are these boxed LCA's stock on some Gbody?

[86LK]

someone posted the pics below of their rear lower control arms from their El Camino after replacing bushings and repainting. the question came up, are these original on some G-bodys from the factory? looking at them, I think someone did it aftermarket with a kit and a spotwelder, or had a shop do it.
does anyone know if any G-body came with boxed Lower Control Arms? thanks!

 

[pagrunt]

someone posted the pics below of their rear lower control arms from their El Camino after replacing bushings and repainting. the question came up, are these original on some G-bodys from the factory? looking at them, I think someone did it aftermarket with a kit and a spotwelder, or had a shop do it.
does anyone know if any G-body came with boxed Lower Control Arms? thanks!

View attachment 189698

Theses are for '64-'72 A-bodies with rear sway bar. '78-'88 never had boxed arms, just the insert for the rear sway bar.

 

[86LK]

Theses are for '64-'72 A-bodies with rear sway bar. '78-'88 never had boxed arms, just the insert for the rear sway bar.

so:
- the rear lower control arms were the same size for the '64-'72 A-bodies as they were for the 78-88 g-bodies?
- and the 64-72 a-body LCAs were actually boxed from the factory?

as for the 78-88 rear swaybar, 78-88 El Caminos never had them to my knowledge just other g-bodies

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

Stock g body rear LCAs were unboxed to allow them to flex and prevent binding. Boxing the stock arms will increase suspension bind, as will the use of poly bushings.

 

[bracketchev1221]

so:
- the rear lower control arms were the same size for the '64-'72 A-bodies as they were for the 78-88 g-bodies?
- and the 64-72 a-body LCAs were actually boxed from the factory?

as for the 78-88 rear swaybar, 78-88 El Caminos never had them to my knowledge just other g-bodies

64-72 was boxed in the higher hp cars and the F-41 suspension package. My 70 SS 396 has them, but my 70 Malibu did not. You can buy the factory boxing piece and add it as you described. I would be curious about the difference in length if the 64-72 would fit the 78-88. It may set the rear back a little and then use adjustable uppers to get the pinion angle right. Only asking because I could put the 70 bars in the Malibu and upgrade the 70. Hate to admit it, my priority is the 70 restoration, and the leftovers are going in the Malibu. Like the 468 in the Chevelle right now is slated for the Malibu in the future, along with the headers and converter out of the 70 as that gets replaced in the Chevelle.

 

[pagrunt]

so:
- the rear lower control arms were the same size for the '64-'72 A-bodies as they were for the 78-88 g-bodies?
- and the 64-72 a-body LCAs were actually boxed from the factory?

as for the 78-88 rear swaybar, 78-88 El Caminos never had them to my knowledge just other g-bodies

The lowers are different. The interchange is '64-'72 only, '73-'77 only, '78-'88 only. As noted only they F41 & most hipo cars had them. With the El Camino/Caballero, they did have the F41 as an option so they did rear sway bars.

 

[86LK]

The lowers are different. The interchange is '64-'72 only, '73-'77 only, '78-'88 only. As noted only they F41 & most hipo cars had them. With the El Camino/Caballero, they did have the F41 as an option so they did rear sway bars.

I suspected the LCAs were different since the part #'s didn't match up and RockAuto database also indicated different fitment. but I also know that means nothing, witness the 99-05 Blazer brake upgrade

as bracketchev1221 pointed out, only hi-po cars in the old A-body cars getting boxed LCAs is interesting, so why didn't they do the same for the G-bodies, like those getting a 8.5" rear?

you'd have a hard time convincing the old guys over on ECC about the rear sway bars. elkies were trucks and came with air shocks and no rear swaybar, regardless of the F41 front sway bar. they didn't get jounce bars and monte carlo bars but they did get fake hood scoops and fake exhaust side pipes 🙄

 

[bracketchev1221]

The lowers are different. The interchange is '64-'72 only, '73-'77 only, '78-'88 only. As noted only they F41 & most hipo cars had them. With the El Camino/Caballero, they did have the F41 as an option so they did rear sway bars.

Well it could be overall length, bushing width, bolt size, what is the differences?

 

[69hurstolds]

Well it could be overall length, bushing width, bolt size, what is the differences?

G-body LCA is 19.25" center to center. A-body LCA is 22" center to center. Not sure about the bushings.

But while we're on the bushings, there's always been this lore of 1LE bushings being the better LCA bushing. Even in the Camaro world. GM p/n 10164152. Heck, I even believed it 10 years ago. When SLP was getting rid of junk, I scooped up a couple dozen of the bushings for cheap, among other Camaro SS stuff.

An interesting thing happened on the way to the fair, however. While the 1LE bushing is indeed much firmer than the NON-1LE waffled bushings that came in the lesser performance versions of the Camaro, it is in fact, no different than a comparible full-solid Moog bushing. This was confirmed when the owner of a 4th gen Camaro changed out his LCA's for "1LE" LCAs. The 1LE bushings from GM had HARRIS, B68, 62538, FG molded into them. Interestingly, the Moog stock replacement bushing for the Camaro (K6178) had the same info molded into its bushings. They are essentially just a solid bushing vice the waffled ones. This is why they are perceived to be "better" than the stock bushings. But the better part is that they're not waffled.

If I had a Camaro parts book at the time I probably would have figured it out. I do now, though. The parts book says the 1LE bushing is the same p/n for FE2 (standard Z28), B4C (police) or 1LE application. Nothing special here.

Moog K6178 is the part number. Not sure what the newer ones look like nowadays, but it has been confirmed by the Camaro guys that it's the same bushing as the famous "1LE bushing". So if you see anyone pushing the Z28.

Another interesting item you see in the parts book from Olds is the "regular" upper LCA bushing is 10000068 (and lower for all) but the W40/W42 with 8.5 ring gear UCA bushing is 22526178. Another interesting point is that the K6178 is the standard replacement for EITHER of those. I couldn't tell you what, if any, difference there is for the 22526178 bushing vs. the 10000068. No idea.

 

[ELCAM]

64-72 are 22" center to center on the bushing holes. 24 3/4 OAL. Bolts are 7/16 14 X 3 1/2 and flange head 3 3/4 with prevailing torque nuts. El Caminos and 71-2 Sprints did not come with sway bars because of the air shocks had a tin shield that was in the way of the sway bar. No picture of the tin shield since all my cars have sway bars. The 72 Sprint is from A 68 Le Mans and the 67 is from a 72 Cutlass.

The fully boxed arms are rare big engine HP 4 speeds I have never seen a factory one like that, The standard f-41 is basically the same insert like the g bodies use to keep from crushing the control arm.

73-77 mount to the bottom of the LCA and have boxes to provide the mount location.

G bodies went back to the 64-72 design but are shorter.

Factory 72 Sprint LCA.