Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
08-02-2009, 09:38 PM | #1 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rapid City South Dakota
Posts: 39
|
Prothane vs Energy Suspension
I'm curious what the views are regarding Prothane vs Energy Suspension for engine mount inserts, transmission mount, pan hard bar bushings, sway bar bushings, trailing arm bushings, body bushings, and radiator support.
The consensus at other web site forums is Prothane is firmer and less likely to make noise, but causes additional vibration transmitted to the steering wheel over OEM. I am also a firm believer in OEM rubber which has significantly more research dollars into than the aftermarket urethane products. Granted newly purchased OEM rubber will not last as long as the urethane, but it should last longer than I will be able to drive the truck.... for certain applications. Because I hate squeaky rides or the effort to keep them lubricated, I have already purchased body mounts and a-arm bushings utilizing OEM type rubber. But... am undecided about the other bushings. The build plan is a BBC 496 with the option for 100-250hp N2 shot ie 650-850 hp at crankshaft. Tremec T56 magnum assuming a kit is available in the next year or two. And other mods to hook ie engine moved back slightly, fuel cell and battery in back, slicks from time to time, DTS dana 60, some after market sheet metal, and trailing arm pivot lowered 6" in a 69 SWB 2wd. Hence I believe I will need some firmer support than OEM designed bushings. I've also procured the BBC clamshell engine mounts/stands from a 73-87 pickup for added safety given the high torque. The primary use will be a daily driver on nice days, with some strip. Thanks again for your advise. Last edited by gene_ensor; 08-02-2009 at 09:45 PM. |
08-03-2009, 09:21 AM | #2 |
motor exploder
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,346
|
Re: Prothane vs Energy Suspension
I had the full Energy Suspension "master kit" on a '92 C1500 I used to own, with boxed lower a-arms, f & r sway bars, stiff shocks, 5/7 drop, 18" wheels, etc. The Energy Suspension pieces firmed up the ride BIG TIME and that truck would flat out handle and was a blast to drive, but the a-arm bushings squeaked like no tomorrow. No noise out of any of the other bushings, (rear leafs, body, etc). I even tried bathing them in Lithium grease, but it only lasted a very little time, and the squeaking came back.
I have no experience with the Prothane pieces, but I'll bet they squeak too. Supposedly Delrin bushings are even better than urethane, but without all the squeaking. There are also graphite impregnated urethane bushings, but I don't know if there are applications for our trucks.
__________________
Adam 1969 Chevy CST/10 stepside, DART Big M/TREMEC Magnum Extreme/3.73's w/Detroit Truetrac 1965 Chevy Bel Air Wagon (daily driver), 327/TH350,10 bolt w/3.08's 1961 Chevy Bel Air Sport Coupe, ZZ454/M21/9" rear w/3.50's & Detroit Truetrac 2005 GMC 1500 ccsb 2wd, 6.0L/4L65e/3.73 G80 2006 GMC 2500HD ccsb 4x4, DMax LBZ/Allison 6spd/4.56's w/Detroit TrueTrac Use the SEARCH function on this forum - it is your friend!! |
08-03-2009, 12:14 PM | #3 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,270
|
Re: Prothane vs Energy Suspension
Prothane is basically the same but for less $$$$ the lube they come with is good stuff, use more than you think you'll need and you won't have squeaks. I used energy on my 70 Camaro and I have not had any squeaks yet and I did the swap 15 years ago. I just used prothane on my nieces 94 Camaro, lots of goop no sqeaks, and 100 times better than rubber.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|