Stub frame front shim thickness 1967 slab cars

MoPar~Man

Senior Member
FCBO Gold Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2022
Messages
1,130
Reaction score
656
Location
Ontario, Canada
The shim plates between the front body mounts and the stub frame on my '67 Monaco had severe rust expansion in the middle portion, causing them to deform pretty badly in the space between the 2 mounting bolts. These plates are about 6.5 inches long, almost 3 inches wide.

403.jpg



The portion of the plates around the bolt holes to the outer edges did not suffer this rust expansion, I was able to buff that part clean to get thickness measurements.

There are 4 plates, but 2 of them are very thin (not due to rust, at least not where I measured them).

Left and right plate arrangement is identical.

I'm wondering if at the factory they would have just been placed there according to standard proceedure without any sort of measurement or adjusting? Just based on knowing the car make/model they were dealing with and the known required frame offset to match design spec for door, fender alighnment etc?

The 2 thick plates are exactly 0.125 inch (1/8 inch) each, the 2 thin plates are 0.035 inch (poss. 0.030) each, somewhat close to 1/32 inch. Adding all that up, total shim thickness is 0.3125 inch (5/16 inch or 7.94 mm).

The 2 thin shims were basically rust-disintegrated (expanded) in their middle portion, one of the thicker shims was rust-eroded to the point of having holes in the center portion. The rust-expansion caused the body metal in that area to rise up under the force and was mostly rust-eroded away. The parts where the nuts are welded seem fine, part of a somewhat complex box structure that eludes my direct observation.

400.jpg


I'm going to weld a plate arrangement under there to strengthen that area. I'm going to add another bolt/nut there also:

402.jpg


So this it what it will look like:

398.jpg


397.jpg
 
In looking in the 1966 Chrysler FSM ages ago, I noticed that some "shims" between the stub frame and body structure were termed "Insulators". Which led me to believe, back then, that perhaps the "Insulators" had a rubber coating on them to prevent direct "noise" transfer paths from the stub frame into the body structure.

I would suspect the correct thickness would be on the clean areas under the flanged head bolt heads?

Just some thoughts and suspicions,
CBODY67
 
There doesn't appear to be any pics of "C-body stub frame shims" on the web, other than the pic I posted of the rusty plates.

The '67 Polara / Monaco service manual hardly mentions these shims or spacers in the frame section (stub frame removal / installation) and shows no pics of them. Not even in the procedure do they say to remove and note the number of shims and replace them with the new stub.

The only mention is in diagram NK532 which says "remove this amount of 1/32 inch shims at #1 body mount outriggers". That's to align the stub with the rear frame so the stub is not pointing up or down but is in-line with the rear frame. So my observation of seeing a couple of 1/32 inch plates "aligns" with whats in the manual. There is no mention of the thicker 1/8 plates or if the plates have a rubber coating.

I was wondering what others have seen when they've taken their stub off.
 
Last edited:
Have you downloaded the '67 Chrysler parts book to see what was available in that area, when the car was new? As to shims, thickness, etc.?
 
These are shims, nothing else. Chrysler had some number they wanted the nose of the frame up/down, putting shims here made that happen.
One car I had didn't have any, another had a thick one on one side and a thin one on the other. Another had a thick and thin on one side and a thick on the other.
Point being every car is different. Guess based on what you have and if needed later you can shim the core support if needed.
Lack of these shims will move the front of the frame up so something is better than nothing, as you can move the core support up but not down to get the fenders to align with the doors.


Alan
 
Back
Top