1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

[Richard S.]

Is it possible to insert new bushings into the rear lower control arms at the shock end? I dont need new bushings on the other end, only where the shock mounts go through.

Do the conrol arms need to be removed or can the bushings be installed with the control arms on the car? I presume the car would need to be realigned if the arms are removed?

Is it a press fit or do the easily slide in (even if they are a press fit)?

I was thinking of freezing them prior to installing to help press them in easily (if in fact it is a press fit).

[John H.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

Is it possible to insert new bushings into the rear lower control arms at the shock end? I dont need new bushings on the other end, only where the shock mounts go through.

Do the conrol arms need to be removed or can the bushings be installed with the control arms on the car? I presume the car would need to be realigned if the arms are removed?

Is it a press fit or do the easily slide in (even if they are a press fit)?

I was thinking of freezing them prior to installing to help press them in easily (if in fact it is a press fit).

Richard -

You're talking about the strut rod bushings, which can be replaced, but the strut rods need to come off the car so you can press out the remnants of the old bushings, which were bonded into the strut rod openings. The replacement bushings have an outer steel sleeve, and require a press to insert them into the rod opening, or you can buy new strut rods with the bushings already installed. Rear camber will need to be re-set after replacing the bushings, which is about a 5-minute job on an alignment rack.

[Gene M.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

As John points out there is a visible design difference between the original bushings without outer sleeve and the replacement with sleeves. Yes, points deduction on configuration and or assembly.

[Joe R.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

Richard,

Not only are there bushings with the steel sleeve there are bushing with rubber and plastic inserts(urethane) with and without the steel sleeves. Just depends what you want to do with the 63 after the repair is made. And yes, you will need to remove them from the 63 no matter what you decide.
If you are not showing at an NCRS meet use the rubber ones with the steel sleeve. Easy and will last.

JR

[Joe L.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

Richard,

Not only are there bushings with the steel sleeve there are bushing with rubber and plastic inserts(urethane) with and without the steel sleeves. Just depends what you want to do with the 63 after the repair is made. And yes, you will need to remove them from the 63 no matter what you decide.
If you are not showing at an NCRS meet use the rubber ones with the steel sleeve. Easy and will last.

JR

JR-------


Even if he is presenting the car for NCRS judging I highly recommend the use of the steel shell replacement bushings. The only exception would be if the car was strictly a "trailer queen" and not driven or planned to be driven in the future.

[Terry M.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

The steel shell is all but invisible once the rebuilt strut rods are reinstalled on the car. I vedry much doubt there will be a deduction for them in NCRS or NCCB judging.

[Mike M.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

As John points out there is a visible design difference between the original bushings without outer sleeve and the replacement with sleeves. Yes, points deduction on configuration and or assembly.

as terry mcmamon noted, i too doubt the chassis judges will differentiate originals from the steel-sleeved replacements. Mike

[Richard S.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

The car is not a trailer queen......yet. For now it is a driver for the next couple of years until the frame of is done. It is an original fuel car and I am in the process of gathering many of the parts now but want to enjoy it as a driver for now.

I put new shocks in it last week which improved the ride ten fold however you could see the busdings were worn and I did not have them readily available to install so I am circling back to replace the bushings to help further improve the ride.

[Duke W.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

While you're at it you should also replace the spring link cushions. I bet they are compressed and hardened and new cushions will dramatically reduce ride harshness and restore ride height if the rear looks low.

Duke

[Larry M.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

The car is not a trailer queen......yet. For now it is a driver for the next couple of years until the frame of is done. It is an original fuel car and I am in the process of gathering many of the parts now but want to enjoy it as a driver for now.

I put new shocks in it last week which improved the ride ten fold however you could see the busdings were worn and I did not have them readily available to install so I am circling back to replace the bushings to help further improve the ride.

LICS has some very nice new strut rods with bushings. Very close to originals, if not exact. You may find this easier and not much cost difference versus replacing the bushings in your old rods.

Your choice. FWIW.

Larry

[Gene M.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

The steel shell is all but invisible once the rebuilt strut rods are reinstalled on the car. I vedry much doubt there will be a deduction for them in NCRS

as terry mcmamon noted, i too doubt the chassis judges will differentiate originals from the steel-sleeved replacements.

As the above states I must disagree. And I do value Terry and Mike's opinions. The outer bushing at the shock mount is clearly visible. The original rubber only (no outer sleeve) lips over the strut rod ends being larger diameter than the bore it is fitted in. It sorta bell mouths over the strut from tension in the rubber. The replacement bushing with the sleeve is clearly only the size of the bore in the strut with the steel visible on each end against the bore of the strut rod. Take another look. Stands out if one is looking for it as I do. Remember CDCIF, this is a configuration and assembly deviation.

[Edward J.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

The steel shell is all but invisible once the rebuilt strut rods are reinstalled on the car. I vedry much doubt there will be a deduction for them in NCRS

as terry mcmamon noted, i too doubt the chassis judges will differentiate originals from the steel-sleeved replacements.

As the above states I must disagree. And I do value Terry and Mike's opinions. The outer bushing at the shock mount is clearly visible. The original rubber only (no outer sleeve) lips over the strut rod ends being larger diameter than the bore it is fitted in. It sorta bell mouths over the strut from tension in the rubber. The replacement bushing with the sleeve is clearly only the size of the bore in the strut with the steel visible on each end against the bore of the strut rod. Take another look. Stands out if one is looking for it as I do. Remember CDCIF, this is a configuration and assembly deviation.

Gene, When judging this item its worth 5 points originality and 5 condition.how do you break it down? The way I look at its is the 4 bushings are worth 1 point, hardware 1 point and the rods 1.5 each. so if the cdcif works correctly Its should only be a configuration problem?? 20% of 1 point is .2 ??I suppose there are a few ways to break down but will it still be worth a deduct?

[Gene M.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

Gene, When judging this item its worth 5 points originality and 5 condition.how do you break it down? The way I look at its is the 4 bushings are worth 1 point, hardware 1 point and the rods 1.5 each. so if the cdcif works correctly Its should only be a configuration problem?? 20% of 1 point is .2 ??I suppose there are a few ways to break down but will it still be worth a deduct?

Ed,
Your break down is perfectly acceptable as long as you are consistent. I would break down a bit differently: strut rods 2 pts, bushings 1 pt, alignment cams and hardware 1 pt, strut s/m support 1 pt. I would put the outer strut support with shock and shock mounting or with trail arm assembly. The manual is not clear on every parts placed order. But cover everything and be consistent.

I feel configuration is the most important if it is incorrect as in not even close, then it makes no difference on the DCIF after that.

Now if all 4 bushings were the sleeve type that is totally wrong configuration in-fact they are not assembled the same as originals. You are dealing with a three piece part vs the original 2 piece part, not even close. Deduct is rounded to one point and I would over look a more minor deduction such as washers on backwards or something along those lines. But be sure to print any deficiencies as that is more useful than points. Understand 1 point is 0.045% of the total picture which amounts to about ........ nothing.

[Edward J.]

Re: 1963 Corvette Rear Lower Control Arm Bushings

Gene, I agree.