Aluminum GC control arms with BD swaybar?

[waren]

I have a worn bushing somewhere on my wifes BD. A couple weeks ago I replaced the struts kyb gr2 and springs whiteline control in hopes of eliminating the issue. No dice. I inspected the top hats and reinstalled. The lower bushings all seemed ok but obviously I missed something. Next step is to order new bushings.

downtime is an issue as this is a DD, so I was thinking about a set of aluminum control arms pressing in new bushings and then installing. Quick and easy right?

Pat Olsen posted that the GC swaybar endlink tabs are moved outboard 1" compared to the BD control arms. This creates some nasty endlink geometry as the BD bar is not wide enough.

So what is the solution? Running a GC swaybar?

I have whiteline endlinks installed so I would prefer a solution that replaces an old swaybar rather than new endlinks.

I know that the GD sedans are wider than the wagons options there?

I plan on doing a wrx/lgt ej255 swap so a crossmember swap is in my future however I want to avoid widening the front track as the BD is already a nightmare for squeezing rubber under. I don't really consider -2.5 deg of camber as a tire figment option.

So what works?

[httrdd]

I would like to know this as well.

[Yamazaki]

Wait a minute....

The GC turbo control arms are the same as the GF/SF/BD/BG/BE/BH turbo control arms. So I don't know why that would the fitment of a swaybar between those models. Now, the GD/GG/SG are wider...

But maybe I'm misunderstanding the question (a very real possibility).

[waren]

hmmm maybe there is no issue. I understand that the GC and BD control arms are designed for the same track width, however there were some "issues" (maybe unconfirmed) with respect to the location of the swaybar endlink tab locations on the control arms. Some info was suggesting that the endlink mount on the control arms was not the same. (EDIT: these issues may have been specifif to GD control arms swaps only)

I tried to search for Patrick's post again just now and found this ...
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthr ... ?t=2192842 (http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2192842)
"My '97 2.5GT (which has a front suspension that is basically identical your GC Impreza) has GD STI aluminum control arms and a aftermarket Legacy swaybar. I thought I would need a wider swaybar to go with the wider track, but once I installed the arms I found it wasn't necessary ..... (but)... the swaybar ends are located a bit farther from the mounts on the control arms, I would prefer a set of pillowball style endinks to allow them to be canted a little."

some other info here
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthr ... p=32681545 (http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?p=32681545)

Here is Pat's thread that had me concerned. Pat was comparing two control arms and predicted that the swaybar would need to be 1" wider than the stock BD swaybar. Above he states the BD swaybar was fine HOWEVER it looks like he used GD sedan control arms not GC control arms.
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=949333

Clear as mud? (LOL)

Waren

[waren]

So to simplify can anyone confirm that the endlink tabs are in the same position on both GC and BD control arms?