78-81 Armrests

[Wallington]

Anyone ever thought how much easier these giant heavy doors would be to open or close if they had simply added a recessed area behind the armrest pad? No more swinging off that flimsy front section, already way too far forward to get any leverage without damage over time. One hand on the door handle, the other already on the armrest recess, ready to push door open, or pull it closed, but still with complete control.

https://cdn3.volusion.com/klmat.yytxn/v/vspfiles/photos/INT-191-2.jpg?v-cache=1477632079

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/2EQAAOSw7exijQXR/s-l500.jpg

[b_hill_86]

I’ve always wondered about the lack of leverage with the 78+ armrests seeing as how my 77 and prior pulls are so much further to the rear.

[roadking77]

Even the straps on the 77 are a poor design at best.

Yes a bit of a pull cup would be great. Once I get to the point of installation I plan on welding a nut to a backing plate and using a threaded machine screw instead of the sheet metal screw. Not sure it will work any better but worth a chance. I thought I had my 77 handle put on pretty good with a re-inforcement plate, but it still pulled out. I put it back with a screw and a nut. Has held up so far but I try not to pull on them too hard. I will grab the top of the door if the window is open.

[Wallington]

I had an idea, but it crashed and burned when I found out my armrests are 2 different casting designs. Since mine were retrimmed in leather, they actually lopped off the armrest pad and replaced with a padded block of timber. Turns out the slight variations in the pad depth designs meant one is slightly taller that the other to look identical from the visible side. I had an idea to make a pair of new blocks with cut-out for hand space and then retrim. So moved on again.

Here's some GM NOS armrests, the common type. 9666123/9666125 for LH and 9666122/9666124 for RH. Same as mine, each contains 2 part numbers. One for the insert, one for the assembly when complete. This version has the multiple ribs under the armrest pad, which is also set deeper than the main armrest shows. There is also a full rib inside the armrest and a support brace to extension handle. All insert is nylon or plastic.

NOS LH Firebird armrest back 9666125 by Ben, on Flickr

NOS RH Firebird armrest back 9666124 by Ben, on Flickr

Here's mine, ignore the fact that the tops are cut off. Both have the correct GM parts numbers per side. But the LH side, shown on the Right, doesn't have ribs under the pad, it is filled with sponge foam which has been trimmed flush. There is no centre rib, just some flashing that looks like a flimsy partly moulded rib, there is no extra brace to the extension. Yet the mounting points and under the sponge is a sheet of metal shown as grey. It is perhaps stronger in these areas, yet lighter and more flexible than the other. I've cut foam packing to fill both regardless.

Firebird armrest custom leather different castings (5) by Ben, on Flickr

Firebird armrest custom leather different castings (6) by Ben, on Flickr

So, anyone recognise the second armrest casting type? Earlier GM? Remembering that Firebird got these from '78, Camaro from '74. Or an early reproduction with full GM numbers, or later GM spare production? These were trimmed in the 90's.

[FormTA]

No, not at all. I uave seen quite a few and the all have had the ribbed area with a plastic insert to support it from collapsing.  You are really onto something with the cup/pull area idea. I will have to ponder this and see what I can come up with.

[Wallington]

I wonder if the white fillers have a part number on them, to tell if they existed from the start or added to retain shape during some use. The sponge top armrest  I have obviously has no use for one.
None of the part numbers on these come up in GM manuals, they are not the actual part numbers for the armrests as each colour got a new number.

[FormTA]

I'll see if any of the ones I have have any part numbers and report back.

[FormTA]

Ok, so this was off my 79 formula.  I believe it is original but maybe not...

The white insert says "FRONT 1652888 REV 0" and then a small fisher coach logo.

The armrest itself says "RH BASE 9666124 NO 2."  Then in another area "ASM P.T. 9666122 REV 11".  It's interesting you can tell the 22 at the end were numbers that rotated on the stamp as they are not in line with the other numbers.

[FormTA]

I did some more digging and found 5 other pulls in my stash and all of them, the white insert has the same model and REV 0 stampede on them, including the NOS set I have. Some pulls have different model numbers but I am assuming that's because of different colors. Black, DK blue and DK red.

[Wallington]

Thanks for the numbers, good pic. I did some scrolling, the stiffener insert shows up in the Firebird (78-81) and Pontiac listings (76+) for other models. I checked my limited Chev manuals, no mention of it in the 76-81 listing, and i don't have the Chev version for 67-75.

Either way, sooner or later someone will perhaps recognise the armrest casting, if not, I'll just carry on.

[Warren Seale]

My experience, being an orginal owner of my 79, has been with the flimsy grab handle part of the armrest.  The original armrests had a small slug of hard plastic located where the top of the grab handle attaches to the door.  Eventually, after the car was a few years old, this slug pulled out of the softer vinyl leaving the top of the grab handle disconnected from the door.  At that point I bought a GM replacement armrest and found that this one had a continuous "beam" of hard plastic that ran up the grab handle from the armrest part that was covered with the softer vinyl.  This version has held up to this day.  I went ahead and replaced the passenger side with this improved design even though that one wasn't broken.

[Wallington]

Thanks Warren. Since these are recovered in leather it's hard to inspect too much. But I did add the metal HELP brand inserts, even though neither needed it and appeared fairly solid. This of course made them more solid and lessened the flex where they mount to the door. I even had the inserts and screw replated prior, that's normal behavior, surely.

As mentioned earlier by others, the rare few occasions I drove it I just used hand on top of door with window down to close. Or perhaps right back at the base where it meets. That in itself says design fail, but of course, also wary of known weaknesses.

Forgot to add, this is another variation I had noticed but makes sense based on Warren's recollection of an updated version with stronger handle area. When looking at NOS or later year used armrests, they all seem to have the 2 casting holes in the rear. The earlier versions do not, and often match when seller says they came from a '76 as opposed to a '80, for example. And it looks to be a good example of why the update. But of course, neither are similar to my casting either with the metal inserts.

74-81 armrest later and earlier extension strengthening by Ben, on Flickr

[FormTA]

Mostly just a bad design.  You are correct that a "cup" in the armrest area would have probably solved the constant breakage and make it easier to close the heavy door.

[Wallington]

Old unresolved post. I found a set of armrests online being sold. These are the same castings as my mystery armrest that had the top cut off. No further details, seller doesn't reply and appears to know little else. The part numbers are still the same used by GM for same in the more common casting form.
You see more clearly that the top is now a solid cushion of sponge foam, not the previous ribs. There is a different layout of the inner body strengtheners. The mounting points are reinforced with metal structure, the pull handle has the two holes to indicate it is at least the later 70's version of improved handle and mount.
Without knowing more, and seeing that the inner casting design is very similar to 3rd gen, they appear to be a later production run by GM/the supplier for spare replacement parts, albeit with updated casting assembly methods. And since I've scoured every armrest ad that comes up, even when not looking, this is only the second lot I've found.

s-l1600 by Ben, on Flickr

s-l1600f by Ben, on Flickr

s-l1600g by Ben, on Flickr

s-l1600gg by Ben, on Flickr

[FormTA]

Wow, those are weird. Never seen ones like that.

[nUcLeArEnVoY]

The repro ones have improved structural rigidity to the flimsy "pull" area of the originals, and they're fairly accurate in terms of grain. Just not as cushiony.

My passenger side door pull/armrest was the original when I got the car and a friend at work who I invited to take on a ride closed the passenger door and pulled the flimsy end right out of the door panel. She was bawling her eyes out and frantic, and I'm like, "relax, it's a common design flaw with these cars." I replaced it with a repro and it's a lot more solid.