35/36swaybar
- Thread starter Don
- Start date
Talkwrench
Well-known member
I hope that's not mine! Ordered it late November and its still not here.. Must have strapped it to a pigeon .. With one wing!
Talkwrench
Well-known member
Spoke too soon.. The pigeon just landed! Finally... Now if my speedbleeders would just turn up.. Come on Santa!
danliveshere
Well-known member
Hey Don, can you show some pics once you have finished.
Bruce in southern OH
Well-known member
Great!!!!
Don
Well-known member
Came from Chassis Enginering $140.00 plus shipping ,I think drake has them also ,$160.00 plus , I believe they are the same manufacture,,,look to be well made.Will post a picture when installed and report on any improvement in ride.Hope to have the new radial tires on by then also..
Enbloc
Senior Member
Heres the same kit fitted to my '36.
Brilliant kit, bolts straight on using existing holes, good quality and makes a big difference to car. One of the best upgrades I've done.
Shoukdn't take more than a couple of hours to install.
I believe the Drake kit is a Chassis Engineering kit.
Brilliant kit, bolts straight on using existing holes, good quality and makes a big difference to car. One of the best upgrades I've done.
Shoukdn't take more than a couple of hours to install.
I believe the Drake kit is a Chassis Engineering kit.
flatheadfan
Well-known member
Don-
I recently got the same set for my '36. Everything went smooth except when it mattered. The bottom spoon-like links attach to the wishbone bolts. I removed the nuts and installed the link. That's where the problem is (for me). I only have about three/four threads left to reattach the special shaped castled nut. The cotter pin hole is too far into the spoon to slip a cotter pin in to hold the nut. Nor does it seem to be possible to re-drill the axle pin and the nut to solve the problem. I contacted Chassis Engineering and they said that axle pins seem to vary in length and I may need to use Loctite to hold everything together. I am not exactly comfortable with that "solution." I do not want to pull the wishbone and attempt to get the old axle pins out and put longer pins in. That is a super nasty job especially if you are dealing with mechanical brakes. I am open for ideas.
Thanks
Tom
I recently got the same set for my '36. Everything went smooth except when it mattered. The bottom spoon-like links attach to the wishbone bolts. I removed the nuts and installed the link. That's where the problem is (for me). I only have about three/four threads left to reattach the special shaped castled nut. The cotter pin hole is too far into the spoon to slip a cotter pin in to hold the nut. Nor does it seem to be possible to re-drill the axle pin and the nut to solve the problem. I contacted Chassis Engineering and they said that axle pins seem to vary in length and I may need to use Loctite to hold everything together. I am not exactly comfortable with that "solution." I do not want to pull the wishbone and attempt to get the old axle pins out and put longer pins in. That is a super nasty job especially if you are dealing with mechanical brakes. I am open for ideas.
Thanks
Tom
Talkwrench
Well-known member
The spoon is only about 1/16 - 1/8 thick . Pins must vary a bit and yours is short obviously I can't see me having a problem I'm the opposite. As they suggest good loctite unless you can perhaps get a nyloc type nut, you could machine the taper on in?
Danny I can send you a pic when I'm done , however someone has posted one as you can see.. Unless you want to see my oil leaks?
Danny I can send you a pic when I'm done , however someone has posted one as you can see.. Unless you want to see my oil leaks?
blucar
Well-known member
As a point of info... The bar being discussed here and shown in Enblos's posting is not a sway bar.. It is a bar to limit body roll..
A sway bar can not have a flexible link, the connection has to be a solid connection to the axle and frame... The sway bar will allow up and down movement of the body in relationship to the chassis, eliminating side sway of the body in relationship to the chassis..
Ford started using body roll stabilzer bars on the 1940 cars, introduced the sway bars in '47 in addition to the front roll bars...
As a general rule sway bars are not needed on the EFV8 cars because of the very short shackles.. The use of longer shackles in the mid '40's required sway bars..
It is very common to confuse the two bars and what their intended application is..
A sway bar can not have a flexible link, the connection has to be a solid connection to the axle and frame... The sway bar will allow up and down movement of the body in relationship to the chassis, eliminating side sway of the body in relationship to the chassis..
Ford started using body roll stabilzer bars on the 1940 cars, introduced the sway bars in '47 in addition to the front roll bars...
As a general rule sway bars are not needed on the EFV8 cars because of the very short shackles.. The use of longer shackles in the mid '40's required sway bars..
It is very common to confuse the two bars and what their intended application is..
flatheadfan
Well-known member
This is what I am looking at for the lower connection of the "roll bar." The thickness of the lower "spoon" varies from 0.236" (almost 1/4"), to 0.130 (1/8" plus). The angle of the nut depression on the axle is not the same as the stamping, so the nut is pushed down 0.187" on the spindle bolt effectively decreasing the number of available threads. Another difficulty I found is when assembled on the axle pin the castled nut fits below the surrounding well of the stamping which precludes attaching any cotter pin.
Obviously I cannot speak directly at what you have but what I have leaves a lot of questions.
Tom
Obviously I cannot speak directly at what you have but what I have leaves a lot of questions.
Tom
Attachments
blucar
Well-known member
Judging from the pix posted to this topic, showing an uninstalled roll bar kit, an installed bar, and lastly the so called "spoons" to install the bar to the axle/wishbone bolt, leads me to believe that the installation is "iffy", at it's best..
Anyone that has ever taken the front wishbone loose from the axle knows that the large convex shaped nut fits very securely into the concave socket of the wishbone...
Trying to attach the "spoon" into this tight fitting space, without modification to same, appears to me to be near impossible, no matter how much "lock-tite" you use..
I think I would choose another means to attach the lower link to the axle.. I know that in years past, like fifty plus, we welded a 1/4" tab to the lower portion of the axle, attaching the lower roll bar link to the tab..
Ford attached their roll bar to the shackle mounts via a U shaped bracket.. Of course to do this the shocks have to be connected to the original mounts, generally the top of the axle bolt, on the '35-41 Fords, not the shackle/spring bolts as shown in the pix..
For my money I would be suspect of the "spoon" axle bolt type of mount... The roll bar is a form of a torsion bar, therefore it is going to be subject to a lot of stress to control body roll.. I don't think the "spoon" would be strong enough for that stress, especially if the attachment nut is barely secured to the axle bolt...
It should be noted that Fords method of attaching the front roll bar to the shackle mounts actually had an added feature of acting as a "roll-bar" and a "sway-bar" i,e, a direct connection, chassis/body to suspension... No flexible links..
Anyone that has ever taken the front wishbone loose from the axle knows that the large convex shaped nut fits very securely into the concave socket of the wishbone...
Trying to attach the "spoon" into this tight fitting space, without modification to same, appears to me to be near impossible, no matter how much "lock-tite" you use..
I think I would choose another means to attach the lower link to the axle.. I know that in years past, like fifty plus, we welded a 1/4" tab to the lower portion of the axle, attaching the lower roll bar link to the tab..
Ford attached their roll bar to the shackle mounts via a U shaped bracket.. Of course to do this the shocks have to be connected to the original mounts, generally the top of the axle bolt, on the '35-41 Fords, not the shackle/spring bolts as shown in the pix..
For my money I would be suspect of the "spoon" axle bolt type of mount... The roll bar is a form of a torsion bar, therefore it is going to be subject to a lot of stress to control body roll.. I don't think the "spoon" would be strong enough for that stress, especially if the attachment nut is barely secured to the axle bolt...
It should be noted that Fords method of attaching the front roll bar to the shackle mounts actually had an added feature of acting as a "roll-bar" and a "sway-bar" i,e, a direct connection, chassis/body to suspension... No flexible links..
Don
Well-known member
Tom ,Enbloc seem to be well satisfied with his roll bar and the mounting ,"looked at my peanut today ,same as yours,haven't looked at the vehicle yet,could you machine a little off the protusion so it would fit the recess of pin a little better. The peanut looks to be pretty strong made,maybe cut a little off .
flatheadfan
Well-known member
Don-
It may be possible to do what you are suggesting. It might solve some of the inherent difficulties but could also compromise the link integrity. I do not know which way to turn on this. I am starting to think along the lines of a possible clamp arrangement to fit onto the axle. Chassis Engineering's suggestion of gluing things together just doesn't seem right.
One thing I do know. I bought the bar from Chassis Engineering. I assumed it would be "engineered" to fit. Evidently, "chassis engineering" is what the purchaser is required to do. Somehow that escaped the company's item description.
Tom
It may be possible to do what you are suggesting. It might solve some of the inherent difficulties but could also compromise the link integrity. I do not know which way to turn on this. I am starting to think along the lines of a possible clamp arrangement to fit onto the axle. Chassis Engineering's suggestion of gluing things together just doesn't seem right.
One thing I do know. I bought the bar from Chassis Engineering. I assumed it would be "engineered" to fit. Evidently, "chassis engineering" is what the purchaser is required to do. Somehow that escaped the company's item description.
Tom
Last edited:
blucar
Well-known member
Many years ago I purchased a part for one of my cars that was supposed to be an improvement for handling etc.. The printed instructions were very good, not vague like the instructions that most companies use now, as a result of the computer age..
I un-boxed everything, read the instructions, and re-read them.. I then started the installation of the parts onto the vehicle.. The parts did not fit properly.. I re-read the instructions, line by line.. The final paragraph was priceless...
"IN THE END, THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR YANKEE INGENUITY AND COMMON SENSE, WHEN INSTALLING THE PARTS CONTAINED HEREIN"...
I un-boxed everything, read the instructions, and re-read them.. I then started the installation of the parts onto the vehicle.. The parts did not fit properly.. I re-read the instructions, line by line.. The final paragraph was priceless...
"IN THE END, THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR YANKEE INGENUITY AND COMMON SENSE, WHEN INSTALLING THE PARTS CONTAINED HEREIN"...
Talkwrench
Well-known member
That is priceless.. Haha. Reminds me of the sticker I saw on the back of a BMC mini said ' the parts falling of this car are made from the finest British quality!'
Ill be installing my anti sway bar in the next few days, see what all this fuss is about....
Ill be installing my anti sway bar in the next few days, see what all this fuss is about....