Shocks: How tight should shock bolts be (rear57 GHawk)?

[bsrosell]

Hi,
Back in the game! Been a long extended winter/spring, but walking a little better again, so back out there. Differential is painted and IN. New shocks are IN.
But; was disappointed to have to drill 1/2" holes in my mounts for the repo (GM?) lower shock mounts, but.. I have the originals but pretty pitted, decided the smooth new ones were better for the rubber. Not a "points" car....

BUT, two questions:
1) I have the original spacers for top and bottom (original SHOCKS from the look of them. Stay in one place, compressed, too! :-) Got new ones from Phil Harris, and the width of the rubber bushings appears to be the same as that of my originals; or I should say the 'total width of the top and bottom mounts" with the rubber bushings installed, is the same width.

Assembling the TOP mount, EXACTLY as Shop Manual shows, with the correct 1/2" spacer on one side and the washer on the other, there is a LOT of space in there to move back and forth inside the crossmember. Is that right?? Leading to my next question:

2) how tight should both top and bottom nuts be torqued? On top (with those goofy 'wedged" heads on the original bolts), need to be pretty tight to keep them in place I would think. And no matter how tight you go, NOT going to put ANY compression on the rubber bushing since the shock is INSIDE the crossmember (and, very loose to slide back and forth on the bolt).

On the bottom however, the tighter that nut is, the more you are going to compress the rubber bushings (and yet you want the nut very tight, I would think, so it doesn't vibrate off).

I looked in the torque section of the Shop Manual. Of ALL the parts I've put on this car so far, with exception of the critical head bolts, I can't think of any other more "necessary" instruction/specification on how tight a nut should be than on these shocks, and yet there is NOTHING listed for shocks, while ever little bolt around the car has a torque (most unnecessary; at some point for mot parts, 'good and snug" is "good enough" (and I love my torque wrench, don't get me wrong)

So, any advice? Should I fill up the crossmember with spacers so the shock doesn't slide back and forth? Or is that designed to allow for it to self-adjust to being "straight" up and down? And for torque, I can't believe the bottom rubber should get compressed with overly tight torque if the top rubber bushings are completely loose, so maybe need to just snug up lightly and used a good thread lock? Again, shocked (bad pun) there is nothing in the Shop Manual about this most potential place for over or under-tightening a suspension part! Now, I have NEVER replaced a shock (did all my above ground work and my '97 van is still going at 270,000 miles), but without a hoist, always brought them in for mufflers and shocks... So, maybe this is such 'common knowledge" to anyone who has done ONE set of shocks, they didn't bother to include it back in 56 (mine is an early '57, made in Oct '56 with the older '56 style shocks front and rear).

Thanks!
Barry

[Jeffry Cassel]

Just snug them up. If too tight you might damage them and don't know if they are replacable. The best thing would be a self locking nut; they are available at any parts or hardware store. I just snug the bottom ones up til the rubber bulges to the diameter of the washers; never had one loosen up.

[bsrosell]

thanks; what about the large amount of lateral 'slop' between the inner crossmember? Have to assume since the new shock is the same width at the rubber bushings as my originals, and the crossmember certainly didn't change :-), and I'm using the original hardware (including the big spacer), it must be right... ONLY question is the "small spacer" is simply a washer. LOOKS thin in the diagram too, but hardly would call it a spacer, so that is where I wonder if THAT should be thicker than the "heavy duty washer" that is/was there. But, I suppose it needs some lateral movement to self align and be straight? Those frames and such were not as precisely made as a modern car with shock mounts top AND bottom.....
But, "assuming" has gotten me into trouble more than once.

[bensherb]

I'm only guessing the shocks mount the same as on my '62. A stud through rubber bushings on the bottom, and an eye fitting inside the crossmember at the top. The bolt should be tight through the crossmember, but there should be no free space between the shock and the crossmember. The tube through the shock eye should fill the space between the cross member walls. If not, appropriate spacers will be needed. If too much space is left the crossmember walls will bend and pull together when the bolt is tightened. My crossmember was bent this way and I had to streighten it and add spacers to get the shock tight so it didn't rattle.

[Studebakercenteroforegon]

I don't know what was sold to you, but correct fitting shock absorbers with the proper length and inner diameter bushing sleeves are available. For the rear of '57 to '62 Studebaker passenger cars, the replacement is Gabriel 82151.

[bsrosell]

THanks; your logic SOUNDS right. But doesn't jive with the Shop Manual exploded view (here), where the bushing is same width as the rubber bushings (as was my original), and the SPACER is the huge 1/2" , well, SPACER. And far end was just a washer, and this looks like that is right, too. SO, the shock can slide back and forth on the bolt between washer and spacer, AND, as you mention, if you overtighten, the crossmember would bend. I guess unless someone can explain why the drawing (and my original parts) were wrong ???, I'll tighten the top nut w/ lock washer snug but not enough to bend the crossmember. And put some thread-lock on it. (And let some poor guy in a shop with a hoist worry about getting it off someday if it ever needs replacement! :-) Won't be in my lifetime unless it FAILS.....

[bsrosell]

Got correct set (even got the correct '56 shocks that my early '57 is supposed to have and DID still have) from Phil Harris, so they are correct. I just don't understand the philosophy of "slop" inside that crossmember. OR, how they could have NOT had a torque spec for that lower shock nut. (unless, again, it tightens against the steel mount. I'll bet it does if I'd tightened it down enough to get 'close'; just thought of that while writing the question. But the top remains a puzzle to me.

I don't know what was sold to you, but correct fitting shock absorbers with the proper length and inner diameter bushing sleeves are available. For the rear of '57 to '62 Studebaker passenger cars, the replacement is Gabriel 82151.

[Studebakercenteroforegon]

Well, you apparently thought you needed '51 - '56 style rear shocks and you do really need '57 - '62 rear shocks.

[bensherb]

If the shock is left to float inside the crossmember it WILL rattle and drive you nuts...unless the car is so noisey it cant be heard. Mine only had .080" too much room to fill with spacer and clattered like the trunk lid was coming off.

[bsrosell]

Well, you apparently thought you needed '51 - '56 style rear shocks and you do really need '57 - '62 rear shocks.

Well, my body, engine, and cowl numbers all match the order number, my original shocks (OLD! look original though had to have been replaced even with 60k on the car) ARE the '56 style shocks, most obvious in the front with the big oval mounts and completely different mounting style. AND, my serial number well before the point specified in the Parts Book as taking "Type A" (old, '56 style) shocks; both Type A and Type B are listed for 57 cars, and mine take the '56 "Type A' type.

Regardless, everything is 'correct' and per original specs, and there is a gap.
I get the comments about "going to make noise", but as an engineer, I HATE changing something I think doesn't make sense, that the original engineers MAYBE designed into the system to allow for other things like not being able to depend on the frame location being straight above the shock mount, thus a 'tight fit' on both ends bending the shocks? I don't know.....

[bsrosell]

Problem Solved: Because I didn't know how tight to do either end of the shock, I just left both ends 'finger tight'. Today, I decided to 'snug up' the top bolts (those odd-ball tapered headed things!), and lo and behold, if they didn't just keep coming and coming IN, as I switched to a ratchet, and tightened them up snug. Guess what. NO SLOP. So, I guess I figured out what those crazy taper heads are for, they keep coming in until they "connect" with the washer, pushing it against the shocks metal bushing, and clinching the shock bushing on both sides (big spacer on the OTHER side). Anyway, we were BOTH right. SHOULDN'T be any slop........ and I DO have the right shock set up. I'm tickled to finally figure out why they EVER would have had those weird tapered head bolts through a hole in the frame crossmember. Strange way of doing it but effective! Here is the TIGHTENED view, minus the 1/4" or more of slop I had yesterday.
Thanks all!!