Chevy SS Forum banner
41 - 60 of 115 Posts
for the benefit of others viewing the thread, it was my response to the "basically just added bigger bars" comment :wink:

I will say that the changes in SS from 2014 to 2015 do reflect to some extent what has been learned/applied on ZL1 & 1LE Camaro programs, so it's nice to see the engineers get a win for a change....and it makes you wonder what they'd do if given free rein to go after Hellcat.
Could it be possible the changes seen are just what HSV use on the Commodore with mag ride fitted? I would suspect to keep costs under control that would have been Holdens first option.

Quite possible HSV raided the US spare parts bin when putting together the Gen-F Commodores, hence the similarities with the Camaro.

It would be interesting to see under the rear of a HSV GTS with Mag Ride and see how much is common. I suspect there might be quite a bit, although what changes the LSA motor caused in the rear setup is an unknown at present. Certainly the media and Holden have not been talking about any new engineering like we are seeing here, so that kind of suggests it was all pretty much already available to bolt on.

Perhaps Crazy Paul can get some info on the GTS rear setup for the sake of comparison?
 
Discussion starter · #42 ·
I do have a list of Holden chassis springs, courtesy of CP, but have not compared them to anything spec'd for Chevy SS, other than the 2014 springs (92290028 & 92290030) for Chevy are known to be common with at least one version of Holden Commodore (SS or SS-V). Need to have a look, as I recall HSV springs were in the list....

The rear bar PN has been posted, so it will be easy enough to see if it's used on the HSV cars (with F55/MRC) that go down the assembly line...we just can't look up that info here in NA.
 
Do they make an aftermarket sway bar for the SS? I have the BMR lower control arms and the sway bar links.
 
Discussion starter · #45 ·
yes, there should be options for 2014 SS, but "for now" it's not clear there is anything that will work on the 2015 SS--look up 2013-2015 Camaro to see if there are rear bar options similar to 1LE configuration if you're thinking of going that route. I don't believe the BMR lower arms have the 2015 link configuration built into them.

Have a conversation with BMR and tell us what you find out.....
 
Perhaps the design change was more for eliminating the "weak link" with the '14 style end links? Since they have had so many problems, maybe a sway bar update was ordered.
Now, did anyone look up the '15 end link part number to see where else this part is used?
 
Discussion starter · #47 · (Edited)
...did anyone look up the '15 end link part number to see where else this part is used?
I did look--it is the same part used here - 22761221.

As to the 2015 SS springs, I only have the rear PN at the moment--92261935

The spring is listed as used in 2014 & 2015, but shows no use in NA for 2014 (92290028 on SS)--it IS listed in the Holden list from CP, for 2014 models.

92290028 for Holden shows one application, at least from the data I have:
FR1 Country Pack (heavy duty, increased ground clearance)

It gets interesting from here....this spring (92261935) was fitted to Holden Commodore (SWB) as follows--various combinations of engine & suspension specs, including police use:

EK69 - SV6 etc. (26mm rear bar?) - someone reported VF SV6 used 26mm
EP69 - SS-V (larger rear bar--28mm as in Chevy SS?)
EX69 - Calais

LFW 3.0 V6
LFX 3.6 V6
L77 6.0 V8

FE1
FE2

9C1
9C3

So, I am thinking that if the spring identified above is used on these models--especially Calais, as the upscale "luxury" (softer ride) model Holden SWB variant, the combination of the larger rear bar known to be used on 2015 SS with F55 (MRC), thus classifies the suspension as FE3--and, considering it's use on Calais, it is likely "less harsh" compared to 92290028. This may tend to provide credence to the report of the 2015 SS having a more comfortable ride in MRC Touring mode, compared to 2014 SS.

I've ordered one to compare to 92290028--there is inventory in Lansing.
 
i can see where the smaller, floating style caliper would interfere with this new end link design... if you look at the phasetek picture on the first page, imagine if the brembo caliper seen off to the left side, had a large single piston coming back towards the end links, then on top of that, the brake hose came off the end of that piston as well... this is why it would interfere.

as for the design- the further out-bound (towards the wheel) the end link mounts, the more effective/stiffer the bar will function. so even with a 28mm hollow bar on each setup, the 15' style will be stiffer and work better. im guessing this is the main reason for the change.
 
as for the design- the further out-bound (towards the wheel) the end link mounts, the more effective/stiffer the bar will function. so even with a 28mm hollow bar on each setup, the 15' style will be stiffer and work better. im guessing this is the main reason for the change.
That is not a given at all. As has been noted previously, it depends on the actual changes in measurements to the length of the effective torsion bar, the lever arms, and the inner and outer diameters of the new bar; plus the difference in motion ratio for the suspension mounting point.
 
That is not a given at all. As has been noted previously, it depends on the actual changes in measurements to the length of the effective torsion bar, the lever arms, and the inner and outer diameters of the new bar; plus the difference in motion ratio for the suspension mounting point.
yes, of course... but given we have pictures of both designs, it looks fairly clear to me you can see some of this for yourself. I was speculating, not quoting some exact specs from both setups.

for example- are you saying by moving the end link OUT towards the tire, you are not increasing the motion ratio..? thats something you can see simply from the pictures
 
for example- are you saying by moving the end link OUT towards the tire, you are not increasing the motion ratio..? thats something you can see simply from the pictures
Yes you are increasing the motion ratio to 1:1 or thereabouts, which if all else stays equal makes the bar effectively stiffer. But all else doesn't stay equal. You're also increasing the length of the torsion spring formed by the swaybar, which decreases its stiffness. Not as much as the motion ratio stiffness increases (since that's actually a squared function as opposed to the linear relationship of torsion spring length to stiffness), but it definitely offsets some of it. And since we also don't know the lever arm lengths or inner/outer diameters of the two styles of bars, we just don't know which one provides the most roll stiffness...yet.
 
This is from Kyle @ BMR kyle@bmrsuspension.com

At this time we do not make a sway bar for the SS but it is something that is in the works I am just not sure exactly when. We have yet to get a SS here at our facility to really go over closely so there are only a handful of parts that we have confirmed crossover between it and the G8/Camaros. I am pretty sure the rear sway bar is different but I am not 100% sure. If at all possible shoot me a picture of the rear sway bar on your SS and I can see if it is something that may crossover with another vehicle.

Anyone care to send them some pictures of the SS Sway Bar?
 
Yes you are increasing the motion ratio to 1:1 or thereabouts, which if all else stays equal makes the bar effectively stiffer. But all else doesn't stay equal. You're also increasing the length of the torsion spring formed by the swaybar, which decreases its stiffness. Not as much as the motion ratio stiffness increases (since that's actually a squared function as opposed to the linear relationship of torsion spring length to stiffness), but it definitely offsets some of it. And since we also don't know the lever arm lengths or inner/outer diameters of the two styles of bars, we just don't know which one provides the most roll stiffness...yet.
wasnt trying to argue with you here... you just stated my point i was roughly trying to make. i build cars for a living and majored in mech. engineering :)

This is from Kyle @ BMR kyle@bmrsuspension.com

At this time we do not make a sway bar for the SS but it is something that is in the works I am just not sure exactly when. We have yet to get a SS here at our facility to really go over closely so there are only a handful of parts that we have confirmed crossover between it and the G8/Camaros. I am pretty sure the rear sway bar is different but I am not 100% sure. If at all possible shoot me a picture of the rear sway bar on your SS and I can see if it is something that may crossover with another vehicle.

Anyone care to send them some pictures of the SS Sway Bar?
i have actually emailed kyle twice so far about bringing them my SS to check what parts will actually cross over from the other zeta cars... but no reply lol. so maybe if he replies to you, you can tell him that lol ;)
 
yes, of course... but given we have pictures of both designs, it looks fairly clear to me you can see some of this for yourself. I was speculating, not quoting some exact specs from both setups.

for example- are you saying by moving the end link OUT towards the tire, you are not increasing the motion ratio..? thats something you can see simply from the pictures
I'm just across the bay and actually called and spoke with Kyle about a month ago and offered, his response was that an employee has a friend with one
 
I'm just across the bay and actually called and spoke with Kyle about a month ago and offered, his response was that an employee has a friend with one
funny cause so far i only see them listing the 3 parts that are clearly obviously interchangeable from the other two lol :wink: must not be too good a friend! :D so far, i have some pedders bushings here for a 10-11 camaro (some are different 12-up, many the same) in stock that i am going to try out and see.
 
I just want a sway bar to complete my suspension build.
 
Discussion starter · #58 · (Edited)
bar bushing/insulator size difference

This information is based on having both shaft bushings in hand. Bar is now available from GM, $151 list price. (PN 92294343)

Bushing ID's do not "comport" with known bar size--I have physically measured a 2014 rear bar at 28mm. The unknown is the size of the 2015 bar.

Both parts are, it would appear, from the same source, made in Korea.

The 2014 insulator is visibly smaller, and the PN is cast into the part (20942228). The external size of this part is smaller, thus the reason each version has it's own clamp PN's. The ID of this part is 0.870", or just over 22mm.

The 2015 part is identified as a "bushing", visibly larger, PN also cast into the part (22761218). The ID of this part is ~0.975", or 24.8mm.

Obviously, if our assumptions about 2014 bar size are correct, the insulator/bushing is significantly deformed in it's installed state. Also, unlike a number of other OE bar bushings for various models in previous years, these parts are not made with a friction-reducing fabric liner.

I checked further with the local dealer--the 2015 bushing (for SS sedan) has been in use on Camaro, between 2010 & 2015, according to GM parts book.

As a FRONT bar bushing, it is used on Camaro RPO FE6, known as Ride/Handling Performance Suspension, model years 2012 - 2015

As a REAR bar bushing, it is used on Camaro SS w/FE5 & FE6 (MY 2014/2015), both identified similarly as above - FE6 carries an added identifier as VAR1 (variation 1?).

If it is possible to make any assumptions based on the bushing ID differences, the increase in size from 2014 to 2015 is about 12%. A 28mm bar as used on 2014 would become a 31.4mm bar.....at this point, nothing means anything until the bar on 2015 can be measured.

I'll have a bar next week, and will post pictures of all 3 parts then.
 
Discussion starter · #59 ·
further reply from Kyle@BMR

This is from Kyle @ BMR kyle@bmrsuspension.com

At this time we do not make a sway bar for the SS but it is something that is in the works I am just not sure exactly when. We have yet to get a SS here at our facility to really go over closely so there are only a handful of parts that we have confirmed crossover between it and the G8/Camaros. I am pretty sure the rear sway bar is different but I am not 100% sure. If at all possible shoot me a picture of the rear sway bar on your SS and I can see if it is something that may crossover with another vehicle.

Anyone care to send them some pictures of the SS Sway Bar?
Mentioned in an earlier post, the info/illustrations/photos from Post #1 and this thread link were provided to BMR. Here is Kyle's reply:

We are actually getting a ton of interest from the SS owners so we will be having a 2014 SS in house that we will be doing some test fitment on and we hope to have a 2015 to do the same with sooner than later. I know there are going to be a handful of differences between the 2014 and 2015 model year vehicles so I very curious about that. I know that our rear LCAs will fit both the 2014 and 2015 model year SS but I am pretty sure it will take using our BMR rear end links (ELK006) to make them work on the 2014 as the end link orientation is a bit different than the G8 and Camaros. Our latest revamp of our lower control arms allow them to be used with the FE4 style rear sway bar that is seen on the ZL1 and other later model Camaros. I hope to put a whole section together for the SS to make it easier for people to purchase the aftermarket suspension and chassis parts they are looking for.

If you know anybody with a 2015 SS in the area we are looking for one and are willing to work with somebody to have access to it for a couple days.

Kyle Briese
Latemodel GM Suspension Specialist


The ball is in the SS owners court....
 
Discussion starter · #60 · (Edited)
rear springs differences - 2015 vs 2014

2014 SS w/FE3
F - 0.550 wire diameter, 4 full coils w/1/4 coil (90 degree)/pigtail, 13.5" free length - linear-wound
R - 0.618 wire diameter, 6 full coils, 13" free length - linear-wound
As to the 2015 SS springs, I only have the rear PN at the moment--92261935

The spring is listed as used in 2014 & 2015, but shows no use in NA for 2014 (92290028 on SS)--it IS listed in the Holden list from CP, for 2014 models.

92290028 for Holden shows one application, at least from the data I have:
FR1 Country Pack (heavy duty, increased ground clearance)

It gets interesting from here....this spring (92261935) was fitted to Holden Commodore (SWB) as follows--various combinations of engine & suspension specs, including police use:

EK69 - SV6 etc. (26mm rear bar?) - someone reported VF SV6 used 26mm
EP69 - SS-V (larger rear bar--28mm as in Chevy SS?)
EX69 - Calais

LFW 3.0 V6
LFX 3.6 V6
L77 6.0 V8

FE1
FE2

9C1
9C3

....the combination of the larger rear bar known to be used on 2015 SS with F55 (MRC), thus classifies the suspension as FE3--and, considering it's use on Calais, it is likely "less harsh" compared to 92290028. This may tend to provide credence to the report of the 2015 SS having a more comfortable ride in MRC Touring mode, compared to 2014 SS.
2015 SS w/F55 & FE3

R - 0.610 wire diameter, 6 full coils w/additional 1/3 coil at top compared to 2014 spring (by matching springs based on pigtail position), 13-1/8" free length - linear-wound

Based on the observed differences, I can see that the 2015 spring would be "softer" than the 2014 version--slightly smaller wire size, and an additional 1/3 coil. I cannot make a judgement about the ride height change (at measuring load) between the 2 springs.

The ID tags not withstanding, without careful measurement and close observation, it would be easy to assume the 2014 & 2015 springs are the same--but they are not.

Wish I could find a race shop that has a spring checker to compare them...should be possible in an area as big as Atlanta....
 
41 - 60 of 115 Posts