commando1
Old Man with a Hat
How can they meet if they are isolated.
Let's not start off with an erroneous statement and grasp at straws to perpetuate it.
For Sale 1970 Polara
- Thread starter shooter65
- Start date
- Status
Let's not start off with an erroneous statement and grasp at straws to perpetuate it.
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
Isn't that 71?
Aidan1976
Well-Known Member
For Plymouth it is, but Dodge and Chrysler got the rubber isolator set-up in 1970, didn't they? Have a gander at the below from the 1970 Dodge Polara showroom brochure/catalogue ("Torsion-Quiet Ride" sounds rather exotic. RAWTHER I say....):
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
Im always forgetting the variation with the convertibles
Chryslerdude
Well-Known Member
I'd call that "grasping at facts" ;-)
As for the motor mount type rubber "isolator", I would agree, because here the rubber is bonded to thick metal brackets, and bolted to the motor, and K-Frame (and thus the metal is hermetically sealed, and isolated from the elements = no problems there). But as far as I know, these stub frame rubber mounts are bolted through sheet metal on the body, (with the rubber in direct contact with the body, like it is, on a sway bar).
So let's look at "the straws": "Rubber bolted to sheet metal" + "multi directional mechanical movement" + "a constant generous supply of abrasive materials, to remove primer, paint and undercoating" + "A lovely under car environment, with ample humidity, and maybe even some lovely road salt".. any guesses at to what could happen here?
On which actual application do you base your assertion, that it was an erroneous statement?
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Mr C
Senior Member
I disagree with the theory that rubber isolated stub frames cause more problems than non-rubber isolated stub frames. I've parted many C bodies of both stub frame types and Carmine's comment about the coating is more accurate as the the cause of grief (how well was the coating applied at the factory?- Mopars of the 60's 70's had a wide variation in quality from day to day...heck even shift to shift, I imagine).
The other factors have to do with the car's history: region (rust belt, or desert?) and storage conditions (dirt floor storage often leads to a situation where the floors survive well but anything residing lower than that (stub frames, steel lines etc. take a beating).
Most stub frame failures that I've seen are due to rot through from the inside (the uncoated metal) on out, often along the welds (which are areas where the metal was weakened by the heat.
It's just a factor of crud (mud) getting into the inner structure of the stub frame (driven in winter?), and the composition of the mud (is salt in there? rust belt?) and it settling on unprotected metal to do it's evil work. Add to that how many additive cycles this happened.
The other factors have to do with the car's history: region (rust belt, or desert?) and storage conditions (dirt floor storage often leads to a situation where the floors survive well but anything residing lower than that (stub frames, steel lines etc. take a beating).
Most stub frame failures that I've seen are due to rot through from the inside (the uncoated metal) on out, often along the welds (which are areas where the metal was weakened by the heat.
It's just a factor of crud (mud) getting into the inner structure of the stub frame (driven in winter?), and the composition of the mud (is salt in there? rust belt?) and it settling on unprotected metal to do it's evil work. Add to that how many additive cycles this happened.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Thank you Mr C.
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
Chryslerdude
Well-Known Member
I am not saying that you are wrong Stan.. I was reacting to your general dismissal of my "rust thrives where different materials meet" statement... which was based on any moving parts, bolted to sheet metal with rubber mounts, where dirt and humidity can gather.
Admitted, I never owned a C-Body with rubber suspended stub-frame, but I have seen other rubber mounts to sheet metal "go bad", on various Japanese cars and MC's, and Euro cars, where corrosion, dirt and friction had worn the metal thin over time, enlarging the mounting holes. A similar example from my 69 - 300: When restoring the front end suspension/steering parts, the sway bar rubber bushings were still more or less the original size at first glance, but hardened and sort off "fused" with the metal. After a good wire brush cleaning, the holes were clearly bigger than supposed, due to corrosion and stress. I am sure that this happens too, in the states which use road salt.
BTW, nice "flowchart".. I live in a rust-promoting climate, with vigorous use of road salt, which don't help much, and agree that most frame rot comes from inside.. On several occasions, I have had cars fail safety inspection, despite thick undercoating because the evil inspectors "pick hammer" went straight through the coated frame or floor pan.
Peace
Admitted, I never owned a C-Body with rubber suspended stub-frame, but I have seen other rubber mounts to sheet metal "go bad", on various Japanese cars and MC's, and Euro cars, where corrosion, dirt and friction had worn the metal thin over time, enlarging the mounting holes. A similar example from my 69 - 300: When restoring the front end suspension/steering parts, the sway bar rubber bushings were still more or less the original size at first glance, but hardened and sort off "fused" with the metal. After a good wire brush cleaning, the holes were clearly bigger than supposed, due to corrosion and stress. I am sure that this happens too, in the states which use road salt.
BTW, nice "flowchart".. I live in a rust-promoting climate, with vigorous use of road salt, which don't help much, and agree that most frame rot comes from inside.. On several occasions, I have had cars fail safety inspection, despite thick undercoating because the evil inspectors "pick hammer" went straight through the coated frame or floor pan.
Peace
- Status
Similar threads
