Is GM 24230682 superseded by 24260763?
Dealer/industry catalog mirrors report a 24230682 → 24260763 replacement relationship. However, the current OEProof research did not locate public GM EPC confirmation for this exact pair. We therefore treat 24260763 as an industry-supported replacement candidate, not as a GM-confirmed supersession. Before ordering, verify the current service-part relationship against the VIN/application in a current GM EPC or dealer parts lookup.
The answer in one table
| Question | What the current evidence supports | Evidence level |
|---|---|---|
| Does 24230682 → 24260763 appear as a replacement chain? | Yes. The relationship appears in dealer/industry catalog mirrors. | E209 · [Industry] |
| Did we locate a public GM EPC record confirming this exact pair? | No. | Not located in the current research |
| How should the pair be treated? | As an industry-supported replacement candidate that still requires VIN/EPC verification before ordering. | Support-only |
The important distinction is not whether the two numbers are seen together online. It is who controls the evidence. A dealer or industry catalogue can be useful, but it is not the same evidence level as a captured GM EPC/service-parts record for the exact pair.
What does E209 actually support?
OEProof evidence item E209 [Industry] records that 24230682 → 24260763 appears as a replacement relationship in OEM-parts dealer / industry catalogue mirrors.
That is enough to publish the relationship as a reported supersession candidate. It is not enough to describe the chain as publicly confirmed by GM. The research explicitly did not locate public GM EPC confirmation for this exact pair.
This is the core boundary for T-16: the catalogue-mirror relationship is real evidence, but its provenance controls the strength of the claim.
What does GM documentation say about supersession verification?
Separate GM documentation gives a useful method without proving this exact pair.
- E205 [Manual] shows GM using the direction “old part number was subsequently superseded by new part number.” That establishes what the relationship means when GM states it.
- E206 [Manual] instructs technicians to use VIN/EPC and verify supersession rather than infer it from the appearance of a part number.
- E207 [Official] shows that a discontinued number can coexist with a successor, but it does not mean every discontinued GM number has a replacement.
None of E205–E207 independently proves 24230682 → 24260763. They define the verification discipline that should be applied to E209.
How to verify 24230682 → 24260763 before ordering
- Start with the exact vehicle/VIN and transmission application. A supersession lookup should be tied to the actual application, not just a number copied from a listing.
- Search the current service-parts/EPC record for 24230682. The useful result is an explicit replacement/supersession field, not a seller title.
- Confirm that the lookup points from 24230682 to 24260763. Keep the direction old → new clear.
- Confirm the current number still covers the target application. A replacement relationship should not be treated as universal fitment without the application check.
- Put both numbers in the procurement record. Record “24230682 → 24260763, verified by VIN/EPC” when the current lookup supports it, so the old search number remains traceable.
If the current EPC or dealer lookup does not explicitly connect the pair for the target VIN/application, OEProof would not use the third-party mirror alone to upgrade the relationship to GM-confirmed.
Where does the left/right question belong?
T-16 does not own the left/right intent for 24230682. That question is already covered by the evidence-audited Article 1.
For the side assignment and its catalogue-evidence limits, use 24230682 vs 24230715: which one is left and which one is right?
This separation matters because a supersession question and a component-side question require different evidence. A reported replacement chain does not, by itself, prove side, dimensions, or full vehicle fitment.
What evidence supports this article?
| Claim | Evidence | Allowed strength |
|---|---|---|
| 24230682 → 24260763 appears in replacement fields | E209 · dealer/industry catalogue mirrors | [Industry] · support-only; never “GM-confirmed” |
| GM supersession language runs old PN → superseded by → new PN | E205 · GM dealer communication | [Manual]; general relationship semantics only |
| Supersession should be checked using VIN/EPC | E206 · GM service documentation | [Manual]; verification method |
| Discontinued does not automatically mean every PN has a successor | E207 · GM/ACDelco official material | [Official]; scope limit |
| 24230682 side identification | Article 1 / E304 | Separate intent; link only here |
What we do not claim here
We do not claim that GM publicly confirms 24230682 → 24260763; a public GM EPC confirmation for the exact pair was not located.
We do not claim that 24260763 is a universal replacement for every vehicle or production boundary ever associated with 24230682.
We do not recommend buying 24260763 solely because it is a newer-looking number or appears in a third-party catalogue.
We do not claim that every discontinued GM part number must have a replacement.
We do not re-answer the LH/RH side-identification intent in this article; Article 1 owns that question.
We do not publish unverified dimensions or infer interchangeability from the supersession candidate alone.
Frequently asked
- Is 24230682 superseded by 24260763?
- Dealer/industry catalog mirrors report 24230682 → 24260763, but the current research did not locate public GM EPC confirmation for this exact pair. OEProof therefore treats it as an industry-supported replacement candidate pending VIN/EPC verification.
- Is 24260763 a GM-confirmed replacement for 24230682?
- Not in the source set used here. We did not locate a public GM EPC/service-parts record that confirms the exact pair, so we do not label the relationship GM-confirmed.
- What should I check before ordering 24260763?
- Use the exact VIN/application in a current GM EPC or dealer parts lookup and look for an explicit old-number → replacement-number relationship. Confirm the current number still covers the target application.
- Can I treat 24260763 as a universal replacement wherever 24230682 appears?
- No. The current evidence does not support a universal fitment claim. Supersession and application both need to be checked for the actual vehicle/VIN.
- Where should I verify whether 24230682 is left or right?
- Use the separate OEProof Article 1 on 24230682 vs 24230715. T-16 deliberately does not take over the LH/RH intent.
- What if the current EPC does not show 24260763 for my VIN?
- Do not override the current VIN/EPC result with a third-party catalogue mirror. Treat the mirror as supporting evidence only and resolve the application with the current service-parts source.