Stabilizer bar needed on M II front?

[40cpe]

I have a Heidt's M II cross member with stock control arms on my '40 Ford coupe. I've never had a stabilizer bar on it and am beginning to wonder if it would be an advantage. I get some body roll on rougher roads, but it doesn't affect the steering or where the car goes. I would like opinions on the value of adding one, and what kind to use. Anyone have any before/after experience? Has anyone used the stock stabilizer with the M II suspension? It looks like it could be adapted with a little ingenuity. Thanks, Gene

[WZ JUNK]

If my brother (MO JUNK) does not respond to your question, you need to contact him.  His current driver was the subject of a magazine article on installing one of these on the Heidts front end that he has in his truck.  Just to lead you into what he thinks about it,  he mentioned the other day that he thought he would take it off.

I recently went to great effort to modify a stock sway bar for the Mustang II suspension under the 54 Chevy I am building.  I think a sway bar is a good idea and I use them whenever I can.

[enjenjo]

I ran my 47 chevy one season without a stabilizer bar, and then installed one the next year. It made a big difference on turns, cut the body roll way down, a much more comfortable feel when driving.

[40cpe]

I ran my 47 chevy one season without a stabilizer bar, and then installed one the next year. It made a big difference on turns, cut the body roll way down, a much more comfortable feel when driving.

I'm trying to decide if I should modify my stock bar or buy an aftermarket bar. I would have to heat it and turn the link ends 45 degrees. Would this destroy the bar? The stock '40 bar was about 11/16" and the stock M II bar was about 15/16". From what I understand my car weighs about like the Mustang II did. Is bigger always better where ride is the primary concern? I THINK '40 was the first year Ford put a stabilizer bar on the cars and wonder if they got it right the first time. I'm sure the perception of acceptable ride has changed from then to now.

[Charlie Chops 1940]

On my '40 Chevy ragtop I used a 1.25" front bar off a Camaro/Firebird Gen 2. I used heat to point the ends accurately and shortened the outers as required and welded them back together. 15 years, beaucoup miles, never a problem. Adapted the skinny original front bar ( 3/4" I think) to the rear. It handles extremely well with almost zero lean.

Charlie

[MO_JUNK]

I have a 48 Chev 1/2 ton with a Heidts Mustang 11 crossmember. My lower control arms are the econo tubular style(square tubing) and the swaybar links mount to brackets that bolt to the lower arms. I use links common to Nova subframes(straight shaft with double rubber grommets top and bottom).When the weight is off the truck everything looks fine. When at ride height the links are at a sharp angle and interfere with the steering at the max steer orientation. The sway bar ends are to long. I installed the sway bar mounts as close as possible to the rack "c" notch in the frame(the only place I could mount it). Anyway, the handling was noticeably improved but the Heidts universal swab bar just didn't work on my installation. The link angle was so severe that over two years(est. 15k miles) I actually sheared two links.I removed my sway bar. I can probably alter the angle of the lower link mount an improve things. Anyway, good luck.  Sam

[40_Tudor]

I put the stock Pinto sway bar on my 40 Tudor with Pinto A arms setup, same as MII. Made some minor modifications to the front of the frame horn to bolt the bushing mount to and stiffen it. Pretty simple install and the dip in the stock sway bar isn't noticeable when front end is on. It isn't running yet, need a radiator and wiring, but it will help with the ride. I'm going to add one the same diameter to the rear too.

[Crafty]

I'm trying to decide if I should modify my stock bar or buy an aftermarket bar. I would have to heat it and turn the link ends 45 degrees. Would this destroy the bar? The stock '40 bar was about 11/16" and the stock M II bar was about 15/16". From what I understand my car weighs about like the Mustang II did. Is bigger always better where ride is the primary concern? I THINK '40 was the first year Ford put a stabilizer bar on the cars and wonder if they got it right the first time. I'm sure the perception of acceptable ride has changed from then to now.

I think you'd have trouble modifying the bar like that. I used the stock bar on my car ( '55 Olds ) by bolting a rose joint into it that dropped down in front of the arm and is bolted in between two tabs coming off the front arm. Its all blown apart at the moment but when I reassemble it I'll take a pic for you.

[Bob Paulin]

I put the stock Pinto sway bar on my 40 Tudor with Pinto A arms setup, same as MII. Made some minor modifications to the front of the frame horn to bolt the bushing mount to and stiffen it. Pretty simple install and the dip in the stock sway bar isn't noticeable when front end is on. It isn't running yet, need a radiator and wiring, but it will help with the ride. I'm going to add one the same diameter to the rear too.

First of all, I , personally, would not run a car on the street or on the race track without a front anti-roll bar.

One of the benefits is that you can generally run softer springs since the bar is helping to handle the body roll.

This gives you both a softer ride, and better compliance between your tires and the road surface for better handling.

This is especially true on rough race tracks that go through Northeast Winters and the resultant frost heaves that buckle the track a bit in new areas each Spring.

Rule of thumb is to have the bar take care of about 50 percent of the front roll that is generated in the turn.

Now, if the situation were to arise where I would want to try a rear anti-roll bar, I would not exceed one-half the size of the front bar. Too much rear bar will cause the car to be "loose" and want to spin out under extreme conditions.

Prime example is some of the "handling package" Camaros - such as the '78 LT my wife once owned - ran a 1.25" (1-1/4") front bar and a .5625" (9/16") rear bar.

Your rear springs are softer than the front springs, so the rear anti-roll bar should be softer also.

Just another little "rule of thumb" from oval track. You generally want your front suspension to handle approximately 85 percent of the roll that is generated in a turn, and your rear suspension to handle about 15 percent.

I've set cars up this way, and usually never vary much more than one or two percent (ex: 83/17 to 87/13) to account for driver preference/style.

Another "general rule" is that if you add anti-roll bar - such as going from a one-inch to a 1-1/4 inch - you take away spring in order to keep the chassis balanced - maybe from an 850 to an 800 or 750.

If you know someone who races oval-track and has a chassis setup computer program, he can probably plug the numbers in on your car and give you a ballpark of where you stand.

Of course, there are a number of other factors to consider such as lever arms acting upon the springs and bars, etc.

And, you can make your anti-roll bar mildly "tuneable" by devising a sliding link on the bar ends that you can move to shorten/lengthen the lever arm acting on the bar.

OR, if you are cobbling...er, "adapting" a bar from another application, and you move the mounting holes on the lower control arm, you will be changing the effective rate of the bar.

Moving the linkage holes on a stock bar outward on the lower control arms has the effect of "stiffening" the bar,  since you are using a "shorter" lever arm ( tire contact patch to linkage attachment point) to operate the bar, while moving them inward has the effect of "softening" the bar's effective rate since you are using a longer "lever" (tire contact patch to linkage attachment point) to operate the bar.

Of course, it also depends on how the stock application for the bar was setup and what sort of motion ratio (That's "lever arm" in $50 word talk) the original setup had.

Who was it that said, "Nothing is ever as it seems."?

There are a great number of similar "adjustments" available for those who really want a car that handles well.

But, I've used up my alloted space for today, and I simply don't feel like taking the Rambler for a drive today. I've had a l-o-n-g day today, and those reclining seats may just be too tempting.

Bob Paulin

[mrloboy]

Hi Gene;

I have used Chassis Engineering Stabilizer bars on many projects in my shop and I am very pleased with their fit, price and performance. They do offer a kit specifically for your application.

We have also used varius stock bars with success. The M2 V8 Cobras had a hefty unit that fit well under a street rod. Many of the other models featured a severe center drop which jeoprodized clearance on a low profile stance and provided less agressive stability characturistics than their performance counterparts.

Many S10 and '78 to '84 Malibu platform cars have stabilizer bars that will adapt to M2 applications with very little modifications. Most limitations will be apparant with the stock frame. Your '40 should cause little clearance concerns.

I would recommend anyone using IFS to engineer a stabilzer (antisway) system into their project. I definitely makes driving more enjoyable and much safer.

My opinion! rj

[40_Tudor]

Thanks for the tech info Bob. I always understood you should use the same size swaybar on rear as front, but I don't have the racetrack experience you have.
This will save some aggravation of getting the wrong swaybar and then getting another to replace the first. Better to listen to someone who has already been there and understands the dynamics instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.
The older I get the smarter my father, or anyone that's been around longer, gets.
You've given your expert opinion on a couple of my posts before. I'm headed in the right direction, just running off the berm once in a while.
Thanks again Bob for the redirection.

[40cpe]

Thanks to you all for the helpful replies. It seems that the bar is helpful to some and necessary to others. When considering the diameter of the bars you guys are suggesting, the 11/16 original bar probably wouldn't be very effective. I'm going to ignore my conservative (cheap) nature and order one that will fit. Thanks again for the advice. Gene

[Bob Paulin]

Thanks to you all for the helpful replies. It seems that the bar is helpful to some and necessary to others. When considering the diameter of the bars you guys are suggesting, the 11/16 original bar probably wouldn't be very effective. I'm going to ignore my conservative (cheap) nature and order one that will fit. Thanks again for the advice. Gene

I wouldn't make any rash moves yet.

If you already *have* an 11/16" bar, try it and see how you like it.

It may or may not be the right bar for your particular application, but if it turns out to be the right bar for your needs, it would be a shame to have spent money on another bar that didn't fit the application.

I always try to work with what I have in order to discover if I really need to spend more money.

Work on getting the car sprung correctly first.

http://www.eatonsprings.com/  has some recommendations for the M-II setups.

Then do your fine-tuning with your anti-roll bar(s).

Bob Paulin

[40cpe]

If you already *have* an 11/16" bar, try it and see how you like it.

Bob the bar I have is the stock '40 bar and the "eyes" for the link bushings are pointed the wrong way to install a conventional link. i mentioned heating the bar and turning them 45 degrees and someone said this wasn't a good idea. I'll still have to spend $30 - $50 on links to try this. I'm thinking put this money towards a set-up that works. I'm also thinking that the stock bar was designed to be used with leaf springs and probably isn't strong enough with the coils. I've had the front springs for a while and am happy with them. I'm only trying to overcome the roll I get on rougher roads, I'm not going racing in this car.

[Bob Paulin]

If you already *have* an 11/16" bar, try it and see how you like it.

Bob the bar I have is the stock '40 bar and the "eyes" for the link bushings are pointed the wrong way to install a conventional link. i mentioned heating the bar and turning them 45 degrees and someone said this wasn't a good idea. I'll still have to spend $30 - $50 on links to try this. I'm thinking put this money towards a set-up that works. I'm also thinking that the stock bar was designed to be used with leaf springs and probably isn't strong enough with the coils. I've had the front springs for a while and am happy with them. I'm only trying to overcome the roll I get on rougher roads, I'm not going racing in this car.

Sorry....I misunderstood.

I thought you had a stock OEM M-II or Pinto bar....

...you know, fab up a couple of frame brackets, attach with stock links, etc.

If I was in your shoes, I'd measure the distance between the two linkage attaching points on the lower control arms, try to figure out how far forward and rearward the bar can be located, then spend an afternoon in the "automotive recycling emporium" measuring the O/A width and length of the arms of the bars that reside there.

Then it will be SWAG time....and maybe the first SWAG will get you where you want to be.

My SWAG would be somewhere around a one-inch bar - depending on how high the COG is and where the moment center is located.

Bob Paulin