One axle bearing is bad on the '67 VC. Common sense says to replace both sides and seals.
I'm learning that the VC has different bearings. They are getting hard to come by and quite pricey.
I'm guessing the VC has heavier duty parts being a wagon.
Before I open Pandora's box, in the event of a major rebuild would it be wiser to find a "more common" rear to work with?


It's a 10 bolt 3.08 open rear.

Next question, would I be able to retain/ reuse the heaver VC brakes on another rear?
Enclose are a few pictures to help ID.
Thanks,
Ed

 

Olds spent the money to install a heavier duty axle in the Vista for a reason. The Vista axle not only has bigger bearings, it also has bigger drum brakes (9.5" x 2.5" vs the 9.5" x 2.0" on lesser A-body cars).

 

Hi Joe, thanks for replying.
I figured everything is heavier on the VC.
But part of my concern, are the parts for that rear available in the event of a major rebuild, or gear ratio change?
Or would it be wiser to go with another BOP rear where the parts are avaiable.
Yes, I want to retain the heavier brakes and already invested in a complete rear brake rebuild (hardware, shoes, drums).
That's when I stumbled on a bad bearing, and then comes the MAW ....
I'm not looking to change the rear, only as a last resort.

 

The remainder of the axle is the same as for any other Cutlass. Your 1967 could have come with a BOP 8.2" or a Type O 8.5" axle.

 

Thank you Joe
I will pull an axle and get numbers off the bearing.
Based on the pictures above, can anyone ID what type of rear that is?

 

It's a P-type 8.2" axle. It will have a 10 bolt cover. Internal parts are easy to get.

 

Have you pulled the axle yet? Take measurements on the bearing. Make sure somebody didn’t jam a replacement rear end in there from a sedan or an earlier Vista Cruiser as those can be made to fit. Those Vista Cruiser rear ball bearings were prone to failure and later designs used beefy tapered roller bearings that held up better to the additional cornering loads on the long wagons.

A ’66 to ‘68 Vista Cruiser (and Buick Sportwagon) axle would have bearings RW-507-G or RW-507-AA which measure – OD 2.890, Bore 1.437, Width Overall 0.740. I think the only difference in the part numbers is the AA part includes the retaining ring. You will need a retaining ring as I don’t think it can be removed without mangling it. Note these part numbers are very similar to the more common A body sedan bearings that will not fit your axles.

Make sure the axle survived the bearing failure. I spun a bearing on my '67 Vista Cruiser (O Type center) and on disassembly found the axle splines were badly twisted and the bearing race had spun so the axle was junk at both ends.

I started out with a plan to rebuild my '67 Type O rear but looked for other options due to the oddball GW-507-AA bearings, the equally oddball axles, and the limited selection of Type O gears and posi. If you are happy with your gears and open rear, and your axle checks out ok, the RW-507-AA bearing is expensive but it will get you back on the road for a few hundred bucks per side. A rear from a 71 or 72 Vista Cruiser or SportWagon will bolt right up and is a better overall design that should last pretty much forever. If you have to rebuild a 71/72 core rear end, it will likely cost $2k but for that you will get better gear and posi options and prices as those pieces are common to a huge number of 8.5” 10 bolt equipped GM vehicles. The 71/72 long wagon rears used the readily available and very rugged Set 10 tapered roller bearings.

There are a couple of rear end specialists on the Buick and Olds groups who can help you out. Brian Trick is in Erie, PA and frequents V8Buick.com. When I was rear end shopping years ago he had some Vista Cruiser rear ends in his cores he could build up. Monzaz on this site also is a great source for parts and rebuilds and can help you figure out a solution.

 

Thank you guys.
Now I have a much better understanding and options as I approach my next project.
Thanks again,
Ed

 

Update,
Got both axles out, no apparent damage to bearings or axle tube.
But, have two different bearing numbers.
The side that was bad seems to be original, RW507 G . The other side reads BCA 207 F.
I made some calls pricing bearings, seals, etc. Waiting for reply

 

So in your first post you indicated you had one bad bearing, but upon inspection, you find no issue with either bearing?

 

I guess I need to clarify.
One bearing was extremely loose / worn, but not blown apart. Thankfully no visible damage to other parts.

 

Something is off.

The internet could be wrong, but the specs I found for the BCA 207F bearing (and the price you can get it for) do not match those for the RW507-G that is correct for the big diameter axles and '67 Vista Cruiser.
A BCA 207F bearing is a standard deep groove ball bearing with a 35mm bore (1.378"), a 72mm outer diameter (2.835").

The BCA 207F bearing outer diameter is correct for 64-68 Vista Cruiser housing ends but the 1.378" bore should not work with 66/67 axles which require a 1.437" bore unless something got turned in a lathe.

I believe the BCA 207F was for the 64/65 Vista Cruiser rear ends which came with smaller diameter axles and smaller bore bearings that are otherwise the same dimensions as the later Vista Cruiser bearings. It looks like the 64/65 axle/bearing combo was a work around to finding the correct RW507-G axle/bearing combo. Since the 1.378" bore was the same as the sedan axles it might be possible that any non-wagon axles can be swapped in with the BCA 207F bearing that fits in the larger Vista Cruiser housings ends.

Take measurements on both axle diameters in the area of the bearing and good luck sorting this out. Which bearing/axle combo was failing? If the 64/65 bearing/axle combo failed it could be that with the work-around there was some slop in tolerances.

 

Call Jim at JDRace.com
http://www.jdrace.com/

Phone: (330) 990-8155

 

The plot thickens.....
I'll report back after I have time to check everything out.
But I think you're right, I think it's two different axles. When pulling them out I noticed the hole pattern on the hub / flange were different. One axle flange had 3 holes, the other had 2 holes. I thought that was strange when lining up the hole to remove the nuts.
But apparently it works, the bearing that was bad is the original one (RW 507 G). The axle with BCA 207F is the fine.
I'll take measurements and pictures tomorrow and continue.
Thanks again for the input.

 

So what happened here? I see you have moved on to procuring brake drums. Is the axle/bearing confusion resolved?

 

Not exactly, just on hold for now. I have located those bearings but they come with a price. I'll be into it for over $500 with labor just for that.Those bearings are at least 25yrs old,and I still have a 60 yr old rear with the rest of the components.
I am doing research, right now I'm considering (not definite) having an 8.5 rear built. All new parts, gearing of my choice & posi for around $2,500.
I may have a lead on a '71 vista rear for a core. I've been told an 8.5 from a Cutlass would work too.I would reuse the Vista rear brake components. I know I may have to shorten / replace the driveshaft.
So that's where I'm at. In the meantime I'm plugging along on other areas.
Of course any outside opinions are welcome.....

 

I would check with a place that specializes in bearings. Many times the same bearings can be found by another manufacturer Google "Bearing manufacturers" for some names and bearing distributors.
Jim at jdrace.com can clear up some of your confusion.
http://www.jdrace.com/

 

After a few months side lining the rear, I brought it to Brian Trick in Erie,PA. He did a complete rebuild including new axle shafts.
The original Ring and Pinion (3.08) were in very good shape and reused. For me keeping the original rear housing / gear ratio was the better choice, especially since I discovered the Protect-o-Plate and the numbers match on the powertrain. Now keeping the VC original or period correct as much as possible is the goal.

Got the rear back from Brian. Using methods to save my back when no help is available.