Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoomad75
Engineers get it wrong too. Ever hear of recalls? That's when the engineers get it wrong. Getting back to the mount, like Larry said, the 205's lost the mount early in the squarebody production run. They kept drilling the holes, but no mounts on the frame. Later the 205's lost the mount. WHY? For the exact reasons Larry has noted earlier in this OLD thread. You want to crack the adaptor bolt that sucker up like you show.
Lets see, I'm not an expert on CUCV's, but by that time in the production run GM stopped using the torque mount for close to 10 years. I can see a certain point to getting the order of torquing things up screwed up, but those didn't have the mount you've expounded on at length here.
To go back to the point that GM changed the idea on the torque mount use, please explain why the 208 and 241 t-cases never got the bosses cast into the aluminum cases on them? The 208's were used in the M1009's too.
You've got a point that GM did put a lot of thought into the engineering behind the torque mount in the first place. But warranty claims are the best feedback a manufacturer can get. As GM started seeing the cracked adaptors coming in you can bet a service engineer is going to get assigned to find out why. If what they find is going to lessen the warranty expense they will make a change. GM does this now just as they did it back then. It just took more effort back then due to the lack of computerized data and reporting like they have had for the last 25 years.
But hey, I only worked at GM for a good chunk of my career, International for another and a GM dealer for the last 9 years so I might be wrong too.
|
No, your not wrong, but I may be unclear in my statement, the torque mount is different than the adapter(the part between the t case and the tranny)the torque mount was eliminated but they still had problems with broken adapters even in the cucv's. I think its a service related problem rather than a design issue.
I would also suggest that the need was still there but as these vehicles evolved the way the problem was solved was different, same problem....different solution. money being a factor in that design/descision
My 68 k20 has only 13k miles on it and that torque mount will see alot of service....climbing up that ramp into the trailer.
I know about the recalls. they had them for the motor mounts in these year trucks, A failed motormount on these k trucks would make the problem worse and failure of parts more likley, the adapter specifically. Yes engineers will get it wrong sometimes .
the fact that the boss's are there makes me thing they might have had other possible/future applications in mind.
I never knew that there was a problem under warrenty.
It would be very interesting to look at the statistics on warrenty work back then.
someone else above mentioned adapters failing after new motormounts were installed. I have replaced motor mounts on these trucks and it is nessessarry to raise the engine to remove and install new mounts. if you just jack up the motor to gain the needed clearance to install the new motor mounts it must be raised high enough to do that but its too high(in my opinion) and puts a stain on the adapter, it too will put an unnatural load on the adapter mounts and the torque mounts. the adapters may fail.