Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Been a bit busy and decided to fit GTR sway bars to the Stagea.

Now most of you would know that the rear sway bar doesn't exactly fit properly ... forcing the links/bushes to sit at angles they're not designed for. Well I've taken the liberty to pull my stag apart for the week and machine up some adaptors:

post-48775-0-72308900-1314400706_thumb.jpg

Above we can see how the narrower GTR sway bar does not quite line up with the links/bushes of the C34 stagea.

post-48775-0-08765600-1314400728_thumb.jpg

above, we also see how the narrower GTR sway bar doesn't quite fit with the mounts either. Forcing it to fit and prematurely wearing out the rubbers is not my style.

post-48775-0-89507800-1314400981_thumb.jpg

I had these fabricated as extensions to the end of the sway bar to meet the links/bushes at a more natural angle.

post-48775-0-79792100-1314401058_thumb.jpg

I also had these mounts fabricated so the mounting rubbers of the sway bar and offset inwards by 25mm each side, allowing for a more natural fit of the sway bar.

post-48775-0-10985900-1314401152_thumb.jpg

Above is the sway bar relocation mount in position on the chassis.

post-48775-0-98882300-1314401219_thumb.jpg

And above is the finished fitting of the adaptor. Neat and in a more natural position on the sway bar. The plate used is 6mm thick.

post-48775-0-23150400-1314401318_thumb.jpg

Above is the finished fitting of the adaptors for the ends of the sway bar, allows the links/rubbers to sit at a more natural angle. The plate used here is 8mm thick due to the much heavier loads exerted upon it so there is no flex or give. The sway bar mount plates are 6mm thick only as they sit flush and are supported by the chassis rail.

All nuts and bolts used were high tensile and tig welding required to fab the threads to the mounting plates. Very happy with the job.

Refitted the wheels, removed the stands, and I gave the Stagea a good rocking, and she only swayed on her own tyre pressures. Yet to road test ... but I'm quite certain it'll pass :P

And the beauty of it is that there is no permanent welding of the plates to the chassis or sway bar, allowing for the bar to be removed and a stock one refitted in no time at all.

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/375348-upgrading-sway-bars-to-stagea/
Share on other sites

:laugh:

Did you read the description or just look at the photos only. Besides, that image was taken before I tightened up the fittings for the purpose of taking photos. This idea was all worked out with an engineer over the week. 8mm thick plate with a 25mm offset for the mounting means there is virtually no 'soak' you speak of. Engineer mentioned 6mm thick plate, but we went with 8mm just to be certain. The width of the sway bar end matches the offset, so there is no chance of any 'leverage' against the high tensile fittings used ... creating any 'soak' whatsoever. Engineer is happy, I'm happy.

Interesting piece of lateral thinking Ruby , well done.:thumbsup:

A couple of things;

With the chassis mounts; the welds for your studs don't look to have much penetration. I can see the gap around the stud where the weld has been ground back. If the weld fails; there's nothing stopping the stud pulling through the plate.

Did you consider using 10 or 12mm plate and using a grade 8 or 10 countersunk screw into a threaded, countersunk hole in the plate? That way the plate and the bolt are taking all the load rather than a weld that looks like it might just pull free?

A couple of flats ground on the tapered head would give you enough area to lay a couple of small fillet welds to lock the screw in position without compromising the strength of the screw.

They would also sit level with, or below the surface of the plate. There's no way the stud can pull through the material this way.

I don't think 6mm is nearly thick enough to take the load you are applying to it; regardless of what you're engineer is saying. an upgrade to 4140 plate or similar would also be advised.

For the sake of a few millimetres of material thickness; I'd go for excessive, rather than "adequate". Two pieces of plate that size will weigh barely 500 grams.

I've worked as a Fitter for 20 years now, in heavy industry and now in the Pharma industry and I always over spec load bearing components by as much as material thickness and clearance will allow.

The other concern I have is the torsional load you are applying to the arm of the Sway Bar; and in particular to the flattened mounting tab of the Bar.

I believe the long term consequence of the twisting force being applied to the tab will result in its failure The straight edge of the plate you've bolted to the Sway Bar tab will become a point of localised stress and will fatigue the bar; thus breaking it.

For the trouble you've gone to; I'd have asked a spring maker or boilermaker to heat the bends and spread the arms of the bar then re-temper the bar. That way you could pull straight on the bar link mounting points.

Not trying to put you off, but fatigue is a gradual process, that is almost invisible until the component reaches the point of failure. Keep an eagle eye on it please.

A new set of link rod bushes wouldn't go astray either.:nyaanyaa:

Cheers, Dale.

Edited by Daleo

Interesting piece of lateral thinking Ruby , well done.:thumbsup:

A couple of things;

With the chassis mounts; the welds for your studs don't look to have much penetration. I can see the gap around the stud where the weld has been ground back. If the weld fails; there's nothing stopping the stud pulling through the plate.

Did you consider using 10 or 12mm plate and using a grade 8 or 10 countersunk screw into a threaded, countersunk hole in the plate? That way the plate and the bolt are taking all the load rather than a weld that looks like it might just pull free? A couple of flats ground on the tapered head would give you enough area to lay a couple of small fillet welds to lock the screw in position without compromising the strength of the screw. They would also sit level with, or below the surface of the plate.

I don't think 6mm is nearly thick enough to take the load you are applying to it; regardless of what you're engineer is saying. an upgrade to 4140 plate or similar would also be advised.

For the sake of a few millimetres of material thickness; I'd go for excessive, rather than "adequate". I've worked as a Fitter for 20 years now, in heavy industry and now in the Pharma industry and I always over spec load bearing components by as much as material thickness and clearance will allow.

The other concern I have is the torsional load you are applying to the arm of the Sway Bar; and in particular to the flattened mounting tab of the Bar. I believe the long term consequence of the twisting force being applied to the tab will result in its failure The straight edge of the plate you've bolted to the Sway Bar tab will become a point of localised stress and will fatigue the bar; thus breaking it.

For the trouble you've gone to; I'd have asked a spring maker or boilermaker to heat the bends and spread the arms of the bar then re-temper the bar. That way you could pull straight on the bar link mounting points.

Not trying to put you off, but fatigue is a gradual process, that is almost invisible until the component reaches the point of failure. Keep an eagle eye on it please.

Cheers, Dale.

Ah, some constructive input. I like to see that. :thumbsup:

You make some very good points, and clearly you've got a background in metals and worth listening to.

The 6mm mounting plate is basically sitting between the chassis and the sway bar mount, and in this position it will take an upwards compression force, not any shear forces which will threaten the integrity of the bolt or its welds. The bolt (or studs I should say) is predominantly there to seat the sway bar bush in place, and not deal with any shear forces. The engineer who welded this up is close to 60yo and has been welding for over 40 years, so I'm very comfortable with what he has done and the penetration he achieved with the welds ... far, far better than what I can do.

Not dismissing the option of using a 10-12mm plate and tapping the holes to accept a stud. Will certainly try that also if we feel like doing a 'version 2'. However, we beleive what we've done is more than sufficient.

Got to ask, why would you think the arm of the sway bar would take "twisting force" as we had discussed the different forces that would be exerted upon the arm adaptor. I know the sway bar itself is designed to resist/minimise twisting and hence body roll of the wagon. The arm of the bar itself flattens down to some 6mm to the mounting point, and we decided to go bigger with 8mm. He had believed that an option like heating the bar to extend the 'reach' of the arms would be what would weaken the bar.

I will be keeping an eagle eye on it. And given some valid points you've made, I'll give it some 'lock wire' to prevent it from dragging on the road in the event that it does break. However, we are quite confident that it won't. I respect the comments you've made above, but I have to disagree with you on the arm mounts. the plate is 8mm thick providing a 25mm offset, so we don't believe it offers any form of stress to itself or to the sway bar arm beyond its capabilities. I don't beleive the extra 25mm offset/length will pose any leverage contributing to any weakness to the sway bar. Thoughts?

Happy to chat to you more a bit indepth about this if you like. If it results in a far better design, I'm happy to try it.

:thumbsup:

BTW a new set of link rod bushes are going on too smarty pants :P I threw things on for photographic purposes. Its all painted up now for looks, and I'm changing all the bushes for new. :thumbsup:

Ah, some constructive input. I like to see that. :thumbsup:

You make some very good points, and clearly you've got a background in metals and worth listening to.

The 6mm mounting plate is basically sitting between the chassis and the sway bar mount, and in this position it will take an upwards compression force, not any shear forces which will threaten the integrity of the bolt or its welds. The bolt (or studs I should say) is predominantly there to seat the sway bar bush in place, and not deal with any shear forces. The engineer who welded this up is close to 60yo and has been welding for over 40 years, so I'm very comfortable with what he has done and the penetration he achieved with the welds ... far, far better than what I can do.

Not dismissing the option of using a 10-12mm plate and tapping the holes to accept a stud. Will certainly try that also if we feel like doing a 'version 2'. However, we beleive what we've done is more than sufficient.

Got to ask, why would you think the arm of the sway bar would take "twisting force" as we had discussed the different forces that would be exerted upon the arm adaptor. I know the sway bar itself is designed to resist/minise twisting and hence body roll of the wagon. The arm of the bar itself flattens down to some 6mm to the mounting point, and we decided to go bigger with 8mm. He had believed that an option like heating the bar to extend the 'reach' of the arms would be what would weaken the bar.

I will be keeping an eagle eye on it. And given some valid points you've made, I'll give it some 'lock wire' to prevent it from dragging on the road in the event that it does break. However, we are quite confident that it won't. I respect the comments you've made above, but I have to disagree with you on the arm mounts. the plate is 8mm thick providing a 25mm offset, so we don't believe it offers any form of stress to itself or to the sway bar arm beyond its capabilities. I don't beleive the extra 25mm offset/length will pose any leverage contributing to any weakness to the sway bar. Thoughts?

Happy to chat to you more a bit indepth about this if you like. If it results in a far better design, I'm happy to try it.

:thumbsup:

post-48775-0-79792100-1314401058_thumb.jpg

The lack of penetration around that weld on the right is not something I would be okay with as an experienced welder; especially if it was going on someone elses car. At the very least, I would've ground a taper on the stud, and countersunk the hole to ensure I could lay a decent bead and have some weld left when it was ground back. If I did it with my TIG; you wouldn't need to grind; the weld would lay flush anyway.

From the first section I've bolded and coloured red; "in this position it will take an upwards compression force, not any shear forces which will threaten the integrity of the bolt or its welds." This is totally incorrect!

In a corner; one side of the bar is pushing up and the other is pulling down with equal force. So the mounts are alternately in tension AND compression.

Don't believe me? Loosen (Don't remove) one "D" mount; and go for a drive around the block; you won't need to listen too hard for the massive bang you'll hear as the loose mount pulls away from the body, then belts back into the subframe. pinch.gif

For the second; "heating the bar to extend the 'reach' of the arms would be what would weaken the bar." The bar is a tubular length of spring steel; I've never seen anyone cold bend Spring Steel, you have to heat it to bend it; other wise it'll just spring back, or fold in half. as long as it's heated correctly, and re-tempered, there should be no issue.

Also the plate you've added does twist the arm "along the beam"; if you will. and this, I believe, will fatigue the tab, as you are concentrating all the load on the tab.

With the rubber link bushes; this load is much less concentrated; and twists only on the long centre section of the bar; where it's supposed to.

Cheers, Dale.

Lol; I figured the bushes and bare metal were just trial fitting phase; but had to have a stir!:nyaanyaa:

would it not be more affective in time and performance just to go a brand new whiteline set up with new link bushes ect for about 300 bucks that way the bar is also set to the weight of the stag not a gtr ?? not that i dont like custom work and cheap performance mods i have done more than my fair share over the decades but there comes a time to spend some pocket shrapnell

would it not be more affective in time and performance just to go a brand new whiteline set up with new link bushes ect for about 300 bucks that way the bar is also set to the weight of the stag not a gtr ?? not that i dont like custom work and cheap performance mods i have done more than my fair share over the decades but there comes a time to spend some pocket shrapnell

+1 for that. the different subframe is the real issue. did u look at other options for swaybars?? like gts-t or gt-t??

would it not be more affective in time and performance just to go a brand new whiteline set up with new link bushes ect for about 300 bucks that way the bar is also set to the weight of the stag not a gtr ?? not that i dont like custom work and cheap performance mods i have done more than my fair share over the decades but there comes a time to spend some pocket shrapnell

I just finished running a Group buy for just this purpose; http://www.skylinesa...-bar-group-buy/

Response was a little underwhelming.:(

Not everyone has the dollars at the time; that's life.

Also I was trying to help, rather than shamelessly self promoting; which I now appear to have failed at.pinch.gif

Edited by Daleo

I tackled this job because I like to get my hands dirty and try what no one else has tried. I've undertaken many "fruitless exercises" and successful mods in my time, including a supercharged SR20DE powered 200B, and will continue to do so for as long as cars interest me. :D

There will always be an easier option ... but then there is always the left-field option.

Mod on :thumbsup:

would it not be more affective in time and performance just to go a brand new whiteline set up with new link bushes ect for about 300 bucks that way the bar is also set to the weight of the stag not a gtr ?? not that i dont like custom work and cheap performance mods i have done more than my fair share over the decades but there comes a time to spend some pocket shrapnell

Compared to the stock swaybar, the GTR bar would be better for the 'rolling' weight of the stagea body. Whiteline would be better still I admit, so I'm not ruling out another upgrade in the future.

I'm never afraid to spend money where it is best deserved. I've purchased new 3076 and many brand name parts. But as i said above, I like to have a crack at things myself.

;)

At the end of the day, it beats forcing the bar on and having the bushes at wrong angles to the bar, causing premature failure/wear.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...