pres589 (djronnebaum) said:
Are "wimpy" rear trailing arms actually an issue? Does this apply to just the top arms or all four? The reason I ask is coming from a small amount of time with an SN95 Mustang, the top rear arms are pretty flexible, but it's a bit of a bonus as it helps slightly with giving the rear suspension some compliance to deal with the inherent bind in the design. Seeing as how GM B's are largely similar in rear suspension design, is boxing the arms really something that needs or should be done? I could definitely imagine a rear panhard bar improving things without having to change other hardware around it.
Yes. They only take so many twists until they get stress fractures. Mine were fine for 147k before I sold it to Tim so maybe it's just a "keep an eye on it" thing.
By the way, here is the link to my original thread which resulted in Tim buying the Impala SS from me. Just in case you get an itch for it, you can see it's full history flayed out like a butchered hog.
I think its time to sell my 96 Impala (mine, Harrisburg PA)| Cars For Sale forum | (grassrootsmotorsports.com)
Pretty much everything suspension wise from the '91-'96 cars will bolt up to the '77-'90 cars. The late 70s cars may have different size bushings in the Front upper/lower A-arms, mine did. Used a set of '94-early'95 9C1 upper/lower A-arms so I could install global west bushings. The late 1995/1996 Caprice 9C1s used 5/8" lower ball joints that required different lower A-arms and steering knuckles. Depending on options the 1977-1990 cars weigh 300-500lbs less than the 1991-96 cars. My 1977 Delta 88 with no carpet, empty trunk and a half tank of fuel weighed 3996 lbs. Brake wise I got 1994-early 95 Caprice 9C1 spindles with 3rd gen Camaro 1LE front rotors, rears are Impala SS that have been redrilled to 5x4.75". A 4 wheel disc brake master cylinder and combination valve from a WS6 trans am worked with the newer parts. 1988-1990 cars with the 8.5" 10 bolt have 30 spline axles.
