PontiacBonnevilleClub.com

Anyone ever had fitment issues with Dorman 924-043 sub-frame mount bushings not fitting correctly??

Paging Dr. Mattstrike….

Yea, I need some help on this one lol. Had some major issues last night....

I've never tried or used the Dorman part. Can you get a better description of the issue you're having, or pictures even?

Here's the deal. Stock GM mounts are full rubber top/ bottom with the large washer bottom and a cup peice top. The dormin setup is almost exactly the same except for the lower mounts. The GM mount is all rubber on the piece that fits into the frame ( correct me if I'm wrong) and the dormin mount has a steel insert inside the rubber going into the frame.
What happens is the steel diameter is larger then the hole in the frame itself. So I spent some time and tried cleaning up the holes and making them perfect but the mounts still wouldn't go in. So next I tried to cut reliefs in the sides to allow the mounts to flex like the GM ones do but that wasn't enough. So I ended up cutting the metal insert of completely and that did it.
So I go to assembly the frame and tighten the bolts down and now what I noticed is the top mounts which I didn't touch are now compressing almost completely to the point where the top cup washer is touching the frame itself!! If I jack on the area of the mount it does pretty much touch.

So what my deal is now is the car has more body roll and I'm worried that the mounts are not going to hole the frame properly from moving some side to side. Weird part is when I tightened the mounts completely the bottoms barely compress and the top almost bottom....any ideas would be great

Going to get pictures tomorrow, sorry for the hold up. Been repairing things getting her up to par and keep on forgetting

Pictures would be a must here. They should be impossible to over-compress like you're describing.

Are you installing these in your 2001 Regal?
If so, then that is the problem.
You should have instead bought Dorman 924-006 bushings http://www.dormanproducts.com/p-44589-9 ... origin=YMM.
Application Summary: Buick 2009-97, Chevrolet 2012-00, Oldsmobile 2002-98, Pontiac 2008-97

The 924-043 bushings are only for earlier models as in:
Application Summary: Buick 1999-91, Cadillac 1993-92, Oldsmobile 1999-87, Pontiac 1999-87
http://www.dormanproducts.com/p-54462-9 ... in=keyword

No in my 1999 Bonneville SSE

That makes more sense.
When I looked at your post, it previously had this list beneath your text, so I had no idea that you have a 99 Bonneville:
2001 Regal GS-ported gen3, 3.4, N*, SLP 1.8 rockers, SLP dual exhaust, Pacesetter headers, thrasher shift kit, etc
1970 Monte Carlo SS-waiting for new motor/trans best 12.5 at 109

Previous:
1999 Olds 88-22,000 original miles
2004 Impala SS
1997 Regal GS-best 13.9 at 98.2
1999 Regal GS
2000 Regal GS
1997 Regal GS

Dorman's site lists them as for "body mount position 2" but fails to explain where that is exactly.


It makes perfect sense that removing a portion of the bushing would allow for undesirable play.
It would seem that a better option than cutting the bushing would have been to use a little silcone grease to allow the bushings to seat into the frame holes.

The only other thing that comes to mind is that the subframe was replaced with a different year/model subframe----if that's possible.
Did the bushings that came out look like the same type of design as the Dormans?

If you saved the old bushings, you can read the part numbers off them and that might offer a clue.

Since the roads get salted every winter in my area, today I'm battling with replacing the rotted subframe on my 93 and will be using the Dorman bushings.
A number of the washers and subframe mounting holes rotted out.
At least one of the nuts is already detached--and I haven't even tried loosening any of the bolts yet.
Hopefully, it will go reasonably smoothly.

I fixed my signature so no confusion. The Dorman bushing was the same design but used a metal inside the mount in the portion that goes into the frame where as the GM didn't. The tolerance was larger and that is what caused my issue plus this car is never seen salt so the frame was in great shape.

The weird part is the bottom mount is fine even after modifying it, it's the top section that is almost bottomed out.

I'll get a picture in the next couple hours so you guys can see

monte0 wrote:I fixed my signature so no confusion.
The Dorman bushing was the same design but used a metal inside the mount in the portion that goes into the frame where as the GM didn't. The tolerance was larger and that is what caused my issue plus this car is never seen salt so the frame was in great shape.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that the bushings I removed from my subframe were GM bushings and they, too had the rubber-coated metal part in the center of the bushing.

Yes, OE bushings have a metal band around the rubber where it goes into the hole

Here's the upper mount gap between the washer and frame. Don't mind the grease all over the mounts, I'm getting the car prepared for northern weather so it will hold up well so rust will stay at bay. See the upper mount how far it already is compressed? My stock GM mount wasn't that much and if I jack up on the frame it will compress more to it almost touches the frame.

The upper washer, should be mushroom shaped, and sets the compression height to the lower washer. That first picture you posted looks normal.

Ok, I'm just comparing what it was before to now. Before their was more spacing but good to know it's correct. On a side note Matrstrike, where did you get the clear side markers?

Sure you got the top bushings on top, bottom parts on bottom?



This is what I found for the '93 when I did that one.

Yep 100% sure