blueovalz

Kinda a cheap shot there. I must assume from your comment that anybody that might win any contest is automatically precluded from lodging a protest simply because it would imply sour grapes? That IF ballot stuffing was indicated, all losers should "muzzle it" in regards to questioning the results (oh, they're just sore losers)? If this were a poll that removed any duplicate ISP voting, then obviously we would have no leg to stand on, but I did manipulate the Scion vote, moving it up from 6% to 50% of the votes in a 1 hour period (this category was chosen so as to prove a point, not impact the Reader's Choice SOTY results, and because there was probably less total ballots cast in that category which allowed easier manipulation). Overall, I feel bad for everyone that supported and voted for any and all of the 5 candidates because the lack of any security in the poll (choice of cheapest polling product) allowed manipulation by simply removing the cookies, and then voting...click...click...click...over and over again. All that effort and no validity. We tried to prompt discussion on the Reader's Choice blog of the voting situation, but surprisingly most responses addressed personal car issues with no concern over the perceived ballot stuffing ('My wheels should have been in the poll instead of the ricer wheels'). Surprisingly, NO rebuttal by anybody at CD (that alone is disturbing) has been made toward this issue (everybody be quiet and maybe it will go away). The BlueOvalZ rarely wins any awards simply because the import crowd cries because "its got a V8", and the Rodder crowd cries because it's a "ricer". And the judges don't know where it fits. So I don't figure I'll win anything even though the car draws great crowds, comments, and questions from the normal "I like cars" gear-head crowd that attends the shows. The issue with this vote is the atypical late-term count increase in such a short window, and worse, how unfair this was to all other candidates who may really want or desire the recognition.

I applied the JB to seal two welded tubes used for fuel transfer (more as a sealant around the weld than to bond one tube to the other). The JB was glass hard and well cured when I continued with the project by doing some light welding 12" down the tube. The JB area was warm (but not so warm that I couldn't firmly grasp the tube with my hand) and where I was holding it, I saw where my fingerprints were marring the surface of the JB material. Looking closer, I found I could stick my fingernail slightly into the material and actually pull the material away from the tube. 15 minutes before this, it was hard as a rock and there would have been no way I could have done this. After I let it cool (it was not real hot to begin with), it got hard again.

I would consider heating the sleeve and see if it would slip into the bushing and onto the pin. I would be a bit combersome with all of the lower arm assembly put together though. Sounds like ES has some quality control issues.

This is awesome stuf AT NORMAL temperatures. If it is going to be exposed to any appreciable heat, it softens and its bond gets weaker.

I did not get any response when I attempted this, but I have heard of others that successfully contacted ES about the issue and recieved the "good" sleeves that fit correctly. My intended fix at this poiint was to separate the OEM inner sleeve and insert it into a widened hole in the ES bushing. Eventually (because of the extreme tightness of these bushings - they must be sqeezed tightly in order for the assembly to completed) I instead chose to modify the control arm and use 3/4" heim joints to reduce stiction in the suspension.

Earl's has a catalog full of combinations (hose/fittings/adapters/etc) that can be ordered as a set (from the local speed shop), and then installed. I did front and rear for about $17 per wheel. The lines come in 2" increments though.

After you purchase the ES bushings, I would measure the ID of the inner sleeve. I've found in several cases for this dimension to be .010" larger than the OD of the spindle pin (others have reported the same issue). What this means is the nuts that tighten this inner sleeve against the strut pin boss is the only thing keeping the bushing from moving around under torque. With two of these gaps spaced approximately 7" apart, I could see where you may be in the same situation again. On the bright side, I've also heard of inner sleeves that fit snuggly on the spindle pin.

One thing to remember in all of this is that the bushing length may change when you install the bushings into the chassis (saddles or receivers). This is because these clamps may be tight enough that they will squeeze the bushings outward as the clamps are cinched down. This may take up some of the apparent "excessive" length of the sleeves. My thoughts on this are that the inner sleeve needs to be at least as long as the bushing, if not just a tiny bit longer. This is because when the bushing is tightened into place with the large bolt, you do not want the poly bushing itself to be clamped (squeezed) into place by the two large washers. Having the sleeve cut longer than the bushing will prevent this "squeezing" and allow the poly bushing to rotate on the sleeve (as it was intended). I would guess that this sleeve does not need to be any longer than perhaps .010" longer than the bushing itself, but the bushing is not going to be a "precision" piece, and will be hard to measure. I would clamp the bushing/sleeve assembly in a vice between two smooth plates or washers and experiment with the fit by carefully grinding a little bit off from the sleeve until you have no fore/aft movement of the bushing on the sleeve, but still be able to rotate the bushing on the sleeve. But if you do this, be sure to keep the ends of the sleeve perpendicular to the lenth.