So whats the body bushing story?

tb3

elbows & a$$holes
Mar 31, 2006
2,100
54
48
Does anybody know the official story or reason why buick left out certain and random body bushings on the g body cars? I've heard tons of storys ranging from saving $ to differant shifts at the flint plant smoking dope and playing cards while the cars rolled by on the line. I'm fixing to install all the missing ones on my GN and am just curious. I've been out of the turbo buick loop for over 10 years so I hope its not a really dumb question by now. :confused:
 

SPOT MY 6

Stock crawlin National...
May 25, 2001
634
2
16
37
Chi-Town, IL
www.geocities.com
I bought the Engery Suspension kit and the only bushings it had that were not on there are the ones above the rear end (gnx had 'em). Car felt so much better and tighter after that btw.
 

Squid4life

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2004
5,685
181
63
Honolulu, HI
SPOT MY 6 said:
I bought the Engery Suspension kit and the only bushings it had that were not on there are the ones above the rear end (gnx had 'em). Car felt so much better and tighter after that btw.
X2. Brand new car!
 

pacecarta

MAGNA
Staff member
Aug 1, 2003
9,094
769
113
RIP racewaypark, NJ
im sure it was a cost based descision with little to no descernable diference in the ride for the intended market of those purchasing regals and may have even quieted the ride on the regal leaving them out

its possible some got lowers due to line worker errors but it wasnt a line screw up if they werent there since the washer only lower mounts for positions #3,#4 and #7 are detailed in the service manual and other GM diagrams for the regal
bushing #5 was also absent from the regal but came on other G bodies (later reinstalled in the gnX) as was the rear seat x-brace which was used on pontiacs and later installed into the gnX by ASC/

when i redid mine i went with GM bushings and installed lowers on the #3 #4 and #7 positions and even put the #5 position bushing in .
 

turbofish38

Le Pétomane
Dec 3, 2002
5,036
7
38
59
Planet Turbo
The only ones missing on purpose are the lower ones on positions #3,#4 and #7. The purpose they are missing mainly has to do with noise and ride quality. These are Buicks after all. Interestingly enough the Cutlass is missing a few of them, but not the same ones and it got the missing #5 but every Monte and Grand Prix got all of them. Personally I dont like the polys. If you have an all out race car than theres nothing wrong but I cant tolerate them on a daily driver. Combine the polys with an exhaust that drones at cruising speed and its enough to drive you insane sometimes.
 

turbofish38

Le Pétomane
Dec 3, 2002
5,036
7
38
59
Planet Turbo
pacecarta said:
bushing #5 was also absent from the regal but came on other G bodies (later reinstalled in the gnX) as was the rear seat x-brace which was used on pontiacs and later installed into the gnX by ASC
Funny you should mention the braces. I'm in the process of documenting the different braces used on all of the G-bodies. I've got a few more pictures to take of them installed on a TR. You could divide them into two catagories. Frame and body. The Regal did have some braces that a Chevy didn't. More info to come in the future.
 

FlightTest

New Member
Dec 1, 2003
48
1
0
Weatherford, TX
Visit site
Not to change the subject but I have two sets of Jounce bars and one set is made out of at least twice as thick of material. The one set weighs almost 40% more. One set came off an Olds cutless and one from a Pontiac. I guess they must have had different suppliers. Externally they looked very similar except the pressed ends were a little different. Not a big deal, just different.
 

Bob Avellar

Member
May 25, 2001
303
0
16
119
Acushnet, Ma.
home.comcast.net
turbofish38 said:
The only ones missing on purpose are the lower ones on positions #3,#4 and #7. The purpose they are missing mainly has to do with noise and ride quality. These are Buicks after all. Interestingly enough the Cutlass is missing a few of them, but not the same ones and it got the missing #5 but every Monte and Grand Prix got all of them. Personally I dont like the polys. If you have an all out race car than theres nothing wrong but I cant tolerate them on a daily driver. Combine the polys with an exhaust that drones at cruising speed and its enough to drive you insane sometimes.
I totally agree. I have the poly at all locations. The car does get a much tighter feel to it and I'm sure it would help with Autocrossing but I wish I had used the stock style. The ride is way harsher than before and it does not ride comfortably like it did when new. The car is totally restored but I reused the springs and KYB shocks from before the resto so the only ride stiffening change would be the bushings. It's actually fine on the highway but I don't like the ride quality on secondary roads-especially with the potholes up here in the northeast. :mad: Around here when they fix a pothole they just change them into speed bumps anyway! :mad: :mad: If you drive it alot I would go with rubber-not poly.
 

tb3

elbows & a$$holes
Mar 31, 2006
2,100
54
48
hmm... some good information. I guess whats really throwing me then, is that if the bushings are what connect the frame to the body.... then how much did they factor in safety when they decided to leave some off? Or is it really not a big deal based on the design of the car/frame combination?
 

Gary Wells

White turbo Buick trailer park trash
Mar 2, 2002
8,220
229
63
long Beach, PRK.
turbofish38 said:
The only ones missing on purpose are the lower ones on positions #3,#4 and #7. The purpose they are missing mainly has to do with noise and ride quality. These are Buicks after all. Interestingly enough the Cutlass is missing a few of them, but not the same ones and it got the missing #5 but every Monte and Grand Prix got all of them. Personally I dont like the polys. If you have an all out race car than theres nothing wrong but I cant tolerate them on a daily driver. Combine the polys with an exhaust that drones at cruising speed and its enough to drive you insane sometimes.
----------------------------------------
Kirban reports that only 1 in 7 turbo Regals were (are) missing the # 7 lower body bushing, which would tell me that 1 of you gentlemen is quite possibly in error. Fwiw, Eric, in everything that I have ever seen in print from you, I have never questioned your judgement nor correctness. It's doubtful that they intended on leaving out # 7 if 6 out of 7 turbo Regals received the # 7 bushing. just my thoughts. I guess that they could have intended on leaving it out, but forgot to, which seems sort of far-fetched. I went factory rubber bushings on my missing #'s 3,4, & GNX bushings, and I am glad that I did. No poly here.
 

pacecarta

MAGNA
Staff member
Aug 1, 2003
9,094
769
113
RIP racewaypark, NJ
Wells said:
----------------------------------------
Kirban reports that only 1 in 7 turbo Regals were (are) missing the # 7 lower body bushing, which would tell me that 1 of you gentlemen is in error. It's doubtful that they intended on leaving out # 7 if 6 out of 7 turbo Regals received the # 7 bushing. just my thoughts. I went factory rubber bushings on my missing #'s 3,4, & GNX bushings, and I am glad that I did. No poly here.


"missing" would infer that it was meant to be there and isnt , this is not the case , they were never meant to be there according to all GM books and Im not trying to sell you a lower bushing kit so I wonder who has their story wrong :rolleyes:

as i said its more likely that they were added to #7 when they shouldnt have been by a lineworker since all other G bodies rolling down the line got them there
 

pacecarta

MAGNA
Staff member
Aug 1, 2003
9,094
769
113
RIP racewaypark, NJ
heres the diagram straight from buick

you will also find if you search the parts books that for #3.#4 and #7 the part # for the lower bushing is a washer not a bushing
 

Gary Wells

White turbo Buick trailer park trash
Mar 2, 2002
8,220
229
63
long Beach, PRK.
Kirban used the term missing for the #'s 3 & 4 in his catalogue also, I was under the impression, right of wrong, that virtually all Turbo Regals were missing the #'s 3, 4, & 5 (GNX). My car was purchased from the original ownerwith 8.4K miles on it, and it did not have #'s 3 & 4 lowers, but it did have # 7, and everybody refers to them as body bushings, be it correct or incorrect. Most of these cars have changed hands so many times that it is difficult to tell what they came with and what they didn't in the way of body bushings, cushions, washers, uppers or lowers. And fwiw, they suffered Mondays too.
 

strikeeagle

New Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,718
8
0
Visit site
Wells,

My experience is essentially the same. I'm the 2nd owner of an 87 T and an 87 GN, both with less than 6 kM at the time of purchase. Both were minus the #3 and #4 lower cushions on both sides. Both had the #7 lower cushions installed on both sides.

I installed OEM #3 and #4 lower cushions in both cars. I did not bother with #5. I would not use poly for reasons previously cited - feel pretty strongly about that.

strike
 

Gary Wells

White turbo Buick trailer park trash
Mar 2, 2002
8,220
229
63
long Beach, PRK.
strikeeagle said:
Wells,
My experience is essentially the same. I'm the 2nd owner of an 87 T and an 87 GN, both with less than 6 kM at the time of purchase. Both were minus the #3 and #4 lower cushions on both sides. Both had the #7 lower cushions installed on both sides.
strike
--------------------------------
Strike:
Glad that someone stepped up to the plate here, I was starting to think that I need a beer, or 2 or 3. I am on my 5th Turbo Regal, and all were the same as the one that I have now, but in all fairness, I can't say how the others were from the factory other than 1 of them as I was 2nd owner on that one too. About 10.3K miles on it when I bought it.
 

aminga

Chicks Dig the powerbulge
Dec 15, 2003
4,594
305
83
Lacey's Springs, AL
homepages.otelco.net
Wells said:
--------------------------------
Strike:
Glad that someone stepped up to the plate here, I was starting to think that I need a beer, or 2 or 3. I am on my 5th Turbo Regal, and all were the same as the one that I have now, but in all fairness, I can't say how the others were from the factory other than 1 of them as I was 2nd owner on that one too. About 10.3K miles on it when I bought it.
One owner 86 T-type. It was missing 3,4,and 7. Maybe it was a year thing.
 

pacecarta

MAGNA
Staff member
Aug 1, 2003
9,094
769
113
RIP racewaypark, NJ
i did some further searching and came across one diagram dated 102582 so its definately dated
this diagram detalied body bushings and was sort of a compilation for all G bodies so not buick specific ,
in the parts discription breakdown for this diagram the listings were not accurate for what diagram #s pointed too , either way dispite the innacuracies it made mention of a lower cushion being used for #7 mount w/G80 ,
so maybe it was a posi related usage for the #7 cushions,
 

NCTURBOS

Gettin' back in action!!
Staff member
May 26, 2001
3,379
32
48
PA, OH, NC...
www.ncturbos.com
As a GM parts guy... I've always hated the parts look-up in the charts section when comparing it to the illustration shown above.

Eric,

What have you come up with for all the upper and lower #'s?? I made up a cheat sheet (somewhere) that I currently use, but would like to compare.


Keith
 

turbofish38

Le Pétomane
Dec 3, 2002
5,036
7
38
59
Planet Turbo
Here are the current part numbers listed for the Regal and I've added the missing bushing part numbers as well.
Regal coupes
#2 upper 330986
#3 upper 348080
#4 upper 348080
#6 upper 330942
#7 upper 1242754
#2 lower 457915
#6 lower 377801
Missing bushings
#3 lower 377801
#4 lower 457915
#7 lower 377801
#5 upper 488610


I've never really agreed on some of the statements and facts that Kirban prints in his book. I've been around the G-bodies since the new downsized versions came out for the 78 model year. A heck of a lot longer than Dennis.He might be the expert on GTO's but he isn't with these. There is just to much BS and a lot of incorrect statements for me to believe what is printed in his books to be the gospel IMO. There is no subsitute for the factory assembly manual and a parts book.

BTW the Cutlass is missing the lowers on #3,#4 and #6 on the V-8 cars and #3 and #6 on the V-6 cars. After a couple of weekends of crawling around underneath some cars at the boneyard I have found this was true. This uncontroled study only involved 10 cars so I'm sure there could have been some inconsistencies(sp) when you factor in the million or so cars made in the 11 year model span.
 

Ormand

New Member
Jan 3, 2002
1,882
5
0
75
Raleigh, NC
Visit site
I believe the bushings were left off for two reasons. One, they don't serve any structural purpose. The spacers used instead of lower bushings actually make the frame/body stiffer than if rubber were used. Two, we're talking Regals- the low end of the Buick line, as far as cars with frames. If you look at the catalog, you will see that the LeSabre, the Invicta, the Electra, etc, got cushions at all positions, to isolate noise and vibration. The Regals were not expected to be as smooth and quiet as the bigger cars, so substituting a solid space in place of a rubber cushion was an "acceptable" compromise between cost and ride. So, the "design" was for a rubber cushion clamped between body and frame, with a big washer/spacer under the frame. But some cars got cushions, and on some cars the spacer was left out. Those cars would have been less rigid than the ones with the spacers, or the ones with the lower bushing/cushion.
But only the GM folks who made the decision can actually tell us what the thinking was.