Issue with BMR lower control arm bearing kit bk055

[JustDSM]

Another update: After 2 drives and purposely hitting every bump/dip in the road, the noise is now gone as well as the bouncy feeling. This goes against logic but all I did was put the rear up on my race ramps wheel cribs (suspension loaded). Then I loosened up the RLCA bolt until I could see about 1/8" of space between the subframe ear and 1 of the bearing spacers. Then I tightened the bolt back down until the space was gone. This time I did not torque it down to 166 ft/lbs. again. Again, I only tightened it until all the spacing was removed, that's it.

I don't think I will leave it not fully torqued down but I bought a new house and will be moving over the next few weeks so I don't have the time to fool with it anymore, but at least its quiet and riding the way it supposed to now and I need the car to be able to move it from its current garage to the garage in the new house.

I just finished up my BK055 install and also had a seriously "bouncy" ride. I actually wondered if my suspension was bound up it was so firm feeling.

I'm thankful I came across your above post, as I just performed a similar proceedure to see if it would have any affect on my "bouncy" ride. I put the 24mm socket on there and losened up the front LCA bolt about 1/8-1/4 turn after setting the car on ramps to get it back at ride height (though probably not necessary with the the free articulation/rotation of the sperical? But I did it anyway.. Put the car back on the ground and my ride is back to normal (with FRPP Track shocks/SP083's).

So much more enjoyable to drive..

From what Kelly said above, seems like the arms are going to have to come out to have the misalignment spacers machined down a smidge..

Sponsored

 

[jmeiers]

I just finished up my BK055 install and also had a seriously "bouncy" ride. I actually wondered if my suspension was bound up it was so firm feeling.

I'm thankful I came across your above post, as I just performed a similar proceedure to see if it would have any affect on my "bouncy" ride. I put the 24mm socket on there and losened up the front LCA bolt about 1/8-1/4 turn after setting the car on ramps to get it back at ride height (though probably not necessary with the the free articulation/rotation of the sperical? But I did it anyway.. Put the car back on the ground and my ride is back to normal (with FRPP Track shocks/SP083's).

So much more enjoyable to drive..

From what Kelly said above, seems like the arms are going to have to come out to have the misalignment spacers machined down a smidge..

Glad I’m not the only one that experienced the issue. Misery loves company. Doesn’t sound like yours was making noise though but the same bouncy ride also sucked.

Like I said, the “fix” defies logic but it worked and the car is driving good now. When I get more time, I will pull it back apart and physically check the spacers.

 

[jmeiers]

I must've gotten lucky with mine. Torqued to spec and I noticed it rode better immediately when I installed last year.

My passenger side is still torqued to spec and no issues with that one. I rechecked all bolts on both sides of the car. It’s only this driver side front RLCA bolt that was causing my problems.

 

[shogun32]

I have seen an issue with the inner bolt spacers contacting each other inside the bearing causing a slight amount of slop. This happens when compounding tolerances.

there should be 0.25-0.5mm gap between the spacer ends where they meet in the middle. Actually you can have lots more gap than that if you want and it'll be fine too.

 

[KellTrac]

From my experience, the bouncy ride is simply from the bearing being spec'd very very tight.

As mileage accrues, the inner bearing materials "break-in" and will provide a better ride.

If you do have the issue with the bearing spacers contacting, then that usually won't show the bouncy ride as well....it is usually one or the other.

 

[JustDSM]

From my experience, the bouncy ride is simply from the bearing being spec'd very very tight.

As mileage accrues, the inner bearing materials "break-in" and will provide a better ride.

If you do have the issue with the bearing spacers contacting, then that usually won't show the bouncy ride as well....it is usually one or the other.

Interesting..

Simply loosening the rear LCA bolt that goes through the BK055 about 1/8 of a turn was all it took to go from "pogo-stick" like ride, to normal. I put about 100 miles on the bearings and the bouncy ride continued until the moment I loosened up on that fastener, the ride improved that instant.

 

[JustDSM]

Wondering if when it's smooshing the spacers they expand slightly (and elastically) and tighten up the bearing.

That was my thought.

Not sure how I could get a measurement on the thickness of the inner ring/ball. Any tips/tricks from the engineer folks? My best guess is a micrometer.

 

[JustDSM]

Your average digital caliper works.

Not sure exactly when it'll happen, but I'll have mine out soon and I'll measure what we're working with.

 

[shogun32]

Wondering if when it's smooshing the spacers they expand slightly (and elastically) and tighten up the bearing.

that would mean the supposedly hardened steel semi-ball is deforming under side/pinch loading. That would be a neat trick. More plausible is that the ball is being pressed sideways into it's seat that it's binding. I would surmise the bearing outer shell is not fully seated. This could be a burr or improperly machined surface (or lack thereof) making indexing impossible.

Contrary to my earlier post about there generally being a gap between the 2 halves of the inserts, excess length would prevent (assuming >= tolerance) side-loading of the ball with the side-effect that the whole bearing assembly can now slide back and forth. These bearings are not really intended for big side-loading, rather radial and off-kilter small angle rotation.

My money is on an improperly (inadequately recessed) installed bearing or gross slop in Ford's pickup points so that any attempt at precision is largely futile. With a rubber-encrusted bushing the inner can move a TON fore/aft to compensate for misalignment and still have plenty of elasticity to bounce around the axis. Instead of 'bending' the ears to meet the bushing I would suggest shimming the gap as best you can. McMaster has peelable shims which could work here.

 

[shogun32]

the axial force on the bearing should be ~0. If not, you have big surface area for resistance and binding in both rotational axis. If you're saying the ball which has a cross-section of the letter 'D' is being crushed/distorted into a thinner and taller 'D' and thus locking up the bearing then the ball is made of chinesium.

IMO something is pulling hard on the bearing in axial direction. If the mounting tabs are twisted or misaligned relative to the other hard points then you would end up with a bound-up bearing. I would yank the spring and damper and remove the vertical link, and loosen both pivot bolts to articulate the arm by hand. With both pivot bolts slack, look for gaps and prepare to shim one (or both) of the inner surfaces.

Then tighten JUST the problematic bolt to spec and see if the force went way up or stayed loose. If it went way up to the point you have to really push/pull on it then Brian's right, the ball is deforming and a 'WTF, yo' call should be made to BMR.

 

[JustDSM]

that would mean the supposedly hardened steel semi-ball is deforming under side/pinch loading. That would be a neat trick. More plausible is that the ball is being pressed sideways into it's seat that it's binding. I would surmise the bearing outer shell is not fully seated. This could be a burr or improperly machined surface (or lack thereof) making indexing impossible.

Contrary to my earlier post about there generally being a gap between the 2 halves of the inserts, excess length would prevent (assuming >= tolerance) side-loading of the ball with the side-effect that the whole bearing assembly can now slide back and forth. These bearings are not really intended for big side-loading, rather radial and off-kilter small angle rotation.

My money is on an improperly (inadequately recessed) installed bearing or gross slop in Ford's pickup points so that any attempt at precision is largely futile. With a rubber-encrusted bushing the inner can move a TON fore/aft to compensate for misalignment and still have plenty of elasticity to bounce around the axis. Instead of 'bending' the ears to meet the bushing I would suggest shimming the gap as best you can. McMaster has peelable shims which could work here.

I'm going to be the first to raise my hand and say the technical talk of the few posts that follow the one I'm quoting are just a bit outside of what I'm qualified to speak on. But I do understand the argument both you and Brian make.

Based solely off what I experienced the other day simply by reducing the torque value applied to the fastener by whatever amount would be equal to ~1/8th of a turn the issue entirely disappeared. I did not see any movement in the subframe that would suggest it opened up as I'd wager there's still 100+ft/lbs of torque applied to the fastener.

To my un-initiated mind, this suggests to me that there is deformation in the bearing causing binding. But again, I'm not qualified to make statements here. Just sharing my observations and thoughts.

 

[shogun32]

The NET axial should be zero. There are compressive forces on both sides that have opposite directions, but definitely not zero force

I'm talking about the bearing in the context of the AL casting, not the ball by itself or the bearing being pinched between the mounting tabs.

Also, the way Ford designed the joint being off axis with the rearward point means it cannot have zero axial load in use.

So the other pivot point has so much slop fore-aft in it that wheel forces can pull/push on the bearing and dramatically axially load/unload the ball in its race? Then shim the other pivot point so it can't slide around. I guess now we have an inkling as to why Ford used rubber - NVH is probably a secondary concern to it's inability to hold adequate precision.

simply by reducing the torque value applied to the fastener by whatever amount would be equal to ~1/8th of a turn the issue entirely disappeared

I wouldn't worry about it and go have fun. The bolt isn't at 75% of yield but it's not like it's at 50%.

 

[TX-2019-Black_GT]

Hey guys having an issue with clicking in the left rear lower control arm bearing. Anyone know how I can stop this? I sprayed it with WD-40 and the clicking went away so I confirmed that the bearing is the issue. I performed this test by using a jack to move the control arm up and down simulating what I hear while driving.

I had them professionally installed by a local speed shop and had no issue till about a week later when this started happening.

while driving it has become almost unbearable...

[ame]

Where's the video? The link is broken, and I don't find it on your YouTube channel. Your build videos look great. I'll be checking them out. Thanks for sharing so much useful info!

 

[JustDSM]

Ok.. Just returned home from a week-long backpacking trip and after my previous post where I stated that I only had the binding/bouncy ride issues, I can say that my bearings are now creaking/clicking.

As I mentioned previously, I slightly reduced the clamping load by backing off the front lower control arm bolt about 1/8th of a turn or so. This cured the bouncy ride and all seemed to be just fine. After a week of sitting in the garage, the car now exhibits a clicking sound with just a slight amount of movement in the chassis. I put the car up on ramps and can 100% isolate the sound to the right rear BK055 bearing most of the time. I can induce the sound at will on both, but the right bearing is much more "vocal". I can even feel the clicking in the bearing as weight is put into the chassis. Something is off.

I called BMR and spoke with Dion. The next step is going to be to yank things and take some measurements.

He gave me the following, which may help out others who are having issues. He gave me some measurements which he indicated should tell whether something is amiss or not..

The slot/opening width where the bushing/bearing fits into the subframe: 1.13"
Total width of misalignment spacer: 1.28"
- Larger OD portion should be: 0.51" wide
- Smaller OD portion (which fits into the ball): 0.675"
OD of the misalignment spacer (where it fits into the ball): 0.65"

*Edit* Interesting to note that he stated the total width of the misalignment spacer is 1.28" when the widths of each individual portion equal 1.185"..

@BMR Tech

 

[shogun32]

The slot/opening width where the bushing/bearing fits into the subframe: 1.13"
Total width of misalignment spacer: 1.28"

that doesn't add up and also can't possibly be right. The distance between the mounting 'ears' from the frame is what 2+ inches?
have a helper shove down on the car while your finger is resting lightly on the bearing and/or mis-alignment bushes. can you feel shocks or sliding motion?

Sponsored