jmreiser

Are you going to the PCA Tech event in Springfield IL later this month at Isringhausen?

Bull

I know that Mark, which is why I said "than it would be" to say it. My point was that either one is equally wrong. Sorry if it didn't read that way to you.

95 C4 993

Drinking milk causes cancer---dont drink it.

fast_freddy

Short of getting under the car and getting parts numbers, is there any way to know whether you have the "defective" parts? I have a late build 95' (no basket handle and no need to put the steering rack bracket w/18" wheels) and was planning a "track campaign" this year and don't want to find out the hard way that I should have updated the parts. I was planning on upgrading the tie rod ends to RS spec for more steering feel and was wondering if while my wrench was under there he "might as well"...

Bill Verburg

The RS tie rods don't work w/ stock wheel carriers.

This is what you want to do that,
993.341.157.81 Wheel carrier /L
993.341.158.81 Wheel carrier /R
993.347.031.81 Tie rod x2
999.053.041.02 Bearing x2

Mark in Baltimore

No prob, Bob. I think it's important to present all sides. It would be all too easy for '95 owners to get in a tizzy over this matter. Maybe it's real, maybe it's limited to certain '95's, maybe I have the updated pieces, maybe I have less wear, maybe someone has more wear, maybe person A isn't drving hard enough, maybe person B ran out of talent. It's important for current and future '95 owners to hear from people who have had handling issues, as well those who haven't. Undoubtedly, there will be controversy.

I'm definitely not saying that Joel is wrong and hope I haven't come across that way. I do know that I am trying to take my driving to the next level and am trying to get comfortable pushing my card hard enough to regularly slide the car a bit in high speed corners. If my car were twitchy (and it was but that was due to dialing in the Motons and rear bar), I would not even think about being on the edge of 90+ turns.

fast_freddy

Thanks Bill. Hope you don't have to spend any time outside today, it was -15F when I left for the office at 6:15. I'm sure its not too different there either.... I've had it with this ****e, I love winter and all but its time for crocus and tulips!

Bull

I could not agree more Mark, and really have no dog in the "fight". I simply took exception to two things since this thread started; first, the use of quotaion marks where no real quote existed, and second, the implication that Joel was only reporting his findings from his paying customers. Of course, you had nothing to do with either.

RallyJon

Who are you quoting with "fight"? Or is it possible that quotation marks can be used in ways other than to indicate a direct quote?

TheOtherEric

Unfortunately I'll be driving the Nuerburgring in Germany that weekend. Thanks for the tip, though, I'd love to go if I were around. BTW please don't take offense to my questions; I'm not disagreeing with you, just seeking info. If it's really a problem, I'll buck up and buy the parts. I just haven't experienced the problem, and I've done a lot of days in my 993.

mbb993

Hey Eric, Just curious what's the born-on-date of your car?

TheOtherEric

Feb 1994, so I assume I have the early parts. I doubt the PO would have updated.

JasonAndreas

Joel,
PAG changed the front & rear springs, shocks and swaybars three times between December 21, 1993 and February 10, 1994. Do you know if those changes were the first atttempt made at solving this problem or was PAG trying to fix something else?

Garth S

I cleaned up the casting numbers on the rear suspension pieces from an early [VIN ..05xx} '96 C4S parts car, just to confirm that I had all the 'latest' items as spares. The reference is Joels abridged post below., plus I added the arch number.
There are some differences - which leaves the impression that cars were bolted together on the assembly line just like any chevy - use whatever parts are in the box .... until the box is empty.

2 -992.331.131.06 subframe arch

The actual casting numbers all have a '1' in the 7th position vs. a '0' as per PET6, and all start with 993.331 - so no need to repeat that. BTW, this parts car had 26K on the clock, and no indication that the suspension had ever been touched: I surmise that to be the way it left the factory.

Found:
2- ..... 141/142.01 A-arms ( not .02)
2- .....145.04 Kinematic links ( not .03)
1- ..... 147.02 Camber link ( not .03)
1- .....147.03 Camber link ( 'correct' .03)
2- .....131.06 Arches ('correct')

So, aside from the not unusual shift in the 7th digit of the casting #'s (1 vs. 0), the two arches and one camber link agree with PET6 for MY '96. The A-arms are an earlier version, as is one camber link. Strangely, the two kinematic links are a more recent version not captured by PET6.
Confusing?? This is only one sample ... but austensibly, the C4S had whatever updates the TT received, so should posess the parts list Joel researched.

When I looked under my '96 C4S of a 1200 later VIN ( ...17xx), the A-arms are the latest .02 version. I haven't checked further.

So, whatever the physical changes may be in the various editions of links & arms, the only way to be confident of what one is actually running is to look at the castings. If my spares car was a valid example, the use of parts by generation number would appear to have been random.

TheOtherEric

Garth S -
Is it possible that 993.331.14x.xxx represent casting numbers, and not the finished part numbers? In the engineering world, castings often have different part numbers than finished parts, since they can be machined any number of ways. But I'd expect to see the 993.331.04x.xxx part numbers on your parts too. Otherwise there'd be no way to identify them according to my theory!