Technical lets see some rear sway bars in early fords

I'd like to see how some of y'all did a rear sway bar in 34 and up early V8s with single/buggy springs. I got one I couldn't pass up for a friendly price and it has all the hardware, and I can mod it or bend it to suit. Still I'd like to see how and where some were done. I guess I coulda tagged it "art and inspiration" cuz I like to draw some inspiration and conclusions from like-minded folks approaches. As always, thanks in advance. And yes, for my 39 std.

 

I will crawl under mine and take a picture-40 with buggy spring

 

My 37.
On my belly taking these for you.
I am running a monoleaf.

 

I have one i just got from Pete and Jakes, to put into my 39. It is a more evolved set up than I expected, not a big deal, the sway bar attaches to the rear and links to the frame, gonna have to weld the mounts in for the end links. I'll get it in after Trog.

 

My 40 pickup.

 

I don't have pics of it installed, but I used this kit from Bob Drake on my 40. It was a bolt on deal along with tube shock mounts. I highly recommend it. I had to shorten the end links due to mine being lowered in the rear, so the bar would sit parallel with the ground. I'm actually getting ready to buy it again for my 39 sedan.

I should add that this kit has shock/sway bar mounts for a banjo rear end.

https://bobdrake.com/products/1935-40-car-1935-41-pickup-rear-shock-anti-sway-kit-1

 

Excellent! @Petejoe that's instinctively the direction I was going, and have it travel along the side of the frame/body like that.

@Dan Hay I had almost took the plunge and was going order just the bar, already got shocks in, but here was a new 3/4 Mustang bar for $20 with all the hardware. Couldn't say no.

I have to fab mounting brackets onto the shock mounts, have to bend the bar a little.

@Marty Strode I wrestled with mounting it to the axle, figured 6 ways to Sunday how I could manage easy enough but with a done car logic prevailed. Too much to tear apart. If I was in raw build mode axle mount would be clean.

This is great, thank you all so far. And as expected I'll show what I end up with.

 

Well you have enough miles without to give a real time improvement report, how much better it actually is once installed. That ride to the salt n back is epic. Lookin fwd to it.

 

Here are two of mine.

 

NOTE - The "arm" of the bar, needs to be parallel to the ground at ride height, (full car weight), for it to work properly.

In the pictures above, it's difficult to tell this because of the unfinished state of the chassis. They "appear" to be set so that when the full weight is added, that they will sit correctly.

Mike

 

Good point Mike.

 

I'm going to respectfully disagree. A panhard, 100%, but a sway bar, or more acurately anti-roll bar is designed to "borrow" load from the opposite side in order to keep the car flat in cornering or side load suspension forces. If it must remain parallel then my dually, Jeep Grand Cherokee, H3 and indeed my 41 Packard should not work at all. I do agree that the more vertical you can deliver the force the more effcient it will react. If the links can start their work in a straight fashion the actions required are superior, and efficiency drops if the forces are applied at angles. So as long as the bar is solid and straight in a lateral position, the links are perpendicular in their application of suspension force, all is well. Panhards are another story. Flat at ride hgt, as long as possible in application to reduce side loads due to the arc of travel. This was a good place to bring this up. I'm getting there, bar bent, 1 mount made so far, should work well. Film @ uh, whenever I get it done...

 

Disagree all you like...
Funny... You say that you DON'T agree...THEN you say that you DO agree..!? Make up your mind.
As marked in red above...THAT'S what "I" said ! My words, for it to work "properly".
If you remember anything from your 8th grade geometry, Changing "lever arms" from the ideal position WILL change the effectiveness in the way that they work...period.
Another of much the SAME situation - Rocker arms. If you install rocker arms in an engine, and the pushrod is too short or too long, that makes the rocker sit at an "incorrect" (see the lever arm on the anti-sway bar !), then lift WILL be lost...period.

So, yeah...just maybe your Jeep (and Packard) antisway bar IS mounted incorrectly and NOT working up to it's potential. If the lever arms are not parallel to the system (and normally ground), then YEAH, the bar is NOT...working to it's designed potential.

It's simple 8th grade math !

Mike

 

Sorry I don't have better pics but this is in my 41 Ford PU. CE bar. The inboard mounted leafs interfered with the sway bar mounting so @Pist-n-Broke came up with mounting the bar to the top of the axle that I welded on prior to painting

and I built bolt-in supports to add to the frame rails for the links. Doesn't help with unsprung weight but it fit the truck.

 

I won't turn this into an argument, I promise. You say "...the arm of the bar..." meaning where it changes from lateral to parallel along the frame? So once it makes the turn to connect to the axle (or frame) link it must be parallel? No, it doesn't. It can look like a snake before it connects.
Not even close to parallel in design:

Check out this obstacle path:

And some are indeed flat when there's room:

Now if your meaning is the link should be perpendicular and as vertical as possible, we agree. VERTICAL. The bar itself? It merely provides the radial mechanical connection to the other side to use load from that spring. The bar pivots and "drags down the other side" to over simplify and avoid a buncha deep engineering talk. The bar itself need not be flat and parallel to the ground at ride hgt where it connects to the link, meaning where it makes it's turn to connect to the axle or frame link in however the application is chosen. It should indeed be equal in lateral (side to side) position and have equal pivot points to provide the radial forces as required or desired. Even then we see bars that hoop arond differentials but mount in same location on each side, same hgt, same distance from center, otherwise the forces would be unequal and likely bind. I might be saying tomahto and you're saying tomato.

 

Here's one I added to a finished chassis. The square tube bracket bolts in between the frame rails and the sway bar end links bolt through the upper ladder bar mounts.

 

Twin leafs in rear,dose not need another added sway bar ,the twin leafs * are also a sway bar*/by twist as roll to start with. Often mounted with front ends a bit closer together then at rear too.

 

I was always under the impression that a front sway bar was more beneficial to a rear wheel drive vehicle ,although front and rear is better .
Aren't rear wheel drive cars with only a rear sway bar more prone to spinning out ???
Just askin

 

Lateral pushing on my F100 pickup's top causes pronounced 'body roll'..."twin leafs" (semi-elliptic springs front and rear)
Tell me again, I don't need anti-roll bar(s).
Later F150s have axle housing mounted antiroll bars that fit 9" housings: the F150s have 8.8 rears, but are the same housing diameter as the 9". Dirt cheap! (just a FYI)

 

I'll also ask about the front vs. rear bar thing. Most modernish cars with only one bar put it on the front. Been like that for decades (since 1940 in Fordland). Why do they do it that way?

 

I asked front vs rear a while back. I too come from the front 1st camp in most cases. The overall answer I was getting, and the rationalization as I stare at and consider it, the dropped axle provides some added stability by dropping the center of gravity. The angled front gas shocks, a little more. A panhard to aid against bump steer and side to side, more forces yet managed. The weight at the rear and the rake, and higher or perceived "tippy" loading on a tudor, maybe the back is the place after all. I think I'll see a benefit.

 

I dont think dropped centre of gravity , drop axle or gas shocks has anything to do with it .
The first part of a car into a corner is the front end and if it starts to lean the rest of the car will follow suit .It is the front lean in my mind that starts it all . If your rear is leaning 4 inches and is connected to the stiff frame and body , that tells me the front is leaning 4 inches as well . A vehicle doesn't dive into a corner from the rear !!!

 

D-Russ what was the original application of that bar or was it made specific for this?

 

There are better suspension geometry experts than me, and if I post incorrect info please correct me, but generally if you only have 1 anti-roll bar it should go on the front axle. If you have 2 then generally the bar in front is larger than the one on the rear axle. Now on a buggy sprung straight axle car, if you split the bones or use hairpin's, then you already have some inherent anti-roll forces in play. Whether you need a rear bar or not depends on how the car handles. Adding a rear sway bar will reduce understeer. A front bar will decrease over steer.

 

I’ve never seen a car or light truck with a bar in the back and none up front. Fairly typical for 60’s era muscle cars to have a big bar in the front and few had rear bars. My 68 442 has them front and rear, trans ams with w72 has them at both ends.

 

The split bones or hair pins only help locate and allow up and down movement of the front axle , and would not assist in body lean at all .I personally think the front sway bar is the first bar people should concern themselves with installing and a rear bar to fine tune it if necessary .

 

The sway bar, rubber mounts and end links are a kit for the front of a 33/34 Ford from Chassis Engineering. I chose it because the advertised dimensions were the closest I could find to the space I had to work with. I had to bend the bar ends outward about 3/4 inch on each side to get them to line up with the upper ladder bar mounts, but the way I did it required zero welding on the chassis or rear end. I did weld the ends of the bracket to the square tube cross bars and the 3/16 flat pads where the rubber bushings mount. One additional thing I'll point out about this particular set up is that the sway bar and all the associated brackets are completely hidden from view from the back and side of the car.

Regarding the back versus front debate – my car is fenderless with a transverse front spring and dropped axle. I didn't want to add a front sway bar because I didn't think it would look good on my car. I did however, want a sway bar because transverse springs tend to have a good bit of body roll and I didn't want my rear tires rubbing the paint in the rear wheel wells in hard cornering situations. I'm happy to report that the bar mounted in the rear has prevented the tires from touching the wheel wells in the 5 years it's been installed.

 

sorry for late reply-had some issues to attend to. Pics arent the best but can get more it needed--this is a Drake setup

 

Spilt bones will act as a sway bar, that’s why they say you should only run a forged axle with them. Depending upon where the bones are mounted to the frame, there is only so much free movement until the bars bind and input twist into the axle. If the axle didn’t twist something would have to give.

 

That's not correct, both of those types of radius arms will impart anti-lean forces into the chassis. It's simple geometry. This happens because the radius arms swing in an arc as the body tries to lean, unlike a 4-bar linkage or parallel semi-elliptic springs. As the radius arm swings through the arc it tries to twist the axle, which of course resists twisting, sending the forces back through the radius arms to level the chassis. This is not my theory, it is well known phenomenon and discussed around here often.