ID strut tubes?

[BarrettN]

I'd normally assume I'd be able to search with a part number and have at least some hits. I recently bought a car and some extra parts were included with it, including a pair of strut tubes:

 

The number on them are 10211279460 and below  11439030021, the spacing between the caliper mounts is 3". I suspect based on the other parts included that they may be from either an early 1600-2 or a 2000ti.

 

Anyone recognize them, are they anything out of the ordinary? 

Thanks, 

Barrett 

[TobyB]

A pic of the back side of the knuckle where the tube enters will tell the tale-

if it goes straight in, nope, nothing too fantastic.

 

If it necks down, then yes, it's got a bigger tube, and if you plan on doing

the Carrera PanAustralasia, your dampers won't fade as badly.

 

t

pantone

[2002iii]

Those are probably early e10 struts judging from the lack of brake line mounts. They could possibly be nk struts.

['76mintgrün'02]

12 minutes ago, 2002iii said:

e10

 

Hey, @ray_ !

[2002iii]

2 minutes ago, '76mintgrün'02 said:

 

Hey, @ray_ !

I know e10 is not the proper term, but it was easier than writing 1502/1600/1602/2002.

[TobyB]

Also, 

the diameters of the shaft matters, too-

but with a 3" spacing, I'll bet they're the

smaller 2002 sizes.

 

t

she said

 

 

[M3M3]

12 hours ago, 2002iii said:

I know e10 is not the proper term, but it was easier than writing 1502/1600/1602/2002.

but not as easy as just writing 02....

[Conserv]

2 hours ago, M2M3 said:

but not as easy as just writing 02....

+1

 

Yes, I avoid the.... “Ray issue” by consistently calling them ‘02’s! It’s not technically accurate (because neither a 1600-2, nor the short-lived 2000 touring, is an ‘02 based on its sub-model name), but it slips right under the radar.... 

 

Ray may or may not approve — probably the latter — but he respects my clever mis-use of the language.... ???

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

 

[Lorin]

1 hour ago, Conserv said:

+1

 

Yes, I avoid the.... “Ray issue” by consistently calling them ‘02’s! It’s not technically accurate (because neither a 1600-2, nor the short-lived 2000 touring, is an ‘02 based on its sub-model name), but it slips right under the radar.... 

 

Ray may or may not approve — probably the latter — but he respects my clever mis-use of the language.... ???

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

 

I agree. 
 

02 as a generalization is a lot less wrong than E10.  These cars haven’t been E10s  for decades and never will be to me. 
 

[2002iii]

4 hours ago, M2M3 said:

but not as easy as just writing 02....

That doesn't include the 1600

[Lorin]

14 minutes ago, 2002iii said:

That doesn't include the 1600

Neither does E10 

[02Les]

Pretty sure all the young guys that acquired their '02s in the past few years use the term E10 assuming it is correct. In another few years it will become the norm no doubt. Still won't make it correct.

People over here keep telling me Santana originally did Black Magic Woman; I correct them but it goes in one ear & out t'other.

[TobyB]

STOP IT ALREADY!!!!   

 

 

DON'T MAKE ME PULL THIS BS BBS OVER!

 

and now we're not going to Burger King for lunch.

 

t

totally covid stressed

[ray_]

4 hours ago, Conserv said:

+1

 

Yes, I avoid the.... “Ray issue” by consistently calling them ‘02’s! It’s not technically accurate (because neither a 1600-2, nor the short-lived 2000 touring, is an ‘02 based on its sub-model name), but it slips right under the radar.... 

 

Ray may or may not approve — probably the latter — but he respects my clever mis-use of the language.... ???

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

 

Gotta pick my battles...

 

[BarrettN]

I don't see them necked down, so it's looking like they're just normal struts.