SUPERFORMANCE NEWS: Product Update :: MK-III SWAY BARS

[Silverback51]

Originally Posted by Blas

I'm not on the SCOF site anymore....

Sorry.

Let me post what I did there.

"I think I’m going to have to disagree on some of this Randy.

If the bar was clamped between the frame mounts, I would agree that the balance would be affected. However there is .0015 to .0025 clearance between the bar and the mount. The sway bar is free to move in the frame mounts. All these frame mounts do is remove the compression of the polyurethane bushings. So instead of the car starting to lean until the polyurethane bushings are compressed, and then the torsion action of the sway bar taking affect, the sway bar takes affect almost immediately. This is no different than the spherical hiem joints replacing the rubber or polyurethane bushings where the sway bar mounts to the a-arms. All it’s doing is removing the compliance in those parts. The torsion rate of the sway bar is not changed.

The movement of the sway bar in the mounts is minimal. Assuming a wheel movement of +/- 2.0 inches, the approximate movement of the sway bar in the frame mount is .19 total movement. That’s at the front bar. It’s considerably less at the rear. It’s not like it’s spinning at 1000 RPM. However, to address this issue, over the winter I will be removing these mounts, and machining them to accept some 936 bronze inserts. I will also add provisions for greasing them which will address the binding issue.

And you are correct, they don’t look that pretty as they are still in the rough machined stage. Just wanted to mount them up to see how they worked before I put any more effort into them. When I’m done I will give them a nice satin finish. Polished would just require me to clean them up incase someone looked under the car.

John, SPF# 532"

I don't believe I'm violating any SCOF rules here, as I'm only posting what I sent. And needless to say, Randall and I don't seem to see eye to eye on this issue.