I replaced the front LCA last night, I have a ?

doug93sc

Registered User
For the past month or so I have had a very annoying squeaking coming from the front end and upon looking under the car I noticed that the bushing where the shock attaches to the LCA was almost gone :eek:

So last night I finally replaced the drivers side front LCA with a new one that is SC specific (made by TRW) from Parts America that I only paid about $80 shipped to my door. I went this route instead of just a new bushing because the other bushings looked worn and the ball joint boot had a tear.

I did notice a few differences in the LCA that was on there and the replacement which leads me to believe that the one that was on there was not SC specific.

1. As you can see in the pics the replacment LCA is thinner where it attaches to the subframe and where the ball joint is.

2. The metal bushing where it attaches to the subframe covers the entire rubber bushing whereas the one that was on there only covered about half of the rubber portion.

I know that the SC specific LCA rubber bushings have a different durometer reading than reagular T-birds, but do you think that could have caused the failure that I had?
 

Attachments

  • LCA 1.jpg
    LCA 1.jpg
    160.9 KB · Views: 102
  • LCA 2.jpg
    LCA 2.jpg
    180 KB · Views: 81
  • LCA 3.jpg
    LCA 3.jpg
    170.2 KB · Views: 85
It was my understanding that it was just the subframe mount bushing that was higher durometer on the SC arms. The other stuff could just be manufacturing differences between different companies.
 
when replacing the lca's on my 89sc i noticed the difference in thickness in the arms too but after looking at the lca's on my 2 94sc's they're the thinner looking versions so i figured it didn't matter. the 94sc lca's are the original ones.
 
I know that the SC specific LCA rubber bushings have a different durometer reading than reagular T-birds, but do you think that could have caused the failure that I had?
Nope. To me, it looks like normal wear. The parts you have are the same as what was on my SCs. Remember, the bushing will pivot slightly due to the strut rod. Another way of stating it is your caster will change (slightly) as the suspension height changes. You would see some wear on the edges of the bushing. However they are usually good for 100,000+ miles.
 
It was my understanding that it was just the subframe mount bushing that was higher durometer on the SC arms. The other stuff could just be manufacturing differences between different companies.

I bet that is why the steel bushing covers the rubber part completly on that end.

Both LCA's are TRW parts and I assume they slightly changed the design over the years because nickleman60 said his original 94's were of the thinner design.
 
Nope. To me, it looks like normal wear. The parts you have are the same as what was on my SCs. Remember, the bushing will pivot slightly due to the strut rod. Another way of stating it is your caster will change (slightly) as the suspension height changes. You would see some wear on the edges of the bushing. However they are usually good for 100,000+ miles.

I do understand that it pivots slightly and I am now thinking that the rubber bushing and metal sleeve that was on there just had a poor fit, became sloppy and wore the rubber away very quickly.

It definatly has less than 100K miles on it.
 
Back
Top