Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is it possible to have the wrong upper wishbones fitted to a 3.0 v6 ?

Reason I ask is, I've got all sorts of issues currently with the rear suspension.. won't go into detail as I've bored everyone stupid in other threads but I also have a lower than expected ride height and negative camber on the rear wheel of 4 degrees..

Now this all started a long while back (the negative camber bit) when I had the rear powerflexed at a London specialist who advised me that the upper arm ball joint needed replacing but the whole arm had to be changed. Ok, so it was all fitted and I drove off and that's when the camber appeared excessive. Some say it was a result of the powerflex but roll forward 10 years and I've had all the powerflex ripped out, original rose bushes in and new shocks / springs but it's still got excessive negative camber?

Looking at the Alfaworkshop parts site they clearly have two variants of upper wishbone one for 2.0 upto 2003 and one for 3.0v6 / 2.0 (after 2003).

Can the wrongs ones be fitted and how can I tell for sure if they are wrong?

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,319 Posts
Try giving Alfaworkshop a phone call. I’ve always found them very helpful, they might be able to help. The part numbers are listed on their website so might be worth looking for a number on your wishbones or even checking the receipt from the original work if you still have it. Looking at Alfaworkshop webpage, they are also handed which I didn’t realise... could they be the wrong way round?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Try giving Alfaworkshop a phone call. I’ve always found them very helpful, they might be able to help. The part numbers are listed on their website so might be worth looking for a number on your wishbones or even checking the receipt from the original work if you still have it. Looking at Alfaworkshop webpage, they are also handed which I didn’t realise... could they be the wrong way round?
Thanks Nellytheroc.. I'm thinking of handing this over to Alfaworkshop at some point soon.. armed with all the other info I've got from this site so they can fix all the issues. There's every possibility something is arse about face.. I go to bed working it through my mind after studying loads of pictures of suspension setups.. I think the wishbones are symetrical but the bit that connects the droplink is handed from what I can gather.. wondering whether this part has been put back wrong, was even considering they might be upside down but don't think that's possible. Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,485 Posts
Is it possible to have the wrong upper wishbones fitted to a 3.0 v6 ?

Reason I ask is, I've got all sorts of issues currently with the rear suspension.. won't go into detail as I've bored everyone stupid in other threads but I also have a lower than expected ride height and negative camber on the rear wheel of 4 degrees..

Now this all started a long while back (the negative camber bit) when I had the rear powerflexed at a London specialist who advised me that the upper arm ball joint needed replacing but the whole arm had to be changed. Ok, so it was all fitted and I drove off and that's when the camber appeared excessive. Some say it was a result of the powerflex but roll forward 10 years and I've had all the powerflex ripped out, original rose bushes in and new shocks / springs but it's still got excessive negative camber?

Looking at the Alfaworkshop parts site they clearly have two variants of upper wishbone one for 2.0 upto 2003 and one for 3.0v6 / 2.0 (after 2003).

Can the wrongs ones be fitted and how can I tell for sure if they are wrong?

Cheers
The whole upper wishbone does not need replacing if just replacing the ball joint. The ball joint is attached to the main part of the arm with two bolts. No need to replace the whole arm at all. Here is a new ball joint for sale, you can see the two holes where it bolts onto the main part of the wishbone:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-ALFA-ROMEO-GTV-SPIDER-916-REAR-AXLE-TOP-ARM-UPPER-WISHBONE-BALL-JOINT/332826229534?fits=Car+Make%3AAlfa+Romeo%7CModel%3AGTV&epid=6024387874&hash=item4d7dfd3b1e:g:HPAAAOSwVx5bsoHx

Apart from being 'handed', there is indeed two versions of the upper wishbone. All models from 2003, and all GTV 3.0 V6 24 models, had a wider rear track due to the upper wishbone being a little longer in length. If you were fitted with second hand arms, it's possible you were fitted with the earlier shorter type as these are much more common. If you think about it, the severe negative camber can be explained by the fitting of the slightly shorter arms as fitted to the early TS models and also the V6 2.0 TB (which was only officially available in LHD markets), but then fitted to your 3.0 V6 24v which does require the longer arm.

Here are two brand new arms which will be correct for your GTV 3.0 24v:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pair-of-Alfa-Romeo-916-GTV-Spider-Upper-Rear-Wishbones-Ball-Joints-GENUINE/272969350300?fits=Car+Make:Alfa+Romeo|Model:GTV&hash=item3f8e3dbc9c:g:XO8AAOSwayZXjMSy


If you send me your chassis number via PM I will confirm on EPER these are the correct arms for your GTV 3.0 24v.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The whole upper wishbone does not need replacing if just replacing the ball joint. The ball joint is attached to the main part of the arm with two bolts. No need to replace the whole arm at all. Here is a new ball joint for sale, you can see the two holes where it bolts onto the main part of the wishbone:

Spider95, thanks for that, my chassis number is 07000505. With regards to the comment above this was way back in the day, probably over 10 years ago... I seem to remember that the ball joint wasn't available back then so he had to fit a whole new arm.. or at least that what he said.. it's at this point I'm suggesting the wrong arms were fitted and have been on the car since. If I can identify this then I'll definitely get the correct ones you kindly detailed for me.. appreciate the assistance..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,485 Posts
The whole upper wishbone does not need replacing if just replacing the ball joint. The ball joint is attached to the main part of the arm with two bolts. No need to replace the whole arm at all. Here is a new ball joint for sale, you can see the two holes where it bolts onto the main part of the wishbone:

Spider95, thanks for that, my chassis number is 07000505. With regards to the comment above this was way back in the day, probably over 10 years ago... I seem to remember that the ball joint wasn't available back then so he had to fit a whole new arm.. or at least that what he said.. it's at this point I'm suggesting the wrong arms were fitted and have been on the car since. If I can identify this then I'll definitely get the correct ones you kindly detailed for me.. appreciate the assistance..

Hi Wicktod,

Just checked EPER, I can confirm the correct part numbers for the upper wishbones are 60627604 and 60627605 (all GTVs with the 3.0 V6 24v engine). So the pair of wishbones from partsworld are correct for your GTV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thanks Spider95.. appreciate that.. I just need to ID the current installed ones now but i'm 99% sure they're the old 2L versions. If the weathers ok this weekend I'm going to jack up the back, take the wheels off and spend some time trying work it out. I might just get them as they're bog standard. The powerflex bushes I got the upper arms were like rocks, seemed way too plastic like with hardly any give. Reading through the posts some folks have had a right mare fitting them so don't know if my installer had issues?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,485 Posts
Thanks Spider95.. appreciate that.. I just need to ID the current installed ones now but i'm 99% sure they're the old 2L versions. If the weathers ok this weekend I'm going to jack up the back, take the wheels off and spend some time trying work it out. I might just get them as they're bog standard. The powerflex bushes I got the upper arms were like rocks, seemed way too plastic like with hardly any give. Reading through the posts some folks have had a right mare fitting them so don't know if my installer had issues?
It may be difficult to ID the ones you have fitted. I have a spare set of the earlier TS arms and apart from the Alfa 'ricambi' symbol stamped on the arm there is no part number provided. If you suspect you have the earlier arms then the partsworld price for the correct arms is the best going at the moment.

On the powerflex bushes mine are fitted with the 'purple' version and have had no problems with them. It sounds as though you have the 'black' version which is very hard. I personally wouldn't fit the black version to the upper wishbones as there's no practical reason to do so, the purple version is good enough.

EDIT: I've just taken a look at the powerflex website and the colour of the bushes do appear darker than the version fitted to my arms. I can only conclude the composition of these bushes has been uprated since mine were fitted 15 years ago. I'll have a word with them tomorrow to see if they have changed the composition since mine were fitted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
It may be difficult to ID the ones you have fitted. I have a spare set of the earlier TS arms and apart from the Alfa 'ricambi' symbol stamped on the arm there is no part number provided. If you suspect you have the earlier arms then the partsworld price for the correct arms is the best going at the moment.

On the powerflex bushes mine are fitted with the 'purple' version and have had no problems with them. It sounds as though you have the 'black' version which is very hard. I personally wouldn't fit the black version to the upper wishbones as there's no practical reason to do so, the purple version is good enough.
Spider95, you're correct, they're the black ones, was expecting the purple ones but the others turned up. I can't see the purpose of them being so hard.. at least if I get the partsworld arms I they're bog standard and should no problems with them..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,485 Posts
Spider95, you're correct, they're the black ones, was expecting the purple ones but the others turned up. I can't see the purpose of them being so hard.. at least if I get the partsworld arms I they're bog standard and should no problems with them..
Yes thought so. I took another look at the Powerflex website and the bushes in the purple range and the 'black' series are the same. So it looks as though they've dropped the purple version, which doesn't make sense to me. I know they revised the bushes for the spring pan arms as they were having problems with the purple version, particularly the inner bush. I was actually involved in the change of this bush as we found back in 2003 the purple bushes were going out of shape and I provided the Sales Manager James with the evidence. Consequently the spring pan bushes were changed to the black version (which I have fitted courtesy of Powerflex) and have had no problems with them since.

As you say the correct upper arms will be good enough and also I think you may find the camber issue may be finally resolved!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Thanks, a lot of useful information provided here.. I'm inclined to agree about the camber issues, I reckon those 3.0v6 arms will make a big difference if I've got 2l ones fitted.

What is the difference between the two types of arm? I'm guessing the 3.0v6 one are marginally longer having the effect of pushing the wheel outwards rather than a shorter one pulling the top inwards resulting in a large negative camber..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,485 Posts
Thanks, a lot of useful information provided here.. I'm inclined to agree about the camber issues, I reckon those 3.0v6 arms will make a big difference if I've got 2l ones fitted.

What is the difference between the two types of arm? I'm guessing the 3.0v6 one are marginally longer having the effect of pushing the wheel outwards rather than a shorter one pulling the top inwards resulting in a large negative camber..
Just been discussing this issue with my specialist. The later models and the 3.0 V6 24v have a wider rear track (as mentioned in post 4). This is achieved by a longer arm to the upper wishbone, matched by a metal spacer inserted between the spring pan arm and dogleg arm below. However, it's not sure whether the wishbone arm itself is longer, or the ball joint element bolted to the arm is longer. I'm seeing the specialist next week, he has a brand new V6 wishbone in stock, I'll take along my second hand TS wishbone and see where the difference in length is located.

Either way, if you do have earlier TS wishbones fitted to your GTV, then yes you're right, this will result in significant negative camber.

Of course you can take another approach to solving the problem, by removing the metal spacer located between the spring pan arm and the dogleg arm. As mentioned, this spacer matches the longer upper wishbone arm above. But you would effectively revert your GTV V6 completely to the earlier TS set-up, which I don't think is a good idea. You would also need to find the shorter bolt fitted to earlier models.

Here is the EPER diagram of the lower suspension set-up, the metal spacer for models with the wider track is Item 7 in the diagram (Alfa Romeo part number 60627616):
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Its the drilling offset that's different, there's a post of mine somewhere on here that explains with pictures.. I had the 2L fitted which were wrong. Basically they are the same length but drilled differently.. I'll see if I can dig out pictures..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I'm not sure of the maths but that 4.5mm difference in the hole location changes the negative camber angle..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
607 Posts
I had the same issue on nearside rear of jts 916. Just could not work out why ar all. The only solution was to make the holes on the ball joint longer to push the hub out at the top by 2mm.... I didn't get to the bottom of why but I questioned whether the sub frame was out of alignment....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Quite possible, even when I got this all sorted out there was still a slight difference between both sides by about 1 degree .. they had both pulled in nice but not equal...
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top