment was almost perfect. Drivers rear cam for the toe was frozen solid, so I'll knock it out when I do the passenger side bushing. Passenger side already had the aftermarket adjusters on it which made camber and toe a breeze.
^cool that you were able to retrofit that CR-V/civic bushing. Its a cheap way to get sphericals on the car.
How does it drive?
I do have to mention...that rubber seal pops right off....why didn't you just remove it real quick before welding?
I would also tack the outer sleeve to the LCA to keep it from slipping thru. There's not much of a press fit to the arm now with the way you've used the inner sleeve and bushing.
Honestly, it never ocurred to me to pop the rubber off. Thanks for the heads up, I'll definitely do that when I do the passenger.
Huge improvement of course, the old bushings were shot. I have a road nearby that has 4 sharp 90's in it, all 15 mph curves I can take at about 45. I can tell the difference between the rubber and the spherical, but backwards of what I thought. The rubber has a pad to stop the acceleration movement, but not on the decel side. Right hand turns I can feel the passenger wheel track a bit, left hand turns not so bad. I'm assuming because when the inside wheel is the spherical and the outside is the rubber there's little tracking effect as the rubber "only" moves about 1/8" inch.
I'll definitely be installing the spherical on the passenger side. I noticed the rear bushing cracking a bit so I'll do it as well.
Gotta get a bigger roll bar on the front though. The factory bar just isn't stiff enough, plows like crazy when close to the limit and I really don't want to stiffen up the springs. Not like I'm racing it.
12-06-2017, 04:04 PM
