Is it worth getting both the front and rear sways from Suspension Techniques, or should I just go ahead and get the Addco rear bar. The front bar looks pretty thick already, so I don't know how much of an upgrade replacing it will be.

 

the front bar is flimsy...personally i went with the addco rear (goes on this week) based on what owners of it had said. i'm going to see how it performs and if necessary i'll get an ST front from a local guy i know that's selling one...

 

i planned on auto-x this year,as of now only got a FSTB but i plan on the addco RSB and was tryin to dig up some dirt on the WSP stage 2 subframe connectors,anyone know anything more than whats posted on the site? and do they make any externally adjustable shocks for the 3rd gen, and anyone have sus. tech drops? its 1.5 roughly same price as sprints but a more reputable name

 

I think Matt's going to WSP to get Stage 2 done on Monday. Expect news on Tuesday.

The front sway bar looks thick, but it's hollow. So even though it's the outside diameter that makes the most difference in the dynamics of twisty springy thingies, it's not as stiff as it would be if it were hollow. Adding a front Suspension Tech sway will be a big difference because it's solid AND bigger.

Chris let us know what you think when you get the RSB on!

Oh, and also there's this debate going on at the BBS - Matt doesn't think that going with the ST front and Addco rear combo is a good idea. He says it'd make the car too stiff and the rear would snap out. I'd also heard from someone with the full suspension boogie PLUS this combo and he also said the tail was liable to swing around suddenly (abrubpt oversteer). However, I'm wondering if that's because he had ST springs, which probably increase rear stiffness already.

Anyone have input on this? It's too bad, because I'd seriously thought about doing this oneday.

 

anyone that says you don't need the front bar is full of crap! oh my gosh. . .it's like CRAZY the difference. when i took off my front sway bar i couldn't believe how sad it was. it's really light and bendable. . . . i could bend it just by pushing on it! JUNK. my ST's made the biggest difference in handleing in my car so far. it's totally flat now, even with junk shocks. . . i wouln'dt just do the rear bar. the front one LOOKS beefy enough, but it's so junk. I'm very pleased with my ST's, i've never driven a car with addco bars so i dunno what they're like. maybe i'll drive chris's this spring if he lets me, i'll let him drive mine the ST/ST setup against the Eibach/addco setup. . ..

 

Well, if I go with the ST, then I'll have both the thicker sway bars all around and and Eibach/Tokico suspension combo. Even with this, I'd still consider the subframe connector if it could make the car even stiffer. I don't know though, at that point I think things would start snapping.

 

I wouldn't worry about snapping things due to adding the subframe connectors. Stiffening the chassis with SFCs and a FSTB is different than stiffening the suspension with stronger "spring components". I think the most stress comes from driving hard with stiff springs, sway bars, and shocks - what I call the "full suspension boogie".

 

I don't get it. Why would a thicker FRONT bar make the car more prone to have REAR come out? Thicker bar would tend to make the undesteer more.

Not to say having the ST front/rear set-up is a bad thing at all, but some of the assumptions here are wrong IMHO.

 

stiffen the car as much as possible. when i run autox, i could make the car oversteer just by knowing how to drive. when all it had were ST spings and a FSTB i could get the rear to come around. . . . .

 

If you want to autoX. Get the rear sway for sure. And the SFC's are a must. Ask Mr.Nismo he is like WTF??? When my car with SFC's and FSTB is outhandling lowered cars.

 

I know, I KNOW! It doesn't quite make sense to me either, but that's what Matt said on the BBS (you were there), that the car would be too stiff and there wouldn't be enough suspension travel on tight corners and the back end would be spin-prone. And I know Matt knows his stuff, but he hasn't elaborated

Maybe he's talking about a modded car with stiffer rear springs already? I can maybe see that, because that's what someone (I forget and can't find the post - Bryan or Ryan) said they got with ST springs, tokicos, and ST front/Addco rear sways. I'd be thinking of this sway combo for my stock car without any plans for springs though....

Then again, I remember an old article I read about upgrading the suspension on an old Chevelle. When they threw huge sways on the car (1.25" front, 7/8" rear) with its junk shocks and stock springs, the car cornered flatter, but was twitchy and hard to control at the limit. Things improved after adding Bilstiens and performance springs. Maybe this is what he kinda means? I think I'm just confusing myself!

 

I have KYB shocks/struts, ST springs frnt/rear, ST sways frnt/rear and I DID have to put wider tires/rims on to keep me confident in it's cornering without feeling to light and spin prone but that was it and now I can take turns at 90mph that I wouldn't take at 40 before. It doesn't make for a comfortable ride on crappy roads, and my car torque steers like crazy, but the handling is great. Look at Ryan, he's got crap shocks and his sway bars have done him wonders for handling. And yes, he IS right about the front one being hollow and a total piece of crap. You can feel the diff. in weight alone...
As far as the SFCs, well, that's pretty interesting and I'm def. thinking about that one... just waiting on more info from Matt.
Anyway, buy the sways they are def. worth the $$.

 

WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do not put aftermarket sways on with junk shocks and 50 series tires!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you will spend alot of your time scraping the ground actually it's not that bad unless i get a road with alot of road round and some serious bumps. . . the konis are on teh way. but actually, it felt like i put shocks on my car the first time i pulled out of the garage and onto the street. although the ride is now more firm, it seems to be smoother. . . . . the ST front/Addco rear is an intersting idea. does anyone know the sizes of the Sways?

 

The ST front sway is 1.25" (I was wrong about it being thicker btw, all Max's come with 1.252" hollow bars)
ST rear is 3/4"
Addco rear only is 7/8"

This is where I came up with this ST front, Addco rear sway bar idea (not to say I invented it ). From the posts I've read on this, I figured the Addco rear bar alone made the car about neutral or a tiny bit oversteering (some/one say). So I figured, hey if I want the ultimate suspension combo, I could combine the stiffer ST front bar, and this huge Addco rear bar right? Sure the car would still understeer at the limit, but I figured it'd be even flatter through the corners and might corner slightly faster as well.

Suspension Techniques: www.belltechcorp.com (all they have is the PDF application and product guides)

Addco: www.addco.net

 

Are you saying that putting on aftermarket sways w/ OEM struts/springs is a bad idea?

 

no no no, lol, sways will defenitely help you! in my case my car is lowered 3" with the springs and tires. it sux! i scrape my front sway bar all the time. . . . well in pittsburgh i did. here at school it's RARE that i ever hit anything. just shows you how bad pgh roads are. . . .

 

Although a car with sway bars does corner flatter than a car without them, the height of a car's center of gravity has more to do with flat cornering than a sway bar. My friend Brad put Eibach springs on his MX-6 (about a 2in. drop all around) and it made a far more noticeable difference in the way his car cornered than when my buddy Brian put a RSB and RSTB on his '98 Eclipse.
If your car's Center of Gravity is far above the suspension, centrifugal force will have more leverage on it and pull it to the outside of the turn (i.e.- lean). Lowering the car eliminates the leverage. Sway bars (normally) try to pick up the inside wheel, or more accurately take weight off of it so that the car sits back down on that corner. This is why adding a thicker rear sway bar increases oversteer; it reduces rear traction in corners. If you want grip and flat cornering go with struts/springs; if you want different cornering dynamics (under/oversteer), get SB's.

 

It wasn't the drop. It was mostly the fact that the Eibachs have an approx 20% higher spring rate than stock. Ride height makes a difference yes but you have to remember those Eibachs are stiffer than stock oem.

Sway bars do make for less body roll. In fact European makers pefer to use thick swaybars and softer springs to tune their cars.

 

I know they make for some less body roll, but sway bars make
single-wheel bumps much worse by transmitting part of the collision to the other wheel, i.e.- rougher ride. Mercedes, Porsche, BMW and Audi have traditionally focused on stiffening their chassis' to resist twisting and deflection so they don't have to use tight srpings, thick sway bars and high shock-valving rates to maintain proper suspension geometry. For another example, look up Mercedes' new Automated Body Control (ABC) system (available only on CL-class for now), which uses hydraulic arms at each corner to stabilize the car in transitions. Operating at 2100psi and cycling 5 times per second, it completely negated the need for swaybars since it acts as would both lateral and longitudinal swaybars, eliminating lean and squat/dive.
Though BMW's M-cars do have thick swaybars anyway.

 

So are your agreeing with me? SB makes the ride worse? Worse than what? Stiffer springs/stiffer shocks? I doubt it.

All car maker continually try to make their chassis stiffer.

 

Sort of, using a thicker sway bar to alter under/oversteer or cornering compromises the ride more than stiffening the chassis (not that that would alter under/oversteer, just cornering response and grip) lowering the spring perches or changing front/rear wheel and tire sizes.

Yes but the German's are renound for it. Look at a comparison involving a Lexus GS400 and a BMW 5 series. The BMW will be praised for it's superb structural rigidity, handling feel and high limits combined with a smooth ride. The Lexus however will have comments about it's stiffer/harsher ride created by the stiffer springs/bars/shocks needed to match the capabilities of the BMW's superlative chassis and suspension geometry engineering.

 

Ah yeah I know that, stiffer chassis wasn't one of the choices.

The original statement was, the Eibachs made more of a handling difference than just having a lower center of gravity.

 

Then I disagree, if your car doesn't lean or roll then you don't need springs to hold it up (you'll still need springs to absorb some of the suspension's bouncing though). Here is a testament about Koni Sport Shocks (yeah yeah I know it's on an Integra, oh well)from

http://integra.vtec.net/handling/konis.html

From: Arthur Hunt (snoalh@unx.sas.com)
At this point I am inclined to go with the Konis. The only reason I would pay for the Koni sport SS shock is because of the adjustable spring perches. And yes, the SS's are available for the GS-R, you just need to ask for the ones for the 92 or later civic, they bolt right up. TC Kline has a GS-R with these shocks, with the perches lowered ~2 inches and stock springs with a custom fabricated rear sway bar, and that car would stick like glue in the corners at mid-ohio (looked pretty nice lowered too).

Notice he said "stock springs," once again I disagree to your statement claiming the car cornered flatter due more to the higher spring rate and less to the lower center of gravity. With the center of gravity lowered to just over the suspension, Centrifugal force cannot generate enough leverage to roll the car to the outside of the turn, thus there is no need to use stiffer springs to maintain a horizontal attitude through the corner. The car does have better feel however and I will attribute that to the stiffer springs and reduced unsprung weight from the 17" Konig Tantrums. The defense rests.

 

Now you just introduced stiffer shocks. Yeah, yeah, I used to run shorter shock bodies on my 510. No big deal. It rode nice because I was low and was still running the ST springs.

 

I'm not talking about the shocks, read the rest of it. They lowered the car using lowered spring perches and had no need for stiffer springs.
Shocks aren't springs, they don't support the car, they're dampers that resist the oscillation of springs. If the shocks weren't there the car would bounce back and forth on the springs. I was simply referring to the fact that he described a well-handling car that used stock springs; if you lower the car enough (more than 1 inch) you can corner flat without using stiffer (than stock) springs.

 

Wasn't he using Konis in your example?? I ran some adjustable Konis on my 510. For the hell of it, I adjusted them full stiff. It was so strong that it took about 5 secs to let the car bounce back. haha. It also increased the stiffness in the rear(harder to push down)

So in your example, the guy used Konis(which were set stiffer(I would assume), thus affecting the handling characeteristics.

I didn't say lowering the car would not improve handling. I just say that your original example, that car's better handling was more attributed to the stiffer springs more than the lowered ride height. Why? Because on a maxima, Eibachs only lower about 1.3" or so. If the spring's only purpose is to support the car only, why do all the makers offer stiffer springs? Why to race car teams beat themselves to death trying to get their spring rates correct for each track?

 

Unfortunately, he also mentioned the use of a custom RSB and Konis, which seriously throw a monkey wrench into this. Konis aren't springs, but a good shock absorber will help cornering through its damping action. Besides, GS-Rs handle good out of the box to begin with....

 

What I've been referring to is not the overall handling of the car, but the fact that his car cornered flatter. You said this was due more to the higher spring rates and less to the fact it was lowered. This is where I disagree:
-First, it's not a Maxima, it's a Mazda MX-6.
-Second, he doesn't have Eibach Pro-Kit springs, he has Eibach Sport Kit springs, which lowered his car 2 inches, not the .8-1.3in. of the Pro-Kit.
-Third, I didn't say that the ONLY purpose of springs is to support the car.
-Fourth, aftermarket spring manufacturers make their lowering springs stiffer for two reasons: 1) Many people upgrade their springs before upgrading their wheels/tires, OEM wheel/tire combos are heavy and therefore have a lot of inertia. When they are bumped into the air, stiffer springs will return them to the ground quicker than stock springs. 2) Many customers don't buy springs that lower a car very far, just enough to eliminate wheel gap, so the companies compensate for this by raising the spring rates.
-Fifth, because each track surface is different, so different spring rates are necessary to keep the tire's contact patch optimal against the asphalt.
-Sixth, if they beat themselves to death how do they expect to win?

You provide interesting points to ponder my friend, how 'bout after your rebuttal, we call it a night. I feel this has gotten a little off-topic.

 

man.. all i wanted to know is why people say its bad to get both front and rear sway bars...... i know if you dont reinforce the rear sway bar mounts they will break.. but that can be solved by welding support brackets.... other than that... why do some people say its bad to get front and rear

 

rear sway bar mounts break? um. . . . . maybe the ADDCO ones do, but the ST ones have a Big A$$ plate. . . i dunno if that could break. . . . well it could, but don't think it will. . . it is NOT bad to do both. . . just some of the cheap people like ot justify their frugalness by saying this. . . *cough chris cough*

 

They BOTH break - just ask Matt, he's had the ST set on two cars. It's not the mount to the sway bar itself that breaks, but the stock sway mount attached to the undercarriage.

mykizism, I want to know too, but I don't think people are saying getting front and rear in general (like the ST front and rear set) is bad. What I'm asking/wondering about is what happens if you cobble together the Suspension Tech FRONT (1.25") with the Addco REAR (7/8"). THIS I have heard is bad.....

...I just wanna know why (not because I doubt their word though) since the big Addco is meant to be installed alone, but the ST set has only a 3/4" rear. This implies to me that a better combo would be the one I mentioned above, but....