sea bass

Ok - I'm doing it right now

DJ1

lol

DJ1

There's obviously some reason why all these vehicles have their links practically at if not 90* to the sway bar lever...

Porsche 911



Corvette Z06



Mustang



Camaro

DJ1

How could all these Engineers across many platforms and over several decades make the same mistake? Don't they know 45* is better!?!?



Camaro


Ford Raptor


Ford F150


Cuda-Challenger


Camaro & Firebird
http://www.spohn.net/shop/1993-1997-...-Sway-Bar.html

14Sport

It's at 90* so they don't pretzel the sway bar.

DJ1

sea bass

Easy there tiger - I never once said 45* was better. I'm pretty sure I agreed that 90* or close to it is where it needs to be and where it was designed to be.

I still dispute your reasoning that 90* provides less body roll than it being angled up or that the OP getting longer links for the rear will cure his excessive body roll - that's all. Not the application of a swaybar. I would never run one at 45* nor would I recommend it.


Sorry to get you all excited - looks like you've been spending some serious time researching to prove your cause. :-)

Ringer

The reason that you mount a swaybar at 90* is to provide a more Constant Spring rate throughout the cycle of the swaybar. The same general practice is true with proper coilover mounting. When a coilover is mounted at an extreme angle or different angle than the axles path, the spring rate is not consistent throughout the cycle. This is why the behind the axle JK coilovers is a poor design. But back on track... Think how bad this could feel if your swaybar went stiff to plush in its cycle. The swaybar at an angle will take more force to torsionally rotate due to the moment arm being much shorted in that position, resulting in less body roll. You see them mounted at 90* on all stock vehicles because of the reason I mentioned above. The OP should get longer links, but I doubt this is the cause of his body roll. Stiffer shocks or rear springs are likely what he needs.

DJ1

Yet everything you've posted tiger, contradicts everything you post. You even manage to do it within the same post lol. Multiple times lol. And then even post that you're possibly thinking about it wrong lol. The problem is that you don't understand torsional resistance and the feedback loop within a swaybar system and that's ok. Some people can mentally grasp the concept and some people don't. I'm not questioning your intelligence. I simply spent more of my time to TRY AND HELP you grasp the concept. I apologize. I won't try and help you again.

I offered the suggestion of longer rear links to the OP to get it back to 90* as a cheap solution and since that's what he was leaning towards. I simply gave him confirmation as if that were my Jeep, it would be the same thing I would do.

There are always other factors at play. There is no cure-all. He's got a franken-build and old shock + worn springs may not be up to par. Sidewalls maybe too soft? Perhaps running a 15" wheel size? He wants to do it on the cheap. Rear links is as cheap as it gets.

DJ1

The bar with links at 90* can add a considerable amount of roll resistance without affecting normal movement of the suspension system. Imagine if the swaybar lever was pointed 89* downward. The more the swaybar lever points down, the more the bar itself restricts vertical movement in the suspension and you're no longer using the swaybar for what it was designed for. With links and swaybar at 90* to one another, not only do you get the most torque required for the torsion spring of the swaybar but you get no vertical interference to the suspension travel.