Thanks to Barney and Lawrie for their replies. It does actually make
sense that this is how it's designed. But after seeing and hearing
about so many screwed up things by previous owners and their mechanics,
it's always nice to confirm what is correct so I don't continue the
legacy of bodgered up repair work.
Eric Zambori wrote:
>
> Yes, that was an oversight on my part. It's a 72 B roadster. But
> Lawrie Alexander recognized that the kingpin design for most MGs built
> between 1947 and 1980 was similar enough to go ahead and identify the
> problem and provide a suitable answer without needing to know the
> particulars. THANKS!
>
> Now for another question at the other end of the A-Arms where they mount
> to the frame. For the original equipment bushings, I've read that the
> nuts should be tighted so that the out part of the bushing that is
> visible is expanded to about the diameter of round part of the A-Arm
> into which they are installed. With the Poly-Urethane bushings that I'm
> installing, I notice that I can only tighten the nut about one
> revolution beyond hand tight before the large washer bottoms out
> against the machined surface of the A-Arm pivot after the threads end.
> Should these large washers bottom out like that and prevent me from
> tightening the nut further or have I got the wrong washers from a
> previous owners bodged installation. None of the write ups that I have
> seen on suspension work mention this happening. (Haynes, Bentley, Linsey
> Porter, Practical Classics or Art Pfenningers artical on the internet)
>
> THANKS
>
> WSpohn4@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > <<Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:03:53 -0800
> > From: Eric Zambori <eaz@snet.net>
> > Subject: Kingpins
> > I thought I saw a posting about this subject recently but could find it
> > in my trash folder so here goes.>>
> >
> > Eric, the advice you get might be more cogent if you told us what car we are
> > talking about, rather than making us guess from the context of your message.
> >
> > Bill S.
|