different types of late arms?
07-04-2005, 01:32 AM
#16
Rennlist Member
I also checked a set of Motorsport/Clubsport arms and they have the same casting numbers as 89 Turbo/M030 arms.
George, did you come up with casting numbers on standard/non M030 arms?
George, did you come up with casting numbers on standard/non M030 arms?
07-04-2005, 10:55 AM
#17
M030 Arms Solved
Lots of good info here. I've posted two pix to help clarify.
1) Yes, all OE ball joints are the same size, regardless whether the arm is standard or M030.
2) Yes, the only physical difference between standard and 951 S/S2 M030/968 M030 is the stiffness of the front bushing.
3) Yes, all replacement M030 arms are now the 968 spec M030 arm with mounting tabs for those great plastic brake ducts. These ducts are a 968 part (four plastic parts, two upper and two lower deflectors)...and they are the cat's meow, IMO. Incredibly efficient for track driving, without all the work, expense and hassle of direct "drier hose" ducting.
4) As the attached photos of a take-off 968 M030 arm reveal, the current "official" part number is a bit of a moving target...as this arm has all the current features, duct tabs and increased webbing in several areas of the casting and it features an entirely different # 944 341 049 01/2.
5) My Turbo S has one of each...a tabless and a tabbed arm. I'm going to kill a couple birds with one stone. Upgrade both sides with the new rear 968 Caster Mount and swap out my tabless arm with the one pictured so I can use all four of the plastic brake ducts.
6) This whole issue of recall and recasting involves weaknesses in any arms stamped with the subcontractor code SM. If you have an SM stamped arm, replace it.
1) Yes, all OE ball joints are the same size, regardless whether the arm is standard or M030.
2) Yes, the only physical difference between standard and 951 S/S2 M030/968 M030 is the stiffness of the front bushing.
3) Yes, all replacement M030 arms are now the 968 spec M030 arm with mounting tabs for those great plastic brake ducts. These ducts are a 968 part (four plastic parts, two upper and two lower deflectors)...and they are the cat's meow, IMO. Incredibly efficient for track driving, without all the work, expense and hassle of direct "drier hose" ducting.
4) As the attached photos of a take-off 968 M030 arm reveal, the current "official" part number is a bit of a moving target...as this arm has all the current features, duct tabs and increased webbing in several areas of the casting and it features an entirely different # 944 341 049 01/2.
5) My Turbo S has one of each...a tabless and a tabbed arm. I'm going to kill a couple birds with one stone. Upgrade both sides with the new rear 968 Caster Mount and swap out my tabless arm with the one pictured so I can use all four of the plastic brake ducts.
6) This whole issue of recall and recasting involves weaknesses in any arms stamped with the subcontractor code SM. If you have an SM stamped arm, replace it.
07-13-2005, 12:40 AM
#18
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup - still a moving feast - There would appear to be a number of different castings all with the same casting number suggesting a number of revisions or different suppliers - the appearance of some is a subltle as the slight webbing in the pic above through to quite different webs (number and configuration) around the top of the sway bar mount and thats before we even consider the tabs on the 968 arms (also fitted to S2's on run-out apparently).
I have found mention that the standard arm has a groove all the way around the ball joint pin and the M030 arm just has the slot or groove on one side of the pin - anyone confirm this?
G
I have found mention that the standard arm has a groove all the way around the ball joint pin and the M030 arm just has the slot or groove on one side of the pin - anyone confirm this?
G
07-13-2005, 12:52 AM
#19
Rennlist Member
George,
The M030 arms, both 951 and 968 still have the groove all the way around the ball joint pin. The only factory ball joint pin that has just a slot (so it can only be installed with one orientation) is the motorsport/club sport arms used on the cup/escort race cars.
I know my 968 arms (like the ones shown above) are quite a bit different than my 951 arms.
Jim
The M030 arms, both 951 and 968 still have the groove all the way around the ball joint pin. The only factory ball joint pin that has just a slot (so it can only be installed with one orientation) is the motorsport/club sport arms used on the cup/escort race cars.
I know my 968 arms (like the ones shown above) are quite a bit different than my 951 arms.
Jim
07-13-2005, 07:35 AM
#20
Ditto on Odd Job's call. The 968 arm pictured is an M030 part and the ball joint groove is all the way around the pin.
There are two issues at work in the confusing history of 944 Series II control arms and ball joints.
Issue One is the manufacturing standards of any arm/ball joint made by one subcontractor whose arms are stamped SM. Those units apparently can fail catastrophically through normal use as well as track use and have been the subject of factory recalls. Good arms should be stamped with MBF in front of the manufacturing date.
Issue Two is really for racer's only or folks with dramatically lowered street cars. If your car has less than 13" between the front fender well and the wheel center, your ball joint could be jammed at the extreme end of it's rotation range on ANY factory arm, M030 or not. If you wish to run your car that low, or compete in track events under extreme and high speed conditions, an aftermarket arm with replacable ball joints that offer a wider range of free rotation is well advised. The cost of aftermarket arms, especially factoring in fancy bushings is, of course, quite high, but not that far off from the cost of refurbing your front suspension with all new factory parts, sadly.
There are two issues at work in the confusing history of 944 Series II control arms and ball joints.
Issue One is the manufacturing standards of any arm/ball joint made by one subcontractor whose arms are stamped SM. Those units apparently can fail catastrophically through normal use as well as track use and have been the subject of factory recalls. Good arms should be stamped with MBF in front of the manufacturing date.
Issue Two is really for racer's only or folks with dramatically lowered street cars. If your car has less than 13" between the front fender well and the wheel center, your ball joint could be jammed at the extreme end of it's rotation range on ANY factory arm, M030 or not. If you wish to run your car that low, or compete in track events under extreme and high speed conditions, an aftermarket arm with replacable ball joints that offer a wider range of free rotation is well advised. The cost of aftermarket arms, especially factoring in fancy bushings is, of course, quite high, but not that far off from the cost of refurbing your front suspension with all new factory parts, sadly.
