2014 New Rules related to Aftermarket Sway Bars

[DrC]

When I first read that aftermarket sway bars were going to be allowed I was pleased until started to look at the spec. I have never been known for having a fast car (mostly driver related) so when I started looking for a better than stock sway bar on my 95 mustang I was surprise that I was not able to find one that meets the 30mm max size limit. The first sway bar I looked at was Steeda 555-1094 which has a size of 1.375†(35mm) and is over the 30mm max size so I continued to look. Below are the notes I started to collect to determine which sway bars are available and I did not have a lot of luck. So my question is which sway bars were you basing the Max OD on when setting the values in the charts below?

 

The following are my note used for my search.

Based on RCR # 6 sway bars

RCR#6, 7 in favor, 1 against: Sway bars can now be aftermarket as long as they are direct bolt in and no larger than the largest OEM bar for the car, as listed on a table. This will make it easy for everyone to find those rather rare big bars, and it has the side benefit of making compliance enforcement very easy. I am a bit nervous about this resulting in the really fast guys getting faster by having more options, but from my perspective the benefit of enabling all guys to get the same hardware easily is more important.

 

7.33.13 The sway bar(s) may be removed or any solid or hollow sway bar(s) that matches the OEM profile/contour and uses OEM bayonet style end links (i.e. a direct bolt in) and has an OD no bigger than as listed below may be used.

 

Car Front Sway Bar Max OD Rear Sway Bar Max OD

1982-1992 Early GM 36mm 24mm

1993-2002 Late GM 35mm 21mm

1979-1993 Ford 33mm 27mm

1994-2004 Ford 30mm 27mm

 

Front Sway bars Fits 94-04 Mustang

Steeda 555-1094 1.375†(35mm)

Addco#551 or 2186 1 3/8″ (35mm)

Eibach 3518.310 33mm

Belltech part# 5472 1.375" (35mm)

Hellwig part# 6704 1-5/16†(33.3375mm)

Hotchkis part# 2251 1-3/8†(35mm)

Suspension Techniques #50055 1-3/8†(35mm)

 

Year Factory

85-93 1-5/16 (33.3375mm) do not fit 94/95

93 Cobra 1-1/8 (28.575mm) do not fit 94/95

94-95 GT 27mm

94-95 Cobra 25mm

95 Cobra R 33mm

97-98 Cobra 29mm

99-02 27mm

[MHISSTC]

I don't have any solutions to help you with your dilemma since I haven't tried looking for aftermarket bars that fit the SN95 like you have. Supposedly, as an SN95 driver, you don't need to look for aftermarket bars because the OEM SN95 bars are still readily available from Ford and are easily found in the salvage yards if you need to replace a damaged one or replace V6 with V8 bars.

 

I think the intent, at least from my FOX-centric perspective, was to give the older platforms the option of using an aftermarket bar, if one exists, to replace the OEM bars that may be getting harder to find. Specifically, the Lincoln Mark VII LSC bars fit the FOX chassis without having to use custom attachment brackets like you would if you used an SN95 bar on a FOX, and they are solid and the same fat diameter as the Mustang GT bars, but splay out wider where the end links attach to accommodate the wider SN95 front control arms on a FOX very nicely. But, those Mark VII LSC bars aren't the easiest ones to find.

 

I also wanted to add:

'93 Cobra R front bars are 1.22 (31mm)

The max OEM FOX size rear bare was a solid 0.83" (21mm)

So the max 27mm (1.06") rear bar size in the rules for the FOX comes from being able to swap a hollow SN95 max size rear bar into a FOX since they are otherwise dimensionally direct replacements.

 

There IS a loophole in the rules where the SN95 driver may find an advantage. IF you can find aftermarket solid bars the same dimensions as the OEM hollow bars, you will have bars that are much stiffer than the OEM. (good luck policing hollow vs. solid bars) Smaller than max dimension solid bars may also exist that are also stiffer than the OEM hollow bars. You'd actually have to do the calculations on those, if any such bars exist.

[DrC]

Scott all the numbers I have seen show the 95 Cobra R as 33mm but it does not matter that much because finding one of these are almost impossible and they do not meet the 30 Max OD for the front. Thanks for the other info it should be helpful to others reading these comments.

 

I currently have the stock 95 front sway bar that was on there when I got the car. Due to the ass-end being loos I was looking to stiffen up the front to help control that. I do not want to go into details about that here due to the topic.

 

Al I was hoping you would be able to provide some details to my initial question, which sway bars were you basing the Max OD on when setting the values in the charts?

I am hoping one of those may be an improvement over the stock 95 sway bay.

[MHISSTC]

I'm not sure the rules were based on any specific bar availability at all, especially from the SN95 perspective. So your search may be for something that is currently non-existent. That was really the point of my earlier ramblings.

 

So, even though this takes it slightly off topic, if you are already maxed out on available front bar sizes, your other option is to start trying smaller rear bars, or remove the rear bar entirely. Is your rear track width maxed out? If the amount of body roll you're getting is unacceptable with those solutions, then you'll have to stiffen up the springs all around.

[Dustin M.]

RCR to make the rules more platform specific?

[soundguydave1548534741]

Or maybe just make swaybars unrestricted, perhaps with just a few provisions to keep pure insanity in check:

 

 

"Anti-roll bars are unrestricted, provided they use the original system of attachment and end-link style, are of a one piece design, and not cockpit-adjustable. They may be added, deleted, replaced or modified."

 

Seems pretty simple. Allows any aftermarket bar that uses stock mounting points and endlink styles, and prohibits splined "blade-style" high dollar units.

 

Let's face it, swaybar sets are STILL cheap in the grand scheme of things.

[Dustin M.]

Yeah, but I think the intent with the most recent change was to be able to grab a bar from O'Reillys and not Maximum Motorsports.

[DrC]

Let me turn this around and ask the GM guys are you having a problem finding upgraded sway bar that meets these spec?

 

Car Front Sway Bar Max OD Rear Sway Bar Max OD

1982-1992 Early GM 36mm 24mm

1993-2002 Late GM 35mm 21mm

[Glenn]

Let me turn this around and ask the GM guys are you having a problem finding upgraded sway bar that meets these spec?

 

Car Front Sway Bar Max OD Rear Sway Bar Max OD

1982-1992 Early GM 36mm 24mm

1993-2002 Late GM 35mm 21mm

 

The 4th gen 21 is no longer available from GM. It was a 1 year only production item.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Yeah, but I think the intent with the most recent change was to be able to grab a bar from O'Reillys and not Maximum Motorsports.

 

You always could grab a bar from O'Reillys, as long as it was an OE replacement part that was legal for the chassis. As it sits now, with the "any bar under the max size," you can go to Maximum Motorsports, or whoever to get a bar. NOW the trick is to try to find that one vendor that actually makes a bar that meets the size spec. I think most aftermarket bars are still going to be larger than stock. Unless, of course, you pay to have a custom bar done up, with tubing size and wall thickness to spec. That's also legal under the rules as the currently sit, and judging by the wheel fiasco from last year, may well be the (unstated) intent of the rule. We've already opened the door for custom parts (wheels, custom-wound springs) and this may well be the next chapter in that evolution. Rule only says that it has to follow the OEM profile and use bayonet-style end-links.

[Dustin M.]

Yeah, that is the flipside of it. Truth be told, I don't know what size bars are on my car or what sizes were even options on the 4th gens, shame on me. With the high spring rates I have though, I think stock bars will serve me well if I get my hands on an alternate size for front and rear should such a thing exist. I do think this should be more closely examined for the next rule change though so the sway bar diameters for each platform more closely reflect the intent of the rules.

[MHISSTC]

On the basis of the data we provided to CMC management, I can confidently say the FOX platform was EXHAUSTIVELY researched and documented, while the SN95 was documented just as well with regard to outside bar diameter. Wall thickness and inside diameter of the hollow bars is not as clearly documented on the SN95s. But, the applicable rule doesn't take into account wall thickness or inside diameter anyway. Since the S197 can't play in our sandbox, those don't matter any more. If there is anything not adequately documented, it's from the GM crowd, and I doubt that's the case. I just don't have first hand knowledge of it being done.

 

Like you've already found out, I don't think anyone ever adequately documented the aftermarket bar dimensions. This will also likely continue to be a moving target.

 

Unless, of course, you pay to have a custom bar done up, with tubing size and wall thickness to spec. That's also legal under the rules as the currently sit, and judging by the wheel fiasco from last year, may well be the (unstated) intent of the rule. We've already opened the door for custom parts (wheels, custom-wound springs) and this may well be the next chapter in that evolution. Rule only says that it has to follow the OEM profile and use bayonet-style end-links.

 

That's exactly what makes me uneasy about this rule. I'm not sure where it came from. It makes me think we are not seeing the whole picture. Is there someone out there who has found a source of outside diameter spec bars that are solid replacements to the hollow bars and they aren't saying a peep about their source?

[Dustin M.]

So perhaps we require a small hole drilled in the center of the swaybar to verify wall thickness? Then all the platform specific gurus set to work measuring what they've got. No different than verifying tube thickness on a roll cage, right?

[DrC]

I had asked the questions - GM guys are you having a problem finding upgraded sway bar that meets these spec?

 

Just did a quick look out on Summit Racing and I found 8 front sway bars that come in at 36mm or less. Brand names like, Addco, Hellwig, Hotchkis, QA1 and Bellitech. Understand that some of these may be for drag racing and would come in smaller. The range was 29mm - 35mm.

[DrC]

Rules Change Requests

 

I plan to submit this as a RCR and would like to get your input so we can keep it simple. If you read the post you will see I have collected some details related to Mustang but have little related to the GM cars. I would like this to be worded so it would easily apply to both the GM and Mustang cars.

The change request I would like to make is to remove the OD size reference but keep the other details.

Suggested change to the rule:

The sway bar(s) may be removed or any solid or hollow one piece sway bar(s) that matches the OEM profile/contour and use the original system of attachment and OEM bayonet style end links (i.e. a direct bolt in).

[Glenn]

Not gonna happen. The rule was opened up from OEM only to aftermarket equivalent of OEM to make it easier to find the limited production bars like the 35mm front and 21mm rear for the 4th gens. There was never a plan to open it up completly.

[MHISSTC]

Rules Change Requests

Suggested change to the rule:

The sway bar(s) may be removed or any solid or hollow one piece sway bar(s) that matches the OEM profile/contour and use the original system of attachment and OEM bayonet style end links (i.e. a direct bolt in).

 

Giving this topic the benefit of consideration if you intend to submit an RCR to open up aftermarket swaybars to everyone...

 

We currently allow sway bar mount modifications for bars that are not direct bolt-ins (SN95 in a FOX), so I don't think the wording "direct bolt-in" should be used. In it's place I could see "OEM type" or "OEM style" attachment with regard to the mounts and end links.

 

I don't think the profile/contour element should be a requirement as that is going to be hard to define and verify with any degree of accuracy on aftermarket bars. I do think a range of sizes, either hollow or solid, should be specified.

 

What I think should be added is that the sway bars need to remain "unadjustable". I suppose one could argue that unadjustable bars make it more expensive to tune the suspension since you now have to posses a number of sway bars for the front and back. A single adustable bar, while initially more expensive than any OEM bar, could end up saving money in the long run by only needing one bar on each end to tune the suspension. I have a feeling Mr Supercharged111 will chime in and say learning suspension setup is a goal of the series, and an adjustable bar would be one step towards that goal. However, I don't like adjustable bars for the simple fact that I think it goes well beyond the intention of CMC to keep things cheap, easy, and simple as an entry level series.

[DrC]

I am not in favor of having an adjustable sway bars, that is the one reason I only have a single adjustable shock I would be out there attempting to make changes all the time and not working on my driving.

 

Glen - based on what I am finding the GM cars have a lot of options for aftermarket sway bars where the Fords do not. The statement above should also be applied to the Fords to allow them more options but with no OD limitation.

[D Algozine]

I have never understood why it is limited to OEM diameter bars.

It cant be a cost thing. Nearly all bars cost about the same. This is where the 4th gen is severely limited, mainly for rear bars. I've never heard a logical answer as to why. 3rd gens have many options. The Mustangs have been expanded to include non Mustang bars. Why the limit on the 4th gen? Again, why not make it easy to tune and tweak for all platforms. Ten minutes to change a rear bar. There are thousands of cheap, stock OEM 3rd gen bars at 22 and 24mm that are available, and direct fit in a 4th gen. The 22's and 24's are used, easier to find and cheaper then the 21.

[MHISSTC]

The Mustangs have been expanded to include non Mustang bars.

 

There are thousands of cheap, stock OEM 3rd gen bars at 22 and 24mm that are available, and direct fit in a 4th gen.

 

It would be a stretch for me to explain why the front sway bars from an SN95 are legal on a FOX when you have to use an adapter at the frame rail mounting points, but the reason the 79-93 FOX Mustang/Capri can use a Lincoln Mark VII front swaybar is because they have the same chassis. The Mark VII swaybars are identical in size and shape to the Mustang/Capri front swaybars with the only difference being the slightly longer ends on the Mark VII bar needed to properly mount up to the slightly longer Lincoln lower control arms that give it a wider track width. So when the '79-'93 Mustangs/Capris are converted to the '94-'04 SN95 front suspension with the longer lower control arms, the Mark VII swaybar is a cheap and easy swap as direct bolt-in OEM replacement.

 

If I understand what you're saying, the 3rd/4th gen bars are directly swap-able as a simple bolt-in OEM replacement similar to the situation I've described above for the FoMoCo units.

 

There is still a division between the Early/Late GM (the Early designation needs to be removed from the FoMoCo since there are no more S197s in the series). And if there is no up/back-dating between the 3rd gen/4th gen platforms because of it, I feel there needs to be an exception granted in this case if they really are that easy to find and swap. If they are essentially the same bar with exception to the diameter, I think we are too hung up on keeping OEM diameter bars to their respective generations.

[Glenn]

SN-95 bars on a fox.....

the fox was allowed to use the sn95 lower arms for track width gain (legal per update/backdate rules). The fox bar was too narrow causing issues with endlinks. The wider bar helps this issue.

[cozog1548534733]

[

If I understand what you're saying, the 3rd/4th gen bars are directly swap-able as a simple bolt-in OEM replacement similar to the situation I've described above for the FoMoCo units.

 

There is still a division between the Early/Late GM (the Early designation needs to be removed from the FoMoCo since there are no more S197s in the series). And if there is no up/back-dating between the 3rd gen/4th gen platforms because of it, I feel there needs to be an exception granted in this case if they really are that easy to find and swap. If they are essentially the same bar with exception to the diameter, I think we are too hung up on keeping OEM diameter bars to their respective generations.

 

Actually, the division between 3rd and 4th gens is a non-issue when it comes to rear sway bars. The GM p/n for a 21mm 3rd gen rear bar is the same GM p/n as for the 4th gen 21mm rear bar. It's the same bar.

 

The real problem is finding one. Incredibly rare on 4th gens (93 only 1LE, I think) and very rare 3rd gens (only on certain low production number models). I'm going to submit a RCR for allowing 22mm bar on with 4th gens simply because they are being manufactured in mass by a few different companies. NO one is making a 21mm bar, even if they advertise it as such. I've tried Dorman (turned out to be 19mm), BMR (25mm only) and UMI (22mm only) because they all had 21mm in the advertised part description. But the delivered product was never 21mm. 22mm yes, all day, 21mm never. UMI, Spohn and Strano all offer a 22mm bar for around $175.

[Glenn]

I will let you in on a dirty little secret about the 22mm bars...... at one time they were OEM 21's that were powdercoated. Thats what added the extra 1mm.

I know this first hand.

I would rather just allow the 3rd gen and 4th gen to be allowed to update and backdate as long as it is a bolt in deal.

[cozog1548534733]

I will let you in on a dirty little secret about the 22mm bars...... at one time they were OEM 21's that were powdercoated. Thats what added the extra 1mm.

I know this first hand.

I would rather just allow the 3rd gen and 4th gen to be allowed to update and backdate as long as it is a bolt in deal.

 

LOL. Never thought about paint thickness.

But let's get it in the rulebook somehow then. Or maybe I should just grind some paint off and area for measurement.

 

They are bolt it swaps.

[DrC]

If we removed the OD size reference from the rule the size would not be an issue.