Polyurethane Radiator Support Mounts (Cab Also)

Here's the thing though, if you're putting the front bushing on upside down for a minor body lift, but not the cab mounts, you're putting stress on the body in between the two. I keep telling people that lol. Don't be surprised when you start seeing wrinkles in your body lol

 

34 ft-lbs is what I went with. Same as the the torque spec for the Cab Mount Bushings.

Full compression of the poly won't happen because of the internal steel sleeve/bushing is where you'll be torquing against.

 

Over 1/4 inch gains? Not sure how that works. I had 1/4 inch shim on top of factory bushing to shim my bumper and rallied the shit out of my truck on the beach for 2 summers. No wrinkles

 

Thanks, what bushings did you use for the Rad support?

 

@VolcomTacoma our disconnect is I'm only talking radiator bushings

 

For the radiator bushing I just tightened to yield. They are lock nuts, and when you tightened them, the sleeve and washers contact,then snug.

 

Thats what I wanted to avoid. Inconsistency. I matched all the bushings. Body and radiator mounts have the smaller bushing on top. Torqued to 34ftlbs

Cool. Ill match the radiator mounts then.

 

I pulled this from the OP:

Measurements are as follows:
- Stock upper radiator support bushing thickness: .9375" or 15/16"
- Polyurethane kit supplied washers are about 1/8" or .125"
- Polyurethane "puck" bushing WITHOUT supplied washer thickness: .750" or 3/4" (WITH washer = 7/8" (.8750")

So math here:

0.9375" - 0.8750" = 0.0625" = the difference between the OEM upper and the ES Thicker Poly bushing.

I'm not too terribly worried that 0.0625" will stress the body along the frame.

Anywhoo... wrinkles give my truck character.

 

He's referencing if you're doing all the mounts including radiator. But I agree. Where you at in NY btw?

 

Ah. OK. Now I understand.

I'm in Congers, Rockland County, NY. Right across the Tappan Zee.

 

Ah gotcha. Was just up that way recently. Im trying to stake out a few places for hiking and camping in this great state of NY. Wheeling would be fantastic too but unfortunately as you're aware we are
Regulated to PA and CONN

 

OK, I'm really trying to follow this and the fifty page discussion without any success.

If I read the above correctly then installing "upside-down" with the washer results a spacing of .8750". This compared to the stock bushing of .9375". A difference of .0625" which seems very minor.

Installing it "right-side-up" results in a *larger* difference. So it really seems these should be installed "upside-down" with the washer and if doing so you are at stock spacing within rounding error.

But then @VolcomTacoma keeps saying my truck will eventually break in half like a Yugo if I install it "upside-down". It seems like installing it right-side up would be what would change the spacing and add stress.

I feel like I'm missing something connecting two dots here. Or else connecting two dots incorrectly.

Little bit of help?

 

From the other thread I posted, Rubber is gonna compress more than Polyurethane. So measuring stuff off the truck is a bit different. Someone run by a dealer and get a body to frame measurement with new bushings in, and then measure your body to frame with the new poly bushings. Bet you get a difference still.

 

You know what though, its yalls trucks do what you're gonna do. I'm not gonna install something in a way it wasnt designed because "its not that different".

 

Ah, got it. OK that all makes sense and was the part I was missing - compressed vs. uncompressed measurements with different materials at play.

So it sounds like the best thing to do would be to measure the spacing in stock configuration with the OEM rubber bushing installed on a as yet unabused truck. Next through trial and error figure out what configuration of poly + washers produces the same spacing installed and torqued down. That seem a reasonable approach?

 

I would run the big washer, big bushing on top, small bushing, small washer on bottom.

You can also skip the big washer of you want, that's how I ran mine...

I've run the universal both ways, right side up and upside down, and the Tacoma specific kit bushings.

The ES Tacoma kit bushings are a lot softer and compress some, the universal bushings are very dense and don't really compress, IMO.

The universal kit I felt offered the best performance.

Here are some pics from my build when I compared the Tacoma kit, to universal.

I ran the universal for one year.

 

It does. I'd be willing to bet the spacing on new poly vs new rubber between frame and body is almost the same, wheras putting the larger bushing on top would create a difference. People like to talk smack but a year down the road they come back on here asking why their body has wrinkles and cracks and their subframe is falling apart. Just saying

 

When I ran the larger universal bushing, I skipped the big washer. Ran it that way for over a year. I beat my truck on the worst washboard roads in the state. My fenders are intact, no sheet metal cracks, core support still in one piece, as best I can tell. It's something I look for when doing vehicle inspections.

Also there are numerous reports of people fighting with the drivers core support bolt when reinstalling. That leads me to believe that everyone's core support is caving due to battery, or its some odd characteristic of the Tacoma, therefore normal.

 

Well of course, why didn't I just look at @Crom's build page first - everything is in there!

So looking at this more it would appear that the stiffer

$34 9.4101G UNIVERSAL MOUNT

9.4101G would clearly provide less isolation than the

$153 8.4109G Body Mount Set-Reg, Access & Dbl Cab

8.4109G. Similarly the 9.4101G would constrain the total movement of the core relative to the frame more as well.

Interestingly in the Energy Suspension catalog when comparing uses for higher and lower durometer universal mounts they say this about applications:

Clearly Toyota and Energy Suspension have chosen lower durometer mounts than the 9.4101 for their standard radiator mounts. But if this is for "off-roading/rough terrain racing" is the higher durometer material in the 9.4101 more appropriate?

Since I've got time to kill and parts cost is small compared to inconvenience of doing the install maybe I'll email the ES techs and see what they say.