Help identifying front wishbones for MY66 912 (UK RHD)

[jamesm912]

When starting to clean up the front suspension removed from my 912 restomod project ('My 912 Restomod' over in the Resto threads area) I discovered the wishbones are scrap having rotted through in a few areas. Going by the parts catalogue I believe the part # is 901 341 043 03. The wishbones for later years ('68, '69) are clearly very different (from the pics in the parts catalogue) and also sided (parts 901 341 005 00 and 006 00).

Having bought a pair of genuine (allegedly), 2nd hand ones off Ebay listed as the above part #, they are similar but not quite the same as the ones off my car. There are two main differences as you may be able to see in the pics:

1) there are addition bits/plates welded on, perhaps as strengthening bits (circled in the 2nd pic above). Now I'm not too bothered about those extra bits as I don't think they'd get in the way of anything but looking around the internet I don't see replacement parts anywhere that have those attached. I suppose someone could have added them themselves

2) But much worse is that when holding the new ones up against the old ones, it's immediately obvious to the naked eye that they're a different size I measured the distance from the centre of the torsion bar tube/carrier to the holes on the end of the arm for fitting the ball joint and the replacement wishbones are about 20mm longer . Surely this will throw out the geometry (camber) considerably?

Before I go seeking to return the Ebay item on the basis is not as described (i.e., not part #901 341 043 03), I was wondering if anyone has come across this and has an explanation of how this can be? I assume I would need shorter ball joints (if such a thing exists) in order to preserve the geometry if using those replacement wishbones? However, I don't see any choice of ball joint parts in the catalogue (only #901 341 047 00 and 04 - because they are sided). NB: Being a fairly early car, mine does not have the adjustable plates at the top of the strut tower so could that be anything to do with it (although I would have expected different part #s in that case!)?

Any help appreciated!

[robs912]

I have two early 912s and they both look like your original a arms.
I reckon those other ones could be for a 69 car maybe? But not im not an expert.
You can get new repro ones now and I think last time I looked they were about 100 quid each

Hope this might help
Rob

[Lightweight_911]

.
That definitely looks like a DIY modification !

My guess is that someone lengthened the A-arms to give their car increased negative camber ...

.

[SeanP]

They are not from a 69 car. 68 cars had some mix and match parts from SWB and LWB, but the arms pictured above are not those either.
My thoughts are that some one has modified them to work with a LWB cross member and steering rack.
Would I use them?

No!

Sean

[jamesm912]

Thanks very much for the replies...confirming my feeling that these are not exactly standard part #901 341 043 03 therefore I shall request a refund from the seller on that basis.

Update: The seller is not giving up my refund without a fight but I believe I have identified the source of the extra 20mm length of the arms and so they'll be obliged to refund me on the basis the parts are not standard 901 341 043 03. It's bleedin' obvious when you turn the darned thing over to discover there's a 3rd (steering arm) hole on the other side and then start looking more closely and spotting the filling in of the original hole and an extension piece added on. I'm very embarrassed I didn't spot this myself before now and apologise for wasting this forum's time in that regard.
You live and learn.