Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I had another look the other day but I gave up pretty quickly again. I can't get at the front mounting bolt because there's some sort of suspension rod in the way. This rod sits in a large bush pivot, and mounts onto the lower suspension arm with 2 bolts. I'm not sure what this rod is, it doesn't seem to do anything other than stabilise the forwards/backwards movement of the suspension.

Anyway, my question is, is there a way to get the swaybar off without removing this other suspension rod? I had a go with my breaker bar but it's on VERY tightly. I'd rather not remove it unless absolutely necessary. I also don't know what issues I will have trying to put it back in, like will I need a press or something to squeeze the bush back in?

Any advice appreciated!

Edit: I'm guessing this rod is the castor rod, but I could be wrong because I don't know much about suspension. Oh, and the car is an R33 GTS-t.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/23500-removing-front-swaybar/
Share on other sites

I pulled open the packets of bushes I got from Whiteline and read the instructions. Those rods are in fact the castor rods, or rather, the radius rods which control the castor. I think I can put the bushes in myself. The Whiteline guy mentioned needing a press to get them in but I think I can do it with my hands or maybe a rubber mallet :)

I'm going to pull the radius rods off this weekend and do the swaybar, as well as giving the bushes a go. But what I need to know is, what are the torque settings for the radius rod bolts? Does anyone have a list of torque settings for the various suspension bits?

Thanks for the info Lenno.

So now it seems the biggest problem after undoing that really tight nut holding them on is putting the new bushes in. Could I use something like a vice or G-clamp to push them in? Just thinking of what I can use around home so I don't have to take the car to a suspension shop. I guess once I have them off I could just take the rods themselves in to be done on the spot, hopefully something that can be done on a Saturday morning without costing a fortune (that rules Midas out).

The rear bushes look to be a lot easier, because they are in 2 halves. I'm pretty sure they will go in fairly easily because I shouldn't have to push the "lipped" part of the bush through anything, unlike the radius rod ones.

no probs jim...

i tryed the vice, g clamp etc ended up taking them to my work to do on my day off (hate that). Just take the radious rods in to a workshop with a press if they charge any more than $5 a side they are robbing ***s.

Btw jim i got some awesome boot/bump kit yesterday should suit the shocks down to a tee... i'll let you lnow how they go

lenno

Oops, I forgot to take pictures :D

Last night I got all motivated and stuff, and got the radius rods out. I used various methods to undo the tightarse nuts and bolts, including using an old aluminium tubing bed head as an extension on the breaker bar. After the awkwardness of that I used the jack.

I got both rods out, then most of the swaybar off, then the LAST FRIGGEN NUT on the swaybar rounded off! I couldn't believe it. After much swearing I got my housemate's anglegrinder out and ground one side of the nut off. Thankfully I had a replacement nut the same thread (not the same shape tho'). The whole thing took about an hour longer than it should have coz of that nut.

Got the new swaybar in, then decided against trying to use a vice to get the old bushes out. I took both rods and new bushes to my local mechanic, who didn't have a press but referred me to a nearby one that did. I went there and it was done in about 20 minutes (I watched and helped in some bits). Pressing them out was no dramas, but the slippery urethane bushes kept popping out because they didn't have a metal sleeve.

They charged me $20 which I think is quite reasonable, their hourly rate was $60 which is pretty cheap already and 1/3 of an hour is $20 so I think it was entirely fair. Before he started he even warned me that he might not have a cone in that size and he'd have to make one, which would mean I'd be up for an hour's labour. But luckily he found that it was the same size as something on a Landcruiser which he already had the bit for.

Lenno, where did you get the boots and bumpstops from and how much were they? Got any pics?

I got everything in the front back in, and now the car handles superbly! The extra castor angle makes the steering more steady. It wants to straighten up more so I guess it makes it feel a little heavier, but in a nice way. There's no body roll to speak of anymore.

The rear is still a bit sloppy, but that's because my tyres are pretty crap and I haven't installed the camber kit on there yet. I'm thinking of getting a hydraulic press myself rather than taking the arms to a suspension shop, there are 4 bushes to press out instead of 2 so I'm guessing it would be around $40 labour. I can get a press for not much more than that, so I should be able to do it at home and then have a press for future use.

hey crazO.... if whiteline supply you the same boots and bumps i got, i don't recomend them. The best boot/bump stop combination i have found and fitted are monroe pk018. These bump stops require cutting but the boots fit a treat. $120 for a set but its good insurance

cheers

lenno

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...