Apex996

Have I just stumbled onto something here?

Just installed a 996.341.341.06 lower control arm on the RF of my 996 C2 during a hub carrier change to fix a snapped off caliper bolt.

Immediately gained 2* of negative camber, with no other changes.
The arm removed was 996.341.341.05 as are all 3 other LCAs on the car.

In PET the only reference to .06 on the front is from a Boxster therefore I'm assuming...
Is it possible that some Boxsters came with longer control arms?

I'm totally Boxster ignorant so if this is obvious forgive me. I was under the impression the front suspension was exactly the same on 996 C2 & Boxsters.

PS - nothing else was changed or moved at the strut top and yes the hub carrier assembly is identical to that removed. 996.341.658.11
The control arm is the variable.

himself

IIRC, it's all the same part. Odd that you would find different camber. Are you sure it's all put in right?

FWIW, 996.341.053.06 is the part specifically listed for the 97 boxster. But, all of the parts (xxx.05, xxx.06, and xxx.07, have been superceded with xxx.16). It's highly likely that all of them are the same dimensions, with different bushings or something like that.

-td

onefastviking

They should be the same even with the different part numbers. The only ones that are different are the 2 piece ones which are pretty obvious.
Possible that balljoint was bent ? Worn out bushings ? Did you torque the bushings when loaded or unloaded ? Could have induced some preload into the bushing possibly. Let us know what you find.

Apex996

>> Are you sure it's all put in right?

Yes.

Arm to subframe = no adjustment. Bushing in excellent condition. Even if it wasnt 2* camber change is not possible.

Ball joint to carrier = no adjustment, not bent, inspection showed all in good shape.

Strut to hub carrier = no adjustment

Strut to upper mount/chassis = was not moved or loosened during hub carrier replacement.

Yes, I too find this very odd.
I'll be putting the old control arm back on and leaving the new hub carrier in place. Will be measuring both control arms as well.

I'll let you know what I find out in a couple weeks. Strange.

onefastviking

Are you sure it was assembled correctly originally ? Maybe the strut wasn't all the way into the hub carrier ?

I'm just trying to think of things that could have changed from before to after.

onefastviking

Was old wheel brg ok ? If bad it could have changed align if measured when bad.
Is new brg ok and fully pressed in ? Any chance you got a C4 carrier ? - I'm not sure but I suspect it is different. Double check the part numbers on the carrier itself.

Apex996

- wheel bearing cant make a 2* differnce. - thought of that.
- strut tube not being seated would give more pos camber, not neg. (although with a fully adj. suspension you'd see a diff. left to right in spring height and ther was / is not)
- part #s on carrier are identical to orig. as stated above. Although that was my first thought too.

onefastviking

Are all the springs fully seated (top and bottom) in the perches ?
I wouldn't really think most of these items would give you an additional 2 degrees neg. but I'm just thinging of things that could have changed and caused some difference.

Apex996

As mentioned in initial posting it was not touched. Wouldn't alter camber if it was unseated.
When I have time I'll get all the parts laid out, measured and will document my findings here. The initial post was just to understand if any Boxster arms were different lengths. While I was pretty sure they were not, it didn't hurt to ask.

onefastviking

The part numbers you are giving appear to be casting numbers not the actual part numbers, did you get these parts new or used ? If new do you have the actual part numbers ?
FYI - 2005 996 does show a different part # LCA , not sure why, possibly a C4 or Turbo.

Apex996

I forgot that I never updated this post with the final findings... after removing all parts and examining them..and swapping others in, we were able to determine that the hub carrier itself was bent. According to the supplier of the hub carrier, it was assured to be straight so that was initially ruled out. Silly me for believing that