82' Z-28 rear sway bar.

Moderator: Moderators

82' Z-28 rear sway bar.

Postby Racin Jason » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:10 pm

One of the things that I didn't save while parting out my old Monza and Skyhawk was a rear sway bar. I thought every car would have one so I let the first one go with the Monza. The Skyhawks' bar was broke off, pieces of the bar ends still bolted to the lower control arms. When I bought my 79' Monza, guess what? no sway bar(s) at all. So...... there lays that rear end out of my 82' Camaro. The comparision begins. O.K. Monza rear sway bars bolt to the LCA's but the 82' Camaro bolts to the axle tubes and then has endlinks on the ends of the bar that bolt to brackets on the body. Both of these cars are torque arm suspensions but the similarities seem to end there. Obviously the panhard bars are different styles but the basic idea remains the same. The Camaro panhard attaches to the rear axle at a point low and behind the axle on the drivers side, whereas the Monza panhard attaches on top and rear of the axle tube on the pass. side.(Straight panhard bar.) The torque arm is on the drivers side of driveshaft on both vehicles (Thought I read somewhere on the net that they where opposite.) I guess what I'm trying to say is can I use Camaro sway bar if I fab mounts for the body? I work in a Fab shop, so little mounts and what-not are nothing for me to make. Im sure you all think I'm crazy, had a mental overload trying to think this all out. Is the endlink sway bar style a better way to go. Because of the attaching points of both types of sway bars it seems that different issues are adressed. The Monza style seems to try to keep both LCA's parallel to each other while the Camaro style tries to damped axle housing movement. What gives? Does one seem better than the other? Anyone dare to respond to this one. Thanks.
User avatar
Racin Jason
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Illinois


Re: 82' Z-28 rear sway bar.

Postby SunbirdMan » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:14 am

Racin Jason wrote: Anyone dare to respond to this one. Thanks.


I don't have an fbody to compare, but my first thoughts are that it would be too wide, and too stiff (I wouldn't have said anything if you hadn't dared me to).
Roger---------------------------------------------------------------
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
User avatar
SunbirdMan
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:16 pm
Location: SantaMaria,CA

1978 Pontiac Sunbird Sport Coupe

Postby Racin Jason » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:32 am

Hey sunbirdman

It's actually pretty narrow because the bar doesn't extend out to the lower control arms, It measures 39 1/8" center to center on the endlink holes. The differences in the two bars was the reason for this post. I'm not a rear suspension expert, I just question the logic of each design. I double dare you to respond. LOL.
Our blessed mother of acceleration dont fail me now. -Elwood Blues
User avatar
Racin Jason
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby SunbirdMan » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:18 am

When it comes to logic of the designers its either "this way is better" or "this way is cheaper". I'd have to say that the h-body design would be slightly cheaper to manufacture. And the f-body would be better in that it doesn't have to be as precisely made to fit between the control arms (no shimming) Both designs would do the same thing, keep both side's suspension travel from being independent. I'd just make sure the fabricated mounts tie in solidly to the "frame" of the unibody.
Roger---------------------------------------------------------------
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
User avatar
SunbirdMan
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:16 pm
Location: SantaMaria,CA

1978 Pontiac Sunbird Sport Coupe

Postby AusRs » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:47 am

from memory
you could actually fit an f body sway bar to a h body would just be a strenghten of the floor where it attaches run the end links through the floor and bolt it up ,there are also a number of different thicknesses of sway bar in the f bodies that go from 12 mm to 19 mm (depending on specs of the f body you are pulling off of )
the mounting of the f body sway bar would also place alot less stress on the bar itself ........less chance of the bar snapping off over time (specially at the bolt holes (dumb way to mount anyway !!!!!)

just do it ...........and let us know how well it works
User avatar
AusRs
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:20 am
Location: Wollongong NSW Australia

1979 Chevrolet Monza Spyder

Postby SunbirdMan » Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:51 am

19 mm ...If I did my math right , thats 3/4", the size of the smaller stock h-body anti sway bar. Stiffness wouldn't be a problem.
Roger---------------------------------------------------------------
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
User avatar
SunbirdMan
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:16 pm
Location: SantaMaria,CA

1978 Pontiac Sunbird Sport Coupe

Postby Racin Jason » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:18 pm

Hey AusRs, do you think that the Skyhawk rear sway bar became fatigued and broke? Wow, I always assumed that they (previous owners) hit something or hooked it on something ect. ect. I didn't even think about metal fatigue. Hmmm. Interesting. Maybe thats why the sway bar center section is missing. I think I'm gonna try to make it work. I document everything with photos ect.

Thanks, Jason.
Our blessed mother of acceleration dont fail me now. -Elwood Blues
User avatar
Racin Jason
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby starfire383 » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:54 pm

The F body design is superior for performance use.

It doesn't require any force to run through the lower control arms or their bushings. There's only so much twisting force that you can put into a trailing arm bushing, which is what the H body design does. The F body design allows more fine tuning of bushing stiffness and bar diameter to create desired ride and handling, since the parts are now independent variables. Super stiff trailing arm bushings ruin ride harshness moreso than big rear swaybars. But a big rear swaybar with the H body design requires super stiff bushings to take advantage of the bar stiffness. GM didn't want new Z28s to ride like dump trucks with enough rear bar to make em handle.

This also takes force off the trailing arm mounts, a famous weak point for high HP H bodies and coil sprung F bodies.

This F body design is also superior for high horsepower launches. For the reasons above, if you look at the anti-roll bars that hardcore racers use to make 10 second chevelles launch, they're the F body design. You can also preload the suspension by using unequal length end links.

Just my 2 cents worth.
User avatar
starfire383
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:06 pm

Postby AusRs » Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:38 am

Racin Jason wrote:Hey AusRs, do you think that the Skyhawk rear sway bar became fatigued and broke? Wow, I always assumed that they (previous owners) hit something or hooked it on something ect. ect. I didn't even think about metal fatigue. Hmmm. Interesting. Maybe thats why the sway bar center section is missing. I think I'm gonna try to make it work. I document everything with photos ect.

Thanks, Jason.

at a guess i would say it fatigued
sprung steel does not usually break when you hit something

the post above this one actually makes alot of sense ...and my guess is you can get hold of an f body bar and brackets it could be an easy job to fit with slight mods to the end links
User avatar
AusRs
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:20 am
Location: Wollongong NSW Australia

1979 Chevrolet Monza Spyder


Return to Suspension, Steering, & Brakes Tech

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests