Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I have a 24mm whiteline front bar and it's ok, i've had a good look at that bit of the sump over the last 6 months or so as i've been climbing under the car making various repairs. My sway bar looks to sit a lot further forward though, closer to the leading edge of the sump rather than back over the shallow section as yours is.

is that pic taken with the wheels carrying the weight of the car?

Maybe elongate the links to effectively rotate the whole bar clockwise (when looking in the direction of the pics) but that may lead to issues with the other part of the sump when unloading both wheels....

Yeh, the pics are with the car on a hoist. It is a 27mm swaybar.

Where the bar is at full droop with the links disconnected should be where the bar stis relative to the sump. as soon as you connect the links and drop the car. Links are fully extended and the bar pretty parallel with the ground so, maybe its an R33 bar or something. Perhaps they are similar enough that you can fit them, but different enough to have this result :geek:

LOL, maybe this is why my shocks bump stops are so healthy, swaybar hits sump before the shocks get near the full travel. Is now making me wonder whether this is the reason my car was locking brakes so wildly as i was effectively limiting front suspension travel under brakes :)

Anyway, off they come...nto sure what to do with the sump. Probably not a problem, just dont like havigng a sump that looks this way :) Then have to thnk about what to do for a new swaybar, might just go a Cusco fixed one and modify it for adjustability...

yeah, I reckon piss it off. grab a cusco or arc bar. they are hollow so nice and light too. and I can bet one of my nuts it wont foul on anything and will be a snack to fit.

when my nuggie is back on the road i'm going to toss my current bars and go cusco too.

That's a good one Roy, never seen that happen before. Is the picture taken with the car at normal ride height? Because if it is, the bar is not in its usual position in relation to the sump, it should be rotated further forward. What links are you using? If they are too short, it will rotate the bar towards the sump. Then, when the suspension compresses, the bar will rotate further than intended and hit the sump. The other possible issue is ride height and how far the suspension compresses before the bump stops limit the travel. What static height is it and how much travel before bump stop contact?

Cheers

Gary

These swaybars have been on the car with the Bilsteins and the Teins.

Ride Height with Bilsteins

462DSC07641.JPG

Ride Height with Teins

gallery_462_50_508080.jpg

I am using std links. When they were delivered there werent any, you said there should have been. I rang Whiteline and they said use the std, the swaybars dont come with the links. So i did as they woudlnt even sell me the links as they said to use the std. :P

So possibly the links :wave: The photo is with the car on a hoist. The Teins actually have more travel then the R33 Bilsteins that were in the front of my car. Bump stops are fine, dont get near them with the ride height and springs i run.

Ah, the joys of modifyign cars. lol, two steps forward about twelve backwards :ermm:

These swaybars have been on the car with the Bilsteins and the Teins.

I am using std links. When they were delivered there werent any, you said there should have been. I rang Whiteline and they said use the std, the swaybars dont come with the links. So i did as they woudlnt even sell me the links as they said to use the std. :P

So possibly the links :wave: The photo is with the car on a hoist. The Teins actually have more travel then the R33 Bilsteins that were in the front of my car. Bump stops are fine, dont get near them with the ride height and springs i run.

Ah, the joys of modifyign cars. lol, two steps forward about twelve backwards :ermm:

Standard links are OK, as long as they are standard R32GTST links, not some other model.

Sorry I am not very good at identifying ride height from pictures, I need a tape measure to get the job done.

More travel (from the Teins) is actually a bad sign, increasing the travel (compression) rotates the swaybar towards the sump more than less travel. Just another reason why I never use short shocks. Add that to regressive positive camber curves and bump steer.

The solution is to rotate the sump dip on the swaybar, which is a simple $50 mod, send the bar up and allow 2 days .

Cheers

Gary

Standard links are OK, as long as they are standard R32GTST links, not some other model.

Sorry I am not very good at identifying ride height from pictures, I need a tape measure to get the job done.

More travel (from the Teins) is actually a bad sign, increasing the travel (compression) rotates the swaybar towards the sump more than less travel. Just another reason why I never use short shocks. Add that to regressive positive camber curves and bump steer.

The solution is to rotate the sump dip on the swaybar, which is a simple $50 mod, send the bar up and allow 2 days .

Cheers

Gary

If thats the case then i will be throwing the swaybar to the shitter, but surely there is an easier fix or cause for the problem. The links were std GTSt (to the best of my knowledge). I cant tell you what the ride height it. I can tell you it is within a few mm of what Whiteline used to have on the pdf file on their website.

What you say about more stroke being a bad thing? I would rather suspension parts not bottom out on bump stops to stop swaybars from bottoming out on sumps. I hear what you are saying, but the car used to bottom out at speed on big bumps making it a real handful at places like DECA and the back track. So i am not talking unlimited suspension travel the point coils bind or come in contact, just enough travel to give the spring enough time to do its thing when punting it in autocrosses.

Not going to get into a debate over suspension with you. I am sure you know more and ways around everything. Fact is i dont. I like your idea of some longer aftermarket links. I will try that before i swap/repair the sump. Hopefully that will fix the problem. I suppose its possible that the std links i am using are off another model car or something. Fark knows, the guy was wrecking an R32 GTSt, but????

If thats the case then i will be throwing the swaybar to the shitter, but surely there is an easier fix or cause for the problem. The links were std GTSt (to the best of my knowledge). I cant tell you what the ride height it. I can tell you it is within a few mm of what Whiteline used to have on the pdf file on their website.

What you say about more stroke being a bad thing? I would rather suspension parts not bottom out on bump stops to stop swaybars from bottoming out on sumps. I hear what you are saying, but the car used to bottom out at speed on big bumps making it a real handful at places like DECA and the back track. So i am not talking unlimited suspension travel the point coils bind or come in contact, just enough travel to give the spring enough time to do its thing when punting it in autocrosses.

Not going to get into a debate over suspension with you. I am sure you know more and ways around everything. Fact is i dont. I like your idea of some longer aftermarket links. I will try that before i swap/repair the sump. Hopefully that will fix the problem. I suppose its possible that the std links i am using are off another model car or something. Fark knows, the guy was wrecking an R32 GTSt, but????

I know that you know enough to figure out what works for you, so I just throw out the information and you absorb what you can. You are spot on that increasing the travel helps with impact absorbtion, but it introduces other problems. As I mentioned above, that being bump steer and regressive camber change. You could engineer out the bump steer and correct the camber curves, as John is doing on the Zed. But that is time consuming, requires some equipment and experience to overcome. There is a simpler solution. What I would suggest is that raising the ride height for those tracks is a superior solution, that's what we do at Sandown for example for the huge bump at the end of the pit straight. It's a lot simpler and less fraught with compromises than the alternatives.

But some people (not you) cling fanatically to the "low is always better" philosophy, even when it is obviously the route of the problem.

Cheers

Gary

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...