1LE Suspension Package Part Numbers
 

Thanks to MS3DALE, I was able to get a hold of the FE6 parts numbers from the 1LE. I know some of you are eager to get your hands on them so I'm going to share. :) I also marked each one to show what packages also use those parts so no one orders something they already have!

Strut Tower Brace (LT, SS, 1LE) - 22756880
Front Wheel Hubs (ZL1, 1LE) (2) - 22924741
Rear Wheel Hubs (ZL1, 1LE) (2) - 22924740
Front Coil Spring (SS, 1LE) (2) - 92245257
Front Strut (1LE) (passenger side) - 22812984
Front Strut (1LE) (drivers side) - 22812985
Front Sway Bar (1LE) - 22812946
Front Sway End Link (SS, ZL1, 1LE) (passenger side) - 22842515
Front Sway End Link (SS, ZL1, 1LE) (drivers side) - 22842516
Rear Shock Mount (1LE) (passenger side upper) - 22922446
Rear Shock Mount (1LE) (driver side upper) - 22922445
Rear Coil Spring (SS, 1LE) (2) - 92195466
Rear Shocks (1LE) (2) - 22812987
Rear Sway Bar (ZL1, 1LE) - 22786260
Rear Sway Bar Endlink (SS, ZL1, 1LE) (2) - 22761221
Rear Lower Control Arm (SS, ZL1, 1LE) (2) - 20942237 (Needed for 2010-2011 cars for sway bar conversion)
Rear Toe Link (ZL1, 1LE) (2) - 22845487

The rear swarbar, and toe link part numbers are the same as the ZL1 part numbers in the previous part number thread... The front sway bar number is different though.

Yeah, so are the rear shock mounts. I put it all together so its in one place for those who want them.

Maybe make a note that they are ZL1 parts so someone doesn't order them accidently thinking they are 1LE? Or do the ZL1 and 1LE share the same rear parts, and the 1LE just has different front parts?

So ARE the front sway bar and end link numbers for the 1LE?

The front sway bar is the 1LE sway bar. The rear parts are shared with the ZL1. The only 1LE specific parts are the front sway bar, struts and shocks. I labeled the list to show what models share the same parts.

Ahhhh, I did not know they they shared parts, I was under the impression that all the 1LE stuff was different. Thanks that clears things up a bit... Guess I can order some stuff now :D Are the 2010 & 2012+ front sway bar end links the same?

Any chance for a complete 1LE diff part number yet?

I didn't ask for it but I can. The current SS diff is $1821.43 though. prepare to pay a bit more for a complete 1LE diff. XD The 2012 front endlinks are much thicker and use larger 12mm studs instead of the 10mm used on the 2010 links.

How about springs? Are they the same as ZL1?
ZL1 Front Spring - 20954688
ZL1 Rear Spring - 20942619

The 1LE springs are the same as the standard SS springs.

prices from GMpartsgiant.com;


Strut Tower Brace (LT, SS, 1LE) - 22756880 $117.59
Wheel Hubs (ZL1, 1LE) (4) - 25954415 $244.65 ea
Front Strut (1LE) (passenger side) -22812984 $81.82
Front Strut (1LE) (drivers side) - 22812985 $81.82
Front Sway Bar (1LE) - 22812946 $110.88
Front Sway End Link (SS, ZL1, 1LE) (passenger side) - 22842515 $31.18
Front Sway End Link (SS, ZL1, 1LE) (drivers side) - 22842516 $31.18
Rear Shock Mount (1LE) (passenger side upper) - 22922446 $34.57
Rear Shock Mount (1LE) (driver side upper) - 22922445 $34.57
Rear Shocks (1LE) (2) - 22812987 $215.19 ea
Rear Sway Bar (ZL1, 1LE) - 22786260 $113.88
Rear Sway Bar Endlink (SS, ZL1, 1LE) (2) - 22761221 $16.46 ea
Rear Lower Control Arm (SS, ZL1, 1LE) (2) - 20942237 (Needed for 2010-2011 car conversion) $37.42
Rear Toe Link (ZL1, 1LE) (2) - 22845487 $67.94 ea

rear shocks and hubs are pricey!! curious about the Rear Shock mount pricing?

You are right. They never mentioned about springs being different. I don't know what I was thinking. I guess I assumed springs are different because of dampers are different and ZL1 shock mounts lead me to think of ZL1 springs. Now that I thought about it, ZL1 shock mounts are needed for mono-tube rear dampers as they are longer compare to twin-tube in SS so they have to be mounted higher like ZL1. I am a little disappointed since I was hoping for lower ride height and higher rate of ZL1 springs but thanks for clearing it up.

Well, that's about $2250 not counting the wheels and tires, 1LE package is a pretty good deal overall....

Indeed. You can however run the ZL1 Springs with the 1LE dampers. There's currently a 2LT running ZL1 Coil springs with zero issues.

You can doesn't mean you should. Springs and dampers are matched pairs. You can run FE5 springs with FE2 dampers but they are not optimal. SS springs are really too soft for motorsport. How many sets of dampers does GM need for one set of springs? FE3, FE4, and now FE6? :iono:

I want to lower mine as well. Too much wheel gap IMO. You'd have THOUGHT it would be a LITTLE lower than a stock SS

cool, since i already have SS springs, i can add the 1LE struts and be golden!!!

Except the ZL1 front spring rates are almost identical to the SS front spring rates. And The rears are much stiffer to allow for hard launches and better control. Springs manage the weight of the car, a stiffer spring rate will allow you to handle better. Yes finding the right spring rate + dampening level is more optimal. Ford runs GT spring rates on V6 dampeners with the Performance package from the factory. With your logic no one should lower there cars with spring with much high rates than from the factory. There are aftermarket companies that use the same springs and rates for both V6 and V8 cars.

ZL1 front spring rate IS identical to SS. They are both 27 N/mm. The rears are different, SS is 66 N/mm and ZL1 is 70 N/mm. Higher spring rate doesn't mean better control. Control comes from matching dampers to the springs in compression, rebound, and travel. What higher spring rate will give you is less body movement (body roll, brake dive, and squat under acceleration). You will think the same damper can be used for SS and ZL1 springs but it isn't optimal because the travel is different. ZL1 suspension travel is lower compare to SS but it can get away with it because MRC can dial in more compression when it detects a big hit. SS structs are not as smart. If you compare v6 to SS springs, you will see that lower 25 N/mm spring rate of v6 is compensated by longer travel of 96 mm. 25 N/mm x 96 mm = 2400 Newton unit of force to bottom out. SS springs are 27 N/mm x 84 mm = 2268 N.

I don't know about Mustangs so I am not going to comment on them but I will say something about aftermarket lowering springs. It is MY OPINION that most lower the car's handling capacity. Lowering springs have too little travel, too low of spring rate, and factory dampers cannot control them well. It is basically a cosmestics modification at the expense of handling. I am not saying you cannot lower your car with higher rate springs. All I am saying is that you gotta match those springs to proper dampers. Pedders supercar coilovers have 8kg/mm springs up front. This is twice the factory spring rate but it rides and handles very well. Compare that H&R super sport lowering springs that has very close to factory rates and you'll quickly see the importance of matching springs to dampers.

Prices are cheaper than I thought they would be. Thanks for posting this info.

They're pretty good prices, better than what I would have thought. Though the rear shock mount pricing is odd. They are the correct numbers but one is twice the price of the other. It makes me wonder if its differnt, or and error in pricing.

So the mag ride let's them get away with running the same rates in front and near the same in back with a shorter spring. I personally wouldn't lower my car but I had assumed that most manufacturers increased rates more than slightly over stock to compensate for the lower height.

So it appears that the 1LE is following the "big bar/soft spring" approach relative to the SS by increasing only the bar stiffnesses. Even BB/SS tweaking affects the strut/shock valving, which we don't know anything about anyway.


Sleepy - most of the Mustang lowering springs range between about 25% and 75% stiffer than OE, and that's probably true generally. For the amounts typically lowered, that's not enough stiffer to hold the frequency of bump stop contact down to OE levels. But it is too much stiffer than OE for the OE dampers to properly control for best grip. What stiffer springs with OE damping does do is move the level of "critical damping" down toward "best ride", which may explain why there aren't very many complaints about lowering not fixed by trimming the bump stops.

Geometrically, lowering springs give something up that effectively "steals" part of the benefit that the increased rate is supposed to be providing, assuming that what you're primarily after with your new springs in the first place is more spring rate. Wanna bet that most purchasers of "lowering springs" don't think past the amount lowered?


Norm

Norm, maybe we should start calling them "performance springs" so that lowering amount will not be the only thing that matters. I think Mustang guys are lucky. They have choices like Steeda Competition and Koni Yellows. Camaro guys have Eibach Pro-Kit and KYB GR-2 :cry:. Big bar/soft spring is great for body roll and ride but it doesn't do anything for dive and squat. Suspension geometry didn't change so anti-dive, anti-lift, and anti-squat remain the same. Also, big bar take away some independent from independent suspension. I can't wait to see more reviews on this car. I think this whole sub 3 mins VIR time is mostly the tires if it is even achievable.

Performance springs - I like that better, but it's probably a case of shovelling sand against the tide at this point.

Actually, things like geometric roll centers and anti effects all vary with ride height. It's not that the curves for any of those things plotted against ride height have changed, just that you're operating in different regions of those curves once you lower the car. Or raise it up, for that matter.

As an example, it is entirely possible with some suspension arrangements for the anti-squat % to drop slightly over the first inch of rear suspension compression (squat), before turning around and increasing with still further squat. Even stranger curve shapes are possible, but at least the odd variations in the middle are relatively minor.


Norm

One rather important consideration I left out ↑↑↑ is camber gain. With a strut suspension, the lower you go without getting into correcting the geometry, the slower your camber goes negative to compensate for roll as the suspension is compressed still further (consider what the outside suspensions are doing while cornering). With struts up front and either a multi-link IRS or just about any stick axle suspension arrangement, this becomes an understeer effect.


Norm

gM is a big fan of soft springs and big bars they always have been.
Someone at GM is apparently unaware that the bigger the bar, the less "independent" the suspension becomes and ride quality can go to crap just like it does with stiff springs.

Is it true some of these anti effects causes undesirable behaviors? I have heard of WRX understeers on power during corner exit because of anti-dive. I don't really understand how they are related but Whiteline has a kit on the market to eliminate anti-dive for that car.

IRS is one of the main reason I purchased this car. Multi-links are great. Good negative camber gain on compression. Great for cornering and this is the reason why people can't get back their factory alginment spec after lowering aggressively. Upfront, struts are the standard economy car stuff. Very little negative camber gain on compression. Not so good for cornering or lowering but with the Camaro, we get to relocate two ball joints instead of one if we want to correct the geometry for lower ride height. I can't complaining. This is expected for the price of this car. I am happy with it.

I agree completely. I don't think more than 50% of roll stiffness should come from bars. It'll be better if they increase both springs and bars rates equally. Maybe there is a corporate limit on suspension frequency at GM that I don't know about. Wouldn't it be cool if fbodfather comes in here and answer some of these questions?

End link studs are same 10mm.

One is listed as an SS and 1LE part number while the other is 1LE and ZL1 specific so something isn't right. Why would only one mount be different?

Actually pal not so at all. Even the Pedders ZL-1 bar isn't so bad. I now have the ZL-1 stocker in the rear of my car and even with Pedders stiffer swaybar bushings the car handles very well and still has compliant suspension. No twisting, breaking my rear motions going on when I pull into gas stations sideways.

It shouldn't be, both were supposed to be ZL1 mounts when I got the numbers. I asked to have them verified because somethings just not right.

Ok, someone else posted on another thread that they were larger 12mm studs. Thanks for clarifying.

Nice cant wait to see what it will take to fit the rear dampers on my 2010 SS.

On any end of a car that provides both acceleration and braking there are two 'anti' effects, not just one. One deals with geometric resistance to suspension movement under braking, the other during acceleration. Unfortunately, in what I'll call "simple" suspension arrangements*** it is not possible to tweak one without affecting the other, and it is common for improvements sought by increasing one of the anti's to adversely affect the other one on that axle.

Up front, anti-dive is normally present for various reasons, and this forces some of the forward load transfer to go through the front suspension linkage directly. This fraction of the forward LT does not cause or contribute to nose dive, and happens almost instantaneously (does not have to wait for springs to compress or damper pistons to reach some velocity). The flip side is "anti-rise" - anti-dive's sometimes evil twin - and when the force at the contact patch is for acceleration rather than braking, some portion of the vertical tire loading is yanked away without the suspension being allowed to extend to fully compensate. This obviously lowers the total amount of front grip available, and then you're going ahead to use some of what's left for longitudinal acceleration so lateral grip suffers . . . you'd then expect that by removing some of the anti-dive you'd reduce the power-on understeer by the difference in the geometric effect.


FWIW, the same sort of thing goes on at the rear axle, with anti-squat having its evil twin in anti-lift. Most people who have autocrossed certain years of LS-powered 4th Gens know more about brake hop than they probably cared to, and anti-lift is part of that. You still have both of these anti's with your IRS, but it's unlikely that a 5th Gen is going to get into brake hop.


*** You'll find some "not-so-simple" suspensions, where the anti effects can be separated and more or less tuned separately. Mostly you'll see this in places like dirt track racing, although Unbalanced Engineering at least used to offer a "decoupled torque arm" for the 4th gen cars. There is some cost in both mechanical and setup complexity, and there may be other compromises as well.

Mark Ortiz sends out a free "Chassis Newsletter" on roughly a monthly basis that covers topics such as this.


Norm

Not sure I'm following this, unless you're talking about correcting the rear geometry.


Norm

All you should need is the dampers and shock mounts. You'll only need to change the rear control arm if your changing sway bars as well. Then getting the new toe links is up to you.

Correct rear shock mount part numbers posted. $49.01 each.

Thanks for clarifying it. I enjoying learning these things.

I was referring to the front lower control arms and front radius arms. I believe BMW 3 series also use double ball joint MacPherson strut design similar to Camaro. Is there any advantage to this design? Looks like it increases the kingpin inclination angle and move dave point out. I am guessing better on center steering feel and straight line stability are the benefits.