Chevy Tri Five Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

CPP Tech Please Read. Safety Issue

11K views 27 replies 19 participants last post by  567Mike 
#1 ·
I am posting the pics I have of a Brand New CPP Pitman Arm that I installed on my 57 Chevy. The photos show how the ball stud is held onto the pitman arm. It is simply staked on and not welded.

I have not and will not drive my car with this pitman arm on it. Another member of this site has just had one of them come apart. Fortunately, he was in his driveway and it did not come apart at highway speed, which could have been fatal.

I will try to have him post the pics here on this thread to show what happened to his part.

Here is the pic showing the bottom of my Pitman Arm:


This needs to be looked into before someone gets killed.

Wayne
 
See less See more
1
#3 ·
#10 ·
Hello Everyone,

I’ve attached a drawing engineering provided me, it’s my understanding that this is a base or just a starting point in this process. I thought this would help show the direction we are going in. The actual final design may change, this will depend on a few variables that can only be determined once a few test parts can be made. The process will be something like, remove the old ball studs,machine the body of the arm to increase the diameter and remove any of the old material. Once properly sized for the new 4130 Chromoly ball stud, they will be pressed in and welded. Engineering will be measuring each step thru this process and adjusting as necessary. The final stage will be a range of test to insure the new pitman arm meets or exceeds the OE arm strength and structure.

I’m sure there will be several other opinions on how this should be done, and for this reason we would normally not provide this kind of information, doing so usually creates much confusion and uncertainty, however we are taking this situation seriously and want to try to restore some confidence in the products and service CPP offers.

We are still asking for anyone who has a CPP pitman arm purchased as mentioned in my last post, to contact us as we are trying to collect as much information as possible.

We’ll share more information on this as it becomes available.
 

Attachments

#11 ·
Thanks Aron for your update and new engineering dept.'s fix. It seems that welding the bottom of the ball shaft will be the norm now after it is pressed in. It looks like alot of the welds on the pitman arms are unacceptable possibly one of the flaws that cause the failure.
Will there be some kind of documentation enclosed with the new pitman arms that certify the weld. (non destructive testing). This would give peace of mind to the buyer.
Thanks and keep us updated. :bowtier:
:gba:
 
#15 ·
Just wanted to let everyone know about my experience. I originally read on here about the CPP pitman arm problem and knew I had one of their parts. I had purchased mine from another vendor but they would not help me because it was past their return window, so I decided to email CPP about getting a replacement. Aaron emailed me back and requested a picture of the arm as well as a copy of my invoice. I sent him both and not long after that I received an RMA and a prepaid shipping label. I sent it out the other day and am now waiting for the replacement part.

When I receive it I will post an update along with a picture of the new pitman arm. I'm curious to see how it looks compared to the old one.
 
#16 ·
Part Number on pitman arm?

In the 1st picture the caption is "stock" . Does that mean that this part is a GM made part? The intro says pics of 4 CPP parts (?) Do the CPP parts have any part numbers cast into them? I'm asking because I picked up some new front end parts from an abandoned project and the pitman arm I got has part number 3719487A GMT 26 in raised letters. I'm hoping this is a NOS GM part!
 
#17 ·
In the 1st picture the caption is "stock" . Does that mean that this part is a GM made part? The intro says pics of 4 CPP parts (?) Do the CPP parts have any part numbers cast into them? I'm asking because I picked up some new front end parts from an abandoned project and the pitman arm I got has part number 3719487A GMT 26 in raised letters. I'm hoping this is a NOS GM part!
Good news, The 3719487A pitman arm is a genuine GM part. The CPP part does not have a GM 7 digit number on it.
 
#19 ·
Another pitman arm failure by a very lucky customer. See post #394..https://www.trifive.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168354&page=10

Just thought i would chime in to this thread that my Pitman arm broke off today as well. Luckily, i had just turned into my driveway when i lost steering control - 10 minutes before i was doing 80 on the highway so i am counting my blessings about the timing. I bought the CPP pitman arm, along with the 500 box in September 2016. This seems absurd that this is still not resolved. How can they continue to sell such a critical part that is clearly defective?
 
#20 ·
Anothe broken pitman arm by a very lucky guy. I hope and pray "luck" doesn't run out.
Originally Posted by impalaguy :
I just returned from Ocean City. I drove my 56 6 hours to the event. Parked at my hotel and 40 mins later went to my car to drive to dinner. When I backed out of my space I lost steering. Got out and found the ball stud pulled out of my pitman arm.
https://www.trifive.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168354&page=11
 
#26 · (Edited)
A few minutes ago, I bought a used original on ebay. (He had 3 of them.)
I messaged him first and asked for assurance that the ball wouldn't have any discernible wear. He answered me in a very short amount of time and his answer was "Yes, are all in descent usable shape."

So I made the purchase and then sent another telling him thanks for the assurance but I will be checking that ball very closely.
He replied and said "Sounds good will make sure to check it out and send the best one we have."

The one I'm running is a CPP I bought in late 2009. It's the same as the one Hotrodhandyman bought in 2009 and posted photos of.
These are different than what we've seen fail. There's been no report of this style failing.

However, the photo Bruce showed sure pointed out a manufacturing flaw.
I didn't notice that flaw in mine but what he showed definitely lowered my confidence in the part quality. I'm just feeling like even if it's not critically flawed, it's better to err on the side of safety when it comes to a part that is as critical as this one is.

Here's a photo of the 2009 CPP pitman arm on my car:



The 2009 CPP that Bruce posted in the other thread:



 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top