Front lower rear control arm compatibility question
-
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:49 pm
Front lower rear control arm compatibility question
I have a 2014 ppv and I noticed the ball joint on my passenger front lower rear control arm has some play in it. Looking on gmpartsdirect they actually say both the 11-13 arm and the 14+ arm fit but they have different part numbers. I’d love to “upgrade” as I go and see that BMR makes g8 control arms (same as the 11-13 arm).
Can anybody clarify any of this for me?
This is the arm in question
Can anybody clarify any of this for me?
This is the arm in question
-
- Administration Staff
- Posts: 1724
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:30 pm
- Location: Canton GA
Re: Fron t lower rear control arm compatibility question
I could be wrong, but I believe 11-13 (WM) arms are steel, and 14-17 (WN) arms are aluminum....thus different PN's. Not sure if there's any difference as far as geometry, or sizing of any connection points.
Bill Harper
inov8r@windstream.net
inov8r@windstream.net
-
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:49 pm
Re: Fron t lower rear control arm compatibility question
That arm on mine is steel (MY2014) and looks the same across all years and platforms.Navy Lifer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:14 pm I could be wrong, but I believe 11-13 (WM) arms are steel, and 14-17 (WN) arms are aluminum....thus different PN's. Not sure if there's any difference as far as geometry, or sizing of any connection points.
The front arm is aluminum on mine.
-
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:49 pm
Re: Front lower rear control arm compatibility question
So for others that may look into this. The Chevy ss, g8, camaro and caprice arms are all the same length EXCEPT the ball joint taper is different depending on application.
The camaro, g8 and caprice 11-13 use a traditional taper ball joint.
The ss and 2014+ caprice use the same style ball joint and the ss has a tab welded on for magnetic ride.
My 2014 one on top and the other style below.
The camaro, g8 and caprice 11-13 use a traditional taper ball joint.
The ss and 2014+ caprice use the same style ball joint and the ss has a tab welded on for magnetic ride.
My 2014 one on top and the other style below.
-
- Administration Staff
- Posts: 1724
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:30 pm
- Location: Canton GA
Re: Front lower rear control arm compatibility question
Since the photo is rotated, is the rusty part on "top"?
The new part fits VF/WN, the old part fits VE/WM....the new part appear to have a lube fitting--yes? Assuming it is aftermarket, does the OEM version also have a lube fitting, or is it sealed?
The taper is different, I'm guessing, because the later VF/WN chassis used aluminum knuckles. How closely the new part shown is to the OE part, it does appear to be more robust than the used part....but I think they are not from the same application, correct?
The new part fits VF/WN, the old part fits VE/WM....the new part appear to have a lube fitting--yes? Assuming it is aftermarket, does the OEM version also have a lube fitting, or is it sealed?
The taper is different, I'm guessing, because the later VF/WN chassis used aluminum knuckles. How closely the new part shown is to the OE part, it does appear to be more robust than the used part....but I think they are not from the same application, correct?
Bill Harper
inov8r@windstream.net
inov8r@windstream.net
-
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:49 pm
Re: Front lower rear control arm compatibility question
None of the pictures are rotated? The used one is the one from my car and the oem one (which is all there is out there) does not have a grease fitting. I was searching for something “better” than what comes stock but nobody has said what makes things different and also gmpartsdirect shows both the older and newer style fitting the 2014Navy Lifer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:54 pm Since the photo is rotated, is the rusty part on "top"?
The new part fits VF/WN, the old part fits VE/WM....the new part appear to have a lube fitting--yes? Assuming it is aftermarket, does the OEM version also have a lube fitting, or is it sealed?
The taper is different, I'm guessing, because the later VF/WN chassis used aluminum knuckles. How closely the new part shown is to the OE part, it does appear to be more robust than the used part....but I think they are not from the same application, correct?
Re: Front lower rear control arm compatibility question
i dont think our 13's used the aluminum arms , but these are a good upgrade for us 14-17 people
https://superpro.com.au/whats-new/163-h ... dMhLYf8bys
https://superpro.com.au/whats-new/163-h ... dMhLYf8bys
-
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:49 pm
Re: Front lower rear control arm compatibility question
I couldn’t actually find them in the states for sale and couldn’t justify the shipping to get them here.s/c'd cav wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:47 am i dont think our 13's used the aluminum arms , but these are a good upgrade for us 14-17 people
https://superpro.com.au/whats-new/163-h ... dMhLYf8bys
Re: Front lower rear control arm compatibility question
HOLDEN PARTS USA , sells superpro though they are not listed on the site currently , but if you contact them karo can help you outIlikemtb999 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:42 pmI couldn’t actually find them in the states for sale and couldn’t justify the shipping to get them here.s/c'd cav wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:47 am i dont think our 13's used the aluminum arms , but these are a good upgrade for us 14-17 people
https://superpro.com.au/whats-new/163-h ... dMhLYf8bys
-
- Posts: 2300
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:31 pm
- Location: Pearland, Texas
Re: Front lower rear control arm compatibility question
Yeah, on everything except my iPad Pro, those arms are oriented vertically up and down. On the iPad, they are oriented horizontally with the rusty one at the top of the picture. Ya gotta love standards used to determine picture orientation, where everyone uses their own ‘standard’.Ilikemtb999 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:39 pmNone of the pictures are rotated? The used one is the one from my car and the oem one (which is all there is out there) does not have a grease fitting. I was searching for something “better” than what comes stock but nobody has said what makes things different and also gmpartsdirect shows both the older and newer style fitting the 2014Navy Lifer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:54 pm Since the photo is rotated, is the rusty part on "top"?
The new part fits VF/WN, the old part fits VE/WM....the new part appear to have a lube fitting--yes? Assuming it is aftermarket, does the OEM version also have a lube fitting, or is it sealed?
The taper is different, I'm guessing, because the later VF/WN chassis used aluminum knuckles. How closely the new part shown is to the OE part, it does appear to be more robust than the used part....but I think they are not from the same application, correct?
Bill, yes, the rusty one is the OEM part off the car.
Gene Beaird,
Pearland, Texas
2012 Caprice 9C1
1992 B4C 1LE Camaro
2018 Tahoe PPV (her car)
1995 DGGM Impala SS
1985 Firebird - 310 LS1 C Prepared autocross car.
1980 Bluebird Wanderlodge
And some others
Do YOU have my SPID?
Pearland, Texas
2012 Caprice 9C1
1992 B4C 1LE Camaro
2018 Tahoe PPV (her car)
1995 DGGM Impala SS
1985 Firebird - 310 LS1 C Prepared autocross car.
1980 Bluebird Wanderlodge
And some others
Do YOU have my SPID?