And here I thought it was the clamshell making that racket at low-speed on rough surfaces. :o

Asked about the adjustable ones but haven't heard back. Will go with the 986 arms unless there is a reason to justify the price difference between the adjustable ones or 987 ones compared to stock 986

Does anyone torque the frame bolts with it loaded on the ground like the Bentley manual states to do? I put it to 118lb ft with it in the air. Doesn't look easy to do on the ground.

I did mine in the air

Isn't the purpose to have the rubber in the bushing in a neutral state with the car on it's wheels? Tightening with the wheels unsupported will continuously load the bushing while stationary and really load bushing in compression over bumps causing premature failure?. While a PITA I usually put on ramps before final torque.

So one has to tighten the arms with the wheels on?

The car needs to be sitting on all 4 wheels. When you tighten the bolt thru the bushing, the bushing center shaft is held in that position by the bracket. Control arm movement up and down is enabled by the bushing rubber torquing/stretching around that center shaft. When you load the cars suspension before tightening, the rubber bushing is in a neutral/unloaded position. It can then stretch equally in both directions as the suspension compresses or rebounds. If you tighten without loading the suspension then once the car is on the ground the rubber bushing must stretch as the arm is compressed upward. This has the bushing loaded 100% of the time. When you hit a bump and the suspension compresses, the bushing must stretch even further than designed. The only time the bushing is relaxed is when the car leaves the pavement and is flying. Hope This makes sense.

From my understanding it was a bushing until '99 when they changed to ball. The manual also states that the old type are no longer being manufactured. I guess the vertex re-bush ones would count for those.
I can't see the ball being loaded or unloaded as it can be moved by hand. So I guess I'm saying that this doesn't make sense to me.

Edit.
Might make more sense for the trailing arm at the control arm, though not too sure about that either.

I'm guessing now that the manual is referring to the coffin arm/control arm as it makes no sense for the trailing arm/control arm.
Looking forward to noise free ride to work :)

Yes, it totally makes sense.
I have 2 questions:
- I tightened the bolt without the wheels putting weight on the suspension, does it help?
- If I still have to tighten in loaded position, can I just put the car on stands/loosen the bolt/lift the wheel using a jack/tight the bolt? Or I have to go through the whole process again?
Thanks for your help :cheers:

Hi EJ-Fresno. The intent is to have the car resting on all 4 wheels before tightening. This places all suspension components in their loaded state. You could use the jack under the tires, this will get close, just not perfect. Certainly much better than current! Are you going to have the car aligned? If so then maybe alignment shop can loosen and retighten when car is on alignment rack.

Will do my low-cost way and then get an alignment done to fix any deviation.
Thanks again for all the help!

When I replaced my front suspension with new arms, links and PS9's, and while the car was still on the jack stands I jacked up he brake disc until the chassis just started to lift off the stands and then I tightened the suspension bolts. It's just replicating the car sitting on its wheels.
That was 10,000km ago and no suspension problems as yet.....

That's exactly what I was thinking about.
Don't put the car on the floor, bring the floor to the car :p

Fwiw
 

I was able to remove my worn ones with everything up and free, however to get the holes lined up I had to apply pressure with a floor jack for each side.....so this makes even more sense now

I just re tightened the bolts using a jack to lift the wheels. It indeed made a huge difference! The ball joints looked already like toasted, so it was really necessary to rework them. Tightened them to 80 lbs/feet, and used blue loctite. Don't think they are going to move for a while...
Thanks for the hint!

Didn't even think about this. Good bit of advice. Would putting some jack stands just on the suspension and lower it mimic the car sitting on the rear wheels?

Kram I had to do this to get the bolts in the rearmost attachment point. I put the arm in place and the front tough bolt and then jacked up the rear link just inside of the rotor until the holes lined up.....the car was all but fully supported when I did this by the jack under the rear link.......this has been a great thread.

Back when I was doing this a member on here gave me the 987 part #s for the arms, he said they were built much sturdier than the 986 arms and he was a regular tack guy as memory serves me.

I have seen cars that were several inches over their stock height after suspension rebuild because they tightened their bushings while on jack stands. The bushing becomes a rubber spring!:eek:

Excellent. I have mine sitting here. Just waiting on the new struts and shocks to get here before I start, already have new springs waiting too. You're right, great thread.

If you can, while using jacks under the suspension is certainly better than tightening with wheels off the ground, having your wheels on and resting level on ground, ramps or lift is ideal. Reason being different wheel widths and offsets will have an effect on the leverage placed on the wheel bearing and suspension. While minor compared to being off the ground, for PERFECTION have wheels on. This will keep your alignment much longer due to less suspension settling.

PS: Don't even get me started on how bad wheel spacers are for your wheel bearings!!!

What about the nose being angle down? Should I also get the front wheels level to the rear wheels?

Kram; Level is best if possible. But as EJ-Fresno noticed the jacks will certainly be better!

Thanks so much for this explanation. It makes a lot of sense to me and may be the reason some of my control arms have worn out prematurely. They were not tightened under load.

Right on! Thanks!

Thanks RandallNeighbor, Glad to be able to return a small ripple of benefit to the sea of information yourself and the many other members have provided by their time and experience to this forum. To quote Retroman "Remember we're all in this together"! :cheers:

Adjustable ones
 

Anyone used these ?

I took the car for a test-drive tonight...
What a pleasure not to hear all those noises anymore :p
Thanks everybody! :cheers:

Yeah - I have been thinking the same. Now I bet it's the track arms!

Clamshell ???

The hard cover over the soft top...

In my best Homer Simpson
 

Doh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Replaced both my track arms today.

HOLY COW. What a difference. No more of that really loud rattling whenever I went over rough road at slow speed.

I went with the 987 track arms. Physically at least, they appear identical to the 986 arms. I shot a bunch of photos of the two side by side and posted them on my flickr site:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/billsalina/

$160 each from Pelican. Came in a TRW box but appears to be genuine Porsche with the triangle logo dremel'd off.

Ok. time for a steak and a beer!

My new 986 arms seem beefier than the old also.

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...c9dbfb15e1.jpg

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...8f92669118.jpg

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...fe7466255f.jpg

Hi,

for those located outside the US or not willing to buy from Pelican.

Porsche 987 part number: 98733104302 and 98733104303
is equal to TRW JTC1316, EAN number 3322937921805

Porsche 986 part number: 98633104307, 98633104306, 98633104305, 98633104304
is equal to TRW JTC1186, EAN Number 3322937753246

The 987 part seems to be a little cheaper than the 986 TRW part. Around 85 euro each.

Regards from germany
Markus

After a ride on some more crappy asphalt I've realized that the front are bad now that I can here it with the rear being quiet. Jacked up the front passenger side and placed some wood under the tire in a neutral position then banged around with a rubber mallet. Droplinks are quiet. The front trailing link is the noisy.
I believe I read that the 987 front trailing links are a no-go. Any upgraded part numbers? If not then I'm off to order 996-341-043-06

I have the same problem, now that the rear is quiet :D
Is it a PITA to change or it's pretty straight forward?

OK, found a video how to replace them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=899_OjGjBMg

Question is: do you have to load the front suspension when you tighten them, like for the rear control arms?

I can't see why. After re reading Bentley for the rear, it stated to load the rear for the control arm, not for the trailing arm. There was no reason to remove the control arm to change the trailing arm.
Don't see any reason to remove the front control arm to change the front trailing arm either. If you do remove or loosen the control arm though, then yes load the control arm before tightening it.

Smallblock,

Thanks for the equivalent part numbers from TRW. These are $110 (986) and $125 (987) on Amazon with free prime shipping.