Suspension / ChassisQuestions about your suspension? Need chassis advice?
Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!
I just replaced rear shocks & springs. All went according to plan except I had to remove swaybar endlinks to get the springs out. I ended up getting some new ones from NAPA. But- does anyone know how tight they have to be? I have a torque wrench but did not find a number in the manual I have.
Also, how can you accurately torque the shock upper mounting nut if you have to hold the stud to keep it from turning?
Thanks.
when i did my rear end links i searched on here and it seems roughly 15 foot pounds equates to the poly or rubber bushings being compressed to about the size of the metal washers.
good question about the top strut nut, i just went as hard as i could with the proper wrench holding the inside and tightened the nut down.
HAYNES says:
"shock absorber to upper mount nut" in the rear: 156 in-lbs.
"strut to upper mount nut" in front: 50 ft-lbs.
end-links: fronts should be 168 in-lbs and the rears should be 144 in-lbs.
CHILTON says:
"shock absorber (upper end)" in the rear: 13 ft-lbs (156 in-lbs)
"strut to upper mount nut" in front: 82-84: 50 ft-lbs, 85-86: 44 ft-lbs, 87-88: 52 ft-lbs, 89-91: 46 ft-lbs, 92: 44 ft-lbs
end links: fronts should be 15 ft-lbs (180 in-lbs) except 1992 w/handling package, which are 18 ft-lbs (216 in-lbs). the rears are listed two different ways here, which I don't understand at all. Here's what it says:
"stabilizer link-to-bar": 82-87: 12 ft-lbs (144 in-lbs), 88-91: 16 ft-lbs (192 in-lbs), 92: 18 ft-lbs (216 in-lbs).
"stabilizer link-to-frame": 35 ft-lbs
Interpret as you will, but I have no clue why there is such a discrepency between both books (Haynes probably just rounded off, as they tend to do), as well as within Chilton's itself. The "stabilizer link-to-frame" doesn't make any sense, since it should be the same torque on both the top and bottom of the end-link.