New Body Mounts
-
October's SSR of the Month Challenge HAS STARTED!
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Joined
·
11,973 Posts
Why would you have to???
Joined
·
10,954 Posts
I can't put my finger on the exact source right now, but my memory is that the SSR has a unique set of mounts. I'm almost certain that you will find they are not the same part numbers as the Trailblazer mounts. If my memory serves me, there are four pairs of mounts that are identical in physical size and shape, but with four different durometers. I believe this was done in an effort to decouple road vibration from the body, while providing the necessary stiffness for the load capabilities of the bed.
Replacing the body mounts with urethane is probably a "do-able" thing, but I would expect that you will get some unexpected results......... There was a huge amount of engineering that went into them at GM and ASC.
My two cents,
Mike
Replacing the body mounts with urethane is probably a "do-able" thing, but I would expect that you will get some unexpected results......... There was a huge amount of engineering that went into them at GM and ASC.
My two cents,
Mike
04 Black, 05 Black, 05 Aqua Blur, top secret can't say anything about another one
Joined
·
7,059 Posts
I have Energy Suspension body mounts in a big block Chevelle and it stiffened the car up. In that case it was a good thing but on my SSR I would not think so. I would think it needs some flex to it. Chevelles tend to want to twist and flex from the torque so tying the body is wanted. They don't have any real mid section support after the transmission mount in their frame until you get to the rear cross member which is what is trying to twist the car on a hard launch.
Joined
·
10,954 Posts
Stlhotrod - - -
You are spot on about the stiffer mounts to get some of the Chevelle flex controlled. They needed it.
The SSR (and TBSS) has a hydro-formed frame that is extremely robust. Basic frame torsional rigidity is impressive. It will tolerate 1000hp without twisting (much). Yes, the left front is the first off the ground, but not by much.
The SSR has a body with equally impressive torsional rigidity. According to Gary Witzenburg, GM added a lot to the rear "box" to make it rigid and the cabin has a sandwiched double floor pan. There is also about 300 feet of structural adhesive in the body joints and 20 pounds of structural foam bonded into the body.
I'll bet the body doesn't flex much and therefore transmits chassis noise easily... This would give me reason to believe the durometer of the body mounts may be pretty low.
Another two cents,
Mike
You are spot on about the stiffer mounts to get some of the Chevelle flex controlled. They needed it.
The SSR (and TBSS) has a hydro-formed frame that is extremely robust. Basic frame torsional rigidity is impressive. It will tolerate 1000hp without twisting (much). Yes, the left front is the first off the ground, but not by much.
The SSR has a body with equally impressive torsional rigidity. According to Gary Witzenburg, GM added a lot to the rear "box" to make it rigid and the cabin has a sandwiched double floor pan. There is also about 300 feet of structural adhesive in the body joints and 20 pounds of structural foam bonded into the body.
I'll bet the body doesn't flex much and therefore transmits chassis noise easily... This would give me reason to believe the durometer of the body mounts may be pretty low.
Another two cents,
Mike
Joined
·
443 Posts
With all that built in rigidity, is a frame support or plastic front frame piece really necessary?
Just curious. People that install those always exclaim how much better it rides. My SSR feels like it has a floppy kind of suspension action. Feels like I have basketballs for tired on stiff suspension over bumps. I have been contemplating picking up the braces from you to get the suspension to take more of the action instead of the truck wiggling around when I drive over railroad tracks or a semi rough road.
Joined
·
10,954 Posts
You know where to find me Stew...... I have the stiffening plates on hand. I can guarantee that you'll be happy with the results.
Mike
S2NAZ: Your description sounds like I used to feel, and I'd add the word "lazy". The short answer to your question is: yes. But I would also add, the frame, body and suspension are a system. Doing one thing will help, doing more will help more.
I addressed the items in the following order, on jackstands in my garage:
1) LC32 crossmember & Simple Engineering stiffener (2012)
Result: Nice. The head shake was gone and less creaking.
2) Trailblazer cross member. As I recall there no Simple Engineering available at the time (later 2012)
Result: A less creaking. I then used felt tape on many interior panel joints with a result of even less creaking.
3) New Michelins all around (2013). 275/40R19 & 315/35R20
Result: Much more traction all around. I went bigger/wider than stock as I think it gives her a "G machine" kinda look, fills the wheel wells more and the wheels are protected from rash. IMO: It just looks cooler.
4) Addco Front and Rear Sway bars from Simple Engineering (2014)
Result: Less sway, but still felt sloppy and rocked side to side a bit too much. I like your description of "floppy". I kinda thought "that was it" and it best that I could expect without lowering. My thinking is, she's a top heavyish truck, compared to my Z06, and not inclined to lowering. I've done that on other vehicles with mixed results and there are occasions where sitting a little higher is better in Houston.
5) Radiator Support (2015)
Result: I felt better than having the plastic part. It also saved my radiator and me from injury, but that is another story.
6) Bilstein shocks from Simple Engineering (2017)
My thought behind it was the shocks are 11yrs old and probably tired. I had just done the brakes and it was a good maintenance thing to do. I also replaced my front tires a couple months earlier due to a hole.. Time to get the alignment re-checked, etc.
Result: Whoa :surprise:. The rocking calmed down. She's much more planted, solid and stable. I didn't expect that much of a change. Afterward I subjectively realized that one of the rears was nearly flat as there wasn't much pressure relief when I drilled it vs. the others. The new rear shocks are bigger than the OEM, and if I recall correctly the valving is different in them all.
Bottom line: Don't forget the shocks... I should have done them a long time ago, like #3a?, but I still would have done them all.
Joined
·
443 Posts
TXNSSR, Awesome reply, thank You! I have 2.75" lower rear springs with new lower shocks in the back. The truck did have bilstien shocks in the back previously. Didn't really notice any difference.
I'll get in touch with Mike and hook up that front brace and frame stiffen'r. If Mike says I'll be happier, I trust him completely.
:ssr
I'll get in touch with Mike and hook up that front brace and frame stiffen'r. If Mike says I'll be happier, I trust him completely.
:ssr
Joined
·
351 Posts
Stan, just install the 2 SE brace and frame stiffener and you will immediately feel the difference. I have installed these items on all 3 SSRs that I have owned and highly recommend them versus keeping it stock. Worth the monies!!
Here are two sites that list Body Mount Parts,
one for the SSR and one for the Trailblazer which the SSR is built on:
https://www.gmpartsgiant.com/parts/chevrolet-cushion~21998826.html
https://www.wholesalegmpartsonline.com/showAssembly.aspx?ukey_assembly=397109&ukey_product=2958764
Does anyone know if theses are correct?
The rubber cushions on mine show the wear and tear of age, use, humidity and heat.
one for the SSR and one for the Trailblazer which the SSR is built on:
https://www.gmpartsgiant.com/parts/chevrolet-cushion~21998826.html
https://www.wholesalegmpartsonline.com/showAssembly.aspx?ukey_assembly=397109&ukey_product=2958764
Does anyone know if theses are correct?
The rubber cushions on mine show the wear and tear of age, use, humidity and heat.
ABOUT THE SAME as all of the [A] body's from 1965 to 1977. What amazed me at the time is that each name plate /although / using almost the same frame set-up used different bushing in different places. They came in very large containers and each bushing was color coded. It seemed even back then each [name plate] was trying to get a different [RIDE]........By using different hardness of the rubber ring of each bushing......[frame to body]...? You could not [FEEL] the difference in hard or softness and each had about the same metal incert.
Birdmans
Birdmans
Joined
·
9,469 Posts
RG, that GMpastsgiant like appears to be the right ones.
BM, same frame but different bodies with different weights, different structure strong/weak points, and different intended use, dictate bushing construction.
BM, same frame but different bodies with different weights, different structure strong/weak points, and different intended use, dictate bushing construction.
It has been many years since that time. I can only count on memories? AS I remember the main body & glass were all the same from brand to brand name? Only the outside sheet metal was different? Pontiac used a different radiator support but memory says the rest were all the same. My first job in that dept. was putting the finished Rad....support, complete with the grille, lights, Radiator, a.c. condenser & fan shroud on the frame. One person lifting on each side/ down / to the frame on one of [those] cushions. Then a long bolt/w/nut, washer, and lock washer. It was the first of the body parts to go on the frame. Then the main body itself followed by separate fenders & last the hood. That bolt I started was left loose until the fenders were put in place. Then a large squaring fixture dropped down and spaced the body to rad-support distance. Then the rad support bolts were tightened..........at this stage the body bolts had already been tightened. Some assembly plants bolted both fenders and the RAD-support together first and installed all as a unit..............WE were not to lift more than 50 LBS EACH> The Pontiac gto ft. end with the large radiator and heavy grille weighed in at over 125 LBS. JUST no way to use a hoist for [one] model as the radiator support.......carrier had to be high enough to clear the motor as the frame went under it. WE were young and needed the jobs. AND this was the way the line was set to run when the 1964 & back smaller [A] body cars were made. I did that job for 2 years & a few more and ended up 2nd in command under the foreman until the 1978 mode year when the [A] body was down sized. I went to Detroit to view a mini-assembly line just for the FT.end we made. Where else but the craft center building........? I looked at some of the completed models and said to myself, who in their right mind is going to buy these cut down models with rubber bumpers??????? Evidently ever one as that was almost all you had to choose from???? Our trucks and everything else has [the] plastic bumpers now........I also went through that period when the GOV. demanded a 5 MPH crash speed with minimal damage. Gm scrambled with ALUMINUM HOODS & RADIATOR SUPPORTS to get the bumpers to match up with shock asorbors on both the ft. & rear steel bumpers.......Actually had a special flat place in repair to test them.......
Birdmans
.
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
