SOLVED: Control arm torque reality check...

[JsnPpp]

Ok, I've scoured past posts and reviewed the torque faq ( http://www.bmw2002faq.com/content/view/48/32/ ) which shows the "Wishbone (control arm) at axle beam (subframe)" should be 123 ft lbs!

On the red car if I torque it to 50 ft lbs it looks like this:

You can see that the nut is already past the cotter pin hole. I checked my other car and the other side and don't seem to be missing any washers.

Am I reading the faq right? Should it be that tight? I must be reading the wrong torque specs...

All input appreciated...

-Jason

SOLVED!

Thanks for all the help folks. I tore into it last night and found that I had mistakenly placed the wrong washer on the bolt. You can see it in the picture above, it has a cup shape to it and also is thinner than required. I replaced with the proper (thicker) washer and all is good! It didn't take much to make a difference.

It's now torqued to 123 ft lbs and looks great. I appreciate all the help.

-Jason

[rock141b]

Just torque the nut to the 123lbs and see where the hole lines up, either back the nut up a little to line up the hole or if its not too much more go just enough to line up the hole. Thats what I did on mine and lined up with no problem, if you have to back the nut off a little to line up the hole its no big deal, good luck.

[c.d.iesel]

Y I K E S ! ! !

nevermind nut torque - what on earth

ate that control arm? you don't need urethane on that arm

What you do need is to order NEW arms which

have new bushings installed. Your alignment

will be much happier, you will not feel any diff

with the standard bushings at that position

The new arms are like $27 bucks each - LIKE ALMOST FREE!

and no hastle to install, and will last 30 years,

unless your arm eatting rat returns sooner !!!

!!!GOOD!!!GRIEF!!

[oldguy]

that arm's not bent in any way... it's just grizzled... his alignment won't be off.. it'll work just fine...

[Inka114]

It is odd that the nut has turned so far past the cotter pin hole. Just based on that I'd assume that something is missing - washer, spacer, whatever, or that the urethane bushings are not the right dimensions. If you continue tightening the cotter pin will not engage at all, which is bad.

C.D. has a point - new arms are cheap, and they are beefier than early original arms. Considering how vital they are for safety, it's difficult to justify not replacing them, even if you do intend to press out the rubber bushings and run urethane.

I'd find another car and do some measuring and comparing.

[peteinjp]

You do have a metal tube inside the urethane bushings right? If so then maybe it is too short. I think 123 is correct.

P

[JsnPpp]

Thanks folks.

C.D., I agree that it does look fried! I appreciate the warning actually. But it is indeed just grizzled with dirt, grease, etc. Not actually bent. That being said, I will put new ones on the next Blunt order, it doesn't make sense not to.

And thanks to everyone else too for your comments. I'll triple check that all washers, sleeves, etc. are in place and then see what it looks like when I bring it to 123 ft lbs.

I compared to my other non-urethaned '73 and it *seems* that I have everything in place. I installed the urethane about 5 years ago and don't recall this issue, which is why I was surprised when I saw it last night.

I'll post follow up here when I dig deeper.

Thanks again!

Jason

[JsnPpp]

Are these the early style control arms? I can't tell off hand.

Since I am already past the hole already, I can't see how it will get any better with an additional 50 ft lbs on it. I'll disassemble and see what I have.

Thanks again for you input.

-Jason

[Inka114]

I'm not sure whether yours are early or late. Just looked through my photo archives and couldn't find any pictures of the early ones I removed from a '71 I restored. They did look different when side by side - there are more/wider flanges on the newer ones.

[JsnPpp]

I'll dig through my archives as well, I'm sure I have something. I constantly learn something new on these cars and I wasn't sure if there was an easy way to tell or not.

Thanks again man! I appreciate it.

-Jason

[02Les]

I'm not sure whether yours are early or late. Just looked through my photo archives and couldn't find any pictures of the early ones I removed from a '71 I restored. They did look different when side by side - there are more/wider flanges on the newer ones.

Here's pics of control arms/wishbones.

The fatter one came off my '74 Touring and the wimpy one from a '76. I have another '76 with same wimpy arms.

The cheapest Arms (complete with bushings) I could find was $95ea - wish I could get them at $27ea.

[Mike Self]

When I pulled the original arms off my '69 they were definitely smaller in cross section than the ones on my carbureted '73. As they had rust in the seams I replaced 'em with later (thicker) arms. They interchange. Wasn't aware the factory fitted wimpier arms on the later squarelights...

mike

[Napes]

I, too, was curious where c.d. found control arms for $27. AutohausAZ lists them at $116, and BellBMW lists @ $95. These are usually two of the better places for prices for parts for our cars.

Bob Napier

[williamggruff]

Keep in mind that C.D. has connections we can only dream about...

[Codfish]

(nt)