Can't believe I didn't notce this when I first installed these strut rods. Guess I was just excited and threw them on the car. Oddly they did not clunk at first and not for quite some time either. Looks like the spacer is too small for the hole in the strut rod mount. Also I think it might be a hair too thick.

 

I'm a bit disappointed in this aluminum spacer. Dimensions are way off.

 

It's also too thick.

 

I sent an email to contact the guys at Rosehill.

Do 67-68 cars have smaller openings in the strut rod bracket? Maybe I just got the wrong ones.

 

yeah thats pretty bad

 

We went through this not too long ago on the SoT strut rods. I think the end result was the “washer” was the same diameter as the rubber part it replaced on the SoT part.

 

Problem being, washer won’t expand when compressed. Either a really tight fit or something more conical to fill the hole would seem to be better.

 

I "think" too that maybe you didn't have enough torque originally on them? I know the SOTs require 150ft/lbs and I couldn't get the leverage to attain that myself working on the ground and had the alignment shop properly torque them.

What are the torque specs on yours?

Chris

 

I "think" too that maybe you didn't have enough torque originally on them? I know the SOTs require 150ft/lbs and I couldn't get the leverage to attain that myself working on the ground and had the alignment shop properly torque them.

What are the torque specs on yours?

Chris

I don't believe torque will compress that aluminum washer...

 

Ok, here's the deal.......... the factory hole in that area isn't to an exacting spec. (similar to the
rear of the car where the bushings are in the frame rail for the leaf spring shackles)
The same deal in the front. Intended to house a rubber bushing.
You'd need to hop on the lathe with a chunk of material and make a spacer to fit YOUR car.
That's what makes doing parts for mass consumption so tricky.
A lot of stuff that's really intended to be installed at the shop level........ not really the average
DIY guy's garage.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995

 

Ok, here's the deal.......... the factory hole in that area isn't to an exacting spec. (similar to the
rear of the car where the bushings are in the frame rail for the leaf spring shackles)
The same deal in the front. Intended to house a rubber bushing.
You'd need to hop on the lathe with a chunk of material and make a spacer to fit YOUR car.
That's what makes doing parts for mass consumption so tricky.
A lot of stuff that's really intended to be installed at the shop level........ not really the average
DIY guy's garage.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995

You make a good point, but if that was the case wouldn't the instructions spell that out. And as suggested, something with a conical design could have easily solved that problem. I think this particular problem can be remedied pretty easily by sanding / grinding the thickness of the aluminum space down (only need to take off a small amount) so that the thickness is less than the bracket. As far as diameter, if you have someone put several spot welds around the edge of the spacer, you could then file / sand it down to a perfect fit for the hole. I also wonder why that through bolt is so much longer than needed. Is that to allow the use of rubber bushings if desired?

 

Okay, McGyver here. I just got done using some aluminum duct sealing tape on my sound mat. I also have a set of Rosehill adjustable strut rods to install on my car. If I run into this problem I will:

1.) Check to see if a stack of steel washers could be made into a steel spacer with the diameter ground to form a tight fit. Washers could have holes drilled in them to allow them to be tack welded together, though not sure that is necessary. The resulting spacer could be welded to the frame as @GypsyR suggests in next post.
2.) Use my belt sander to remove thickness of the spacer if needed.
3.) If washers prove unworkable, Utilize the aluminum tape to wrap around to build up the diameter. The the aluminum of the tape should be incompressible. The adhesive layer will have some compressibility, but it should not move too much, especially if washer and bracket can clamp tight to the hole frame mount. Yes, if I had a lathe I would do it right and make another, but I don't.

 

I feel like the fix for this if I were working on it would be a steel spacer that fairly fit the opening welded in place.

 

That steel spacer could be stacked washers. I expect a washer to fit the clevis would be pretty thick and may have a diameter that would need to be ground down to fit the hole. I would much rather have steel than aluminum anyway.

 

Welding that big metal washer to the car is a good idea with either the Rosehill or SoT struts imo.

 

Settles it, I’m going mono-ball

 

Just go to your trusted fabrication shop and have a set of fill / spacers machined to the corresponding spec needed. Don’t make a big deal out of it. Just do it, and you’re done.

~E

 

"trusted fabrication shop"

~E

Those are getting rare.

 

Originally there’s a sheet metal ring pressed into the bracket. If the spacer is dimensioned for it to be still in place, it will be too small in diameter and too thick if removed. Although the topic starter’s spacer would probably be too small even with the ring in place

 

I've had my car since the 90s and don't recall ever seeing anything like that, but they could have been long gone by the time I got the car. I replaced the bushings back then and then replaced the bushings and the strut rods several years ago with stock parts before upgrading to these.

 

I just put these on my car last week. The washers on mine were quite heavy, don't think they were aluminum but perhaps. Mine fit very tight into the holes and were more or less "pressed" into place as I tightened the nuts. The torque spec is 70 ft/lbs.

 

The washers are quite substantial but the spacers are aluminum.

 

Also, Just wanted to make sure that this thread didn't come off as a Rosehilll bashing thread. That was not the intended purpose of posting about it, it was just to figure out a good solution to the minor fitment issue.

Glen at Rosehilll promptly replied to my message. He said the same thing we've discussed and what I figured his answer would be. It is that that hole isn't the same on every car. He suggested sanding down the spacer to make it thinner.

The idea of doing this and wrapping it in aluminum tape to fill in the gap would probably work for those that need to fix this.

I think the real solution here is to make new spacers on a lathe etc that are the correct size. This is the route I think I'll take.

 

This is a main shaft spacer off of a NP435 transmission, might find something similar? Just throwing ideas without knowing exactly how much space you need to fill. Seems like ideally a whole new spacer would be the ticket.

 

Interestingly the mounting point on the passenger side is smaller than the driver side which was shown in the pictures. The spacer is still too thick and a little too small diameter though.

So, obviously it is nearly impossible to have a one size fits all perfectly spacer.

 

Interestingly the mounting point on the passenger side is smaller than the driver side which was shown in the pictures. The spacer is still too thick and a little too small diameter though.

So, obviously it is nearly impossible to have a one size fits all perfectly spacer.

On my car both of the bushings fit tightly. A good thing is that you would not have to entirely remove the rod to install new spacers. Just unscrew the nut from the bolt. remove the washer and the old bushing. The just install the new bushing, washer and bolt and then torque to the 70 ft/lbs.

 

Here was the solution that worked out perfectly. New bushing spacers made on a lathe with 5/8 center holes and 1/2 inch reducers.

This allows for using the bolts that came with the kit and for the possibility of upgrading to larger diameter bolts later.

Although in order to do that the clevis might need to be worked on a little bit and clearanced to fit the larger bolts head.

 

Have you had a chance for a test drive yet?

 

I've taken it for a couple test drives. So far so good. The loud clunking sound is gone.

Things are nice and smooth and fairly rattle free now except for a few typical old car noises.

It rides even better now with new Opentracker lower control arms.

 

The o.d. of that spacer isn't the issue, it's that it's too thick and not allowing the bracket, nor the washer to clamp onto the frame.

 

Yep, that was definitely the main issue.

 

Okay, 3 years later and I had the EXACT same issue with my Rosehill strut rod spacers. The real issue is too thick. Once milled down to .350" on a belt sander everything tightened up nicely. However, one thing I noticed is that they only used a 1/2" grade 8 bolt to hold the clevis to the strut rod bracket. I did not feel good about that given the factory rod had a 5/8" nut and the benefit of rubber cushioning. I picked up some 5/8-18x2" grade 8 bolts and nuts. I had to touch two opposing flats of the bolts with a grinder to get them to fit in the clevis and touch the top to clear the heim, but I kept everything cool and there is much more meat than the 1/2" bolts provided. Yes, to do so I had to drill out the clevis, spacer and washer to fit the 5/8" bolt. All that said, it should be done!

I too notified Rosehill It is crazy in the the spacer does not need to be full depth. it is only to generally center the bolt in the hole. Much better to be .040 too thin than .040 too thick.

 

When I was making parts I sourced a washer for the clevis that fit nicely inside of that hole and it was thinner than the hole depth. I probably still have some of them.

Those 1/2-in grade eight bolts have a proof load of 19200 lb and even more tensile strength. They are stronger than the turnbuckle. There are two of them for a total of 38,400 lb. They are more than strong enough for this application.

 

Persistence!

 

Persistence shouldn’t be required.
You shouldn’t have to “reinvent the wheel.”
The part originator/designer should have extensive
EVERYTHING on all issues a purchaser is
likely to have.
Anything less seems less than committed to me.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995

 

Persistence shouldn’t be required.
You shouldn’t have to “reinvent the wheel.”
The part originator/designer should have extensive
EVERYTHING on all issues a purchaser is
likely to have.
Anything less seems less than committed competent to me.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995

View attachment 1004769

^^^ Fixed it for ya.

Agreed. The part should fit as provided without need for modification.