No. They Were Optional On SS's.
T._. : Is it true that all 1969 SS 396's have boxed rear control arms and a rear sway bar. Is this only true when dealing with certain suspension options? My 1969 does not have either. I found the build sheet but cannot be 100% certain that it is true SS because the middle of the sheet was destroyed by rust. I have owned the car since the late 1970's, and I do not believe someone converted it to an SS.
E._. : I bought my 1969 Chevelle SS 396 new in December of 1968 and have owned it since. I did not order any suspension options, such as F41, so my car does not have the rear sway bar or boxed rear lower control arms.
J.P. : I have a verifiable SS by the color option, code 72 Hugger Orange (SS only). I believe the car is not altered in any way, and my car does not have boxed lower control arms or a sway bar. My car was made in March of 1969. I do know that true SS cars have a 3/8 fuel line from the tank to the carburetor. Someone would have to go to great lengths to duplicate the factory fuel line and brackets that hold the line. I think you would be able to tell if someone tried to do that.
B.T. : The F41 suspension has the boxed control arms and sway bar along with H.D. springs and shocks.
T.T. : The F41 suspension was an option up until 1970 when it became part of the SS package. The 1969 had power disks, blackout out grill and rear panel, and wheelwell moldings as part of their SS package.
K.T. : The suspension could be standard SS, F40, or F41.
J._. : What is meant by this and what is it's pupose. I assume it is done to increase strength. Can someone explain it to me in more detail?
Thanks, JeffM.F. : Jeff -Standard control arms are three-sided and weren't meant to be used with a sway bar due to the extra force applied across the control arm (picture putting a three-sided piece of metal in a vise and squeezing - it will distort and bend)."Boxing" the three-sided control arms implies converting the three-sided ones to "boxed" by adding extra steel to form the "box". From what I've been told, this works, but is not as strong as a true "boxed" (i.e., four-sided) control arm.
S.B. : He is correct boxing means 4 sides just like a box. most chevelles dont have boxed lower control arms from the factory. I have had three and none of them did from the factory. I have a 72 chevelle conv. that had leaning and sway problems, I took my upper and lower rear control arms off replaced all the bushings and instead of buying $250+ new control arms I went to local hardware store bought 1/4 inch thick strips of metal and trimed them to fit my control arms, then took them to the local muffler shop and had them weld the strips onto my upper and lower control arms to make true boxed control arms.Then put on a rear sway bar and the car drives and handles a 100% better, also got rid of some wheel hop probles since I am running a m22 muncie with a 454.
L._. : I have boxed in my rear control arms without the insert often supplied for this task. I welded equal thickness steel to the length of the control arm. Could there be a potential problem without the bolt supporting inserts if I mounted a 1" sway bar? Will new stock springs be sufficient? I have also added Polygraphite bushings and will be using Lakewood no-hop ladder bars. Thanks for your help.
By the way the car is a 71' Malibu with a 406ci,TH400,12 bolt posi with 3:73's.S.B. : I have done excately the same thing you have done and it works great I also installed a 1 1/4 in rear sway bar and have no leaning, hopping or anything. I also have a set of no hop bars on mine also they work great.If you havent put it back together yet box up the uppers I did.
Archivist: Tom Wilson
[ Top Of Page | Archive | Team Chevelle ]