Rear Thrust/Torque Arms
It has somehow managed to bend BOTH torque arms in exactly the same way. I've seen plenty of worn bushes but NEVER a bent arm other then due to accident damage. I was intending on fitting a set of aftermarket arms but decided not to until I work this one out.
Has anyone else ever bent a rear torque arm? I cant imagine it's due to the 55 conversion, I've also got a W210 E55 with over 200k kms with the original arms and it doesn't have a problem.
Any thoughts?
One would think the tires would break loose before making the kind of forces to do that. Pretty impressive
I certainly hasn't been towed, had rear end accident damage and hasn't had any particularly hard bumps since the arms were last replaced (due to a single damaged bush but I replaced the pair of arms)
The springs that were in it were the H&R sports but I've now changed back to OEM with size 3 spacers.
All W201, W202, W203, W209, W124, W210, W170 use the identical arm with the exception of some W210 wagons (aluminium arms) and the CLK63 (I think only due to a track width change).
Some arms in the rear suspension were upgraded for the armoured version of the W210 but not the thrust arm so MB obviously didn't think it was a weak spot.
My best guess is that although there is nothing advising they need to be installed in a particular direction that they may indeed have different load capacities depending on the direction they are installed. Whilst this wouldn't be an issue on most models (good luck breaking anything in the drivetrain of my 190D due to excessive torque!!!) it may be an issue on the higher torque models. I made sure they are mounted the in the same direction as originally fitted.
Whilst I don't believe this will make a significant difference, I don't have any other ideas at this stage.




I certainly hasn't been towed, had rear end accident damage and hasn't had any particularly hard bumps since the arms were last replaced (due to a single damaged bush but I replaced the pair of arms)
The springs that were in it were the H&R sports but I've now changed back to OEM with size 3 spacers.
All W201, W202, W203, W209, W124, W210, W170 use the identical arm with the exception of some W210 wagons (aluminium arms) and the CLK63 (I think only due to a track width change).
Some arms in the rear suspension were upgraded for the armoured version of the W210 but not the thrust arm so MB obviously didn't think it was a weak spot.
My best guess is that although there is nothing advising they need to be installed in a particular direction that they may indeed have different load capacities depending on the direction they are installed. Whilst this wouldn't be an issue on most models (good luck breaking anything in the drivetrain of my 190D due to excessive torque!!!) it may be an issue on the higher torque models. I made sure they are mounted the in the same direction as originally fitted.
Whilst I don't believe this will make a significant difference, I don't have any other ideas at this stage.

Trending Topics
Was this the feeling you had? Will put the car up in the air this weekend. I have upgraded camber arms.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Looks like AMG knew they were too weak for track work too. I'm starting to think it's not the engine power that caused the damage but the cornering with a set of wide semi slicks because many people have done the same engine conversion without having an issue.
Here are some pics of the AMG thrust arms. (A209 350 0006)
They also use the harder bushings from the W210 wagons, there is more rubber in the bush compared to the stock bush as pictured.
Looks like AMG knew they were too weak for track work too. I'm starting to think it's not the engine power that caused the damage but the cornering with a set of wide semi slicks because many people have done the same engine conversion without having an issue.
Here are some pics of the AMG thrust arms. (A209 350 0006)
They also use the harder bushings from the W210 wagons, there is more rubber in the bush compared to the stock bush as pictured.
let us know the outcome.




Nice to know that an upgraded reinforced AMG part exists. I'll be thinking of this should I need to change mine one day.





Do you think you could weigh one before install?
Cheers,
Last edited by Pagz; Jun 14, 2015 at 04:10 PM.
I don't believe the old arms bent from any kerb damage either on or off track. I've done at least 15 track days prior to the engine swap with no issues other than the rear sway bar mounting points breaking with is inevitable especially with a 4mm larger rear bar. If anything I use the kerbs a lot less on the track now with the engine upgrade as I don't feel like the need to "wring it's neck" as much in the corners to get some speed out of it. I've seen enough accident damaged arms to know it's rarely just one arm that bends and certainly not identical on both sides.
I have read that the CLK Black Series guys are having issues with the rear end feeling vague and loose under full power or on the track with slicks and their solution is to fit nolathane bushes to all the arms (Weistec do a kit). I don't like using nolathane unless absolutely necessary as it's still a road car so I'm going to hold out until I try using the "square" tyre setup (running 8.5x17" rims with 245/40/17 front and rear rather than a staggered setup) and then decide if I need to do this too.
Last edited by Ausmbtech; Jul 12, 2015 at 10:44 PM.




Interesting you idea of going "square" with 17" Should improve understeer and braking with the larger front foot print.






