Sway Bars for '65

[kdml]

I noticed the OPG catalog lists front and rear sway bars for the '65 Riviera. Anybody use these before? Any opinions? How does the rear bar mount if there was not a rear bar originally? Any other options for larger then stock bars?

Thanks

[steelman]

I have added aftermarket front and rear sway bars to a couple of Classic Chevys in the past, but I don't know if these would be similar or not. The rear bar on a Classic Chevy clamps to the rear end with the links up to the frame behind the axle. Not sure how that will work with the X-frame Riviera, but I see where there could be clearance issues with the stock exhaust. Classic Chevys never had a front bar, but when installed look much like the stock front bar on many GM cars, including the Riviera.

[Guest Roostriz]

Addco makes some which may be the same ones sold through OPG. A few guys have installed them. Front should be no problem but I have been told there were fitment issues with the rear. Allegedly it hangs down pretty low though I have never seen one in person.

Here's a link to the Addco instructions:

http://static.summitracing.com/global/images/instructions/aco-934.pdf

Edited November 23, 2010 by Roostriz (see edit history)

[Guest Roostriz]

Just looking through the Addco applications on the rear was interesting to see they also applied to fullsize chevys (Impala, Bel AIr, Delray) from 58-64 so that should open up some possibilities for other manufacturers.

[steelman]

These instructions do not say this, but the ones I have installed before have a very specific instruction about installing the bars with the weight of the car on the suspension and tires. It will cause all kinds of issues if you install these with the suspension unloaded (ie car on jackstands), front or rear.

[kdml]

Yes, I believe OPG is selling the Addco bars. Looking at the instuctions I am not sure I am pleased with the way the Addco bars install. Why the plate attached to the lower control arm and then attaching the bar to the plate - looks sort of rigged? I expected the bar to attach directly to the lower arms, with some sort of reinforcement.

I was planning on boxing my lower arms and at the same time I can reinforce them to accept a sway bar bolted directly to the arm.

Anyone know of an application for a rear bar which may be of the correct width from arm to arm? I don't ming a little fabircation and actually expected it.

Steelman, thanks for the advice on installing with the weight on the suspension - although it might be a while before the car is together enough to be back to normal street weight.

[Lapham3]

I have replaced the rubber in the front end links and sway bar frame mounts with polyurethane. The rubber compresses too much and doesn't allow the bar to fully 'work'. This alone makes for a noticable difference and easy/cheap to do. I have also installed larger diameter front bars with their larger poly bushings and that's even better. I'd also wanted to add the rear bars on several E-B-C cars over the years, but with the 'funky' fitment issues, decided to just concentrate on the front-good luck. Dan Mpls. Mn.

[NTX5467]

The polyurethane front sway bar bushings will not affect the front sway bar's stiffness that much, just locate them better which can let the bar "work" more, but putting urethane bushings on the end links for the sway bars can effectively make the bar "act" 20% stiffer by taking the deflection of the bushings out of the mix.

In the earlier 1970s, many GM B-car rear control arms were either boxed or had spacers placed between the outer sides of the bars (to keep them from compressing when the bolts for the bars were tightened-up). These were the bars which had two bolts which attached them to the control arms on each side. Toward the end of the B-car platform's model run, the bars had u-nuts which slid over the inner side of the unboxed rear control arm rather than having to use the thru-bolts and spacers. This later set-up would probably have had a little more deflection of the inner side of the control arm under high cornering loads, but it didn't seem to cause any problems for normal vehicles.

There might be some geometry issues with tightening the Addco items down with the vehicle not at "ride height", BUT this would be more in line with putting pre-loads upon the rubber (or otherwise) bushings with them fully-tightened with the suspension extended rather than at normal "ride height". If you think about it, as I saw in print many years ago, it makes sense to do the final snug-down of any suspension rubber bushings with the vehicle at normal ride height, after several jounces, to ensure that the bushings are at the MIDDLE of their flex-range rather than tighten them at one end of their flex range and then put the car at ride height . . . before the final tightening is performed. This should resulted in extended life for them, I suspect.

You can take a little more deflection out of the front suspension by running the front tire pressure about 2psi higher than the rear (contrary to many factory pressure specifications). This gives the front and rear tires a more even load-carrying capabilities than having one pair of tires being more highly-loaded in relation to the other end of the car. The front of the car is heavier, generally, so that's where the greater air pressure should be . . . unless you're carrying more people or trunk items than just two front seat passengers. With the older tires, this meant a base of 30psi frt/28psi rear, but might be greater with the newer P-metrics and their 35psi max pressure rating. Steering response was shaper. Just something I figured out years ago and seems to work pretty well--it worked for me on my cars, but it's your determination of what YOU do in this respect.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

Edited November 26, 2010 by NTX5467 (see edit history)