With this piece installed, if you have adjustable end links, they can be lengthened or shortened considerably, thus putting more load/weight (by lenghtening) or reducing loads (by shortening) the links. If load in one corner is increased the diagonally opposed side will also see more weight while loads in the other two corners will obviously decrease as a result.

I can see this being a great tool for the road course where an otherwise neutral and balanced car could be misbehaving in one particular turn, so fine tuning for that specific turn could be done on the fly and improve time. For autocross where we have no idea what we're gonna see I think it's always wise to balance the car as close to 50/50 diagonaly with the driver as humanly possible.

 

Mark had an aftermarket front bar on his SM car and an OEM rear when he won.

Max..not picking up what you are putting down regarding the brackets.

My understanding of how they work is this:

The brackets have holes that change the sway bar pickup position laterally on the arm. So you can shift the pickup closer to the wheel or closer to the chassis. Fore and aft shifting will do nothing.

If you shift it either way the motion ratio and thus the wheel rate changes.

If you shift closer to the chassis the bar will see less torsional deflection & load since the radial movement of the arm at that point is less. Basically the LCA moves up and down less, so the swaybar has less. This would be the equivalent of a smaller diameter front bar.

If you shift closer to the wheel the bar will see greater torsional deflection & load since the radial movement of the arm at that point is greater. The LCA moves up and down more, so the swaybar is forced to deform (or resist deformation) more. This would be the equivalent of a larger diameter front bar.

 

Now that's an interesting bit of information.

I figured the R-comp Evos were running pretty stiff front springs (12-14k+?), but I didn't think you threw FSBs on top of it.

Hmm...

 

I agree. Quite contrary to the previous statement. Makes me reconsider a FSB.

 

glad i got one now

 

I just put in for the SCCA to approve both a FSB and adjustable RSB for my T2 Evo. Looks like it got approved.

Marty

 

I never understood why upgraded front and rear swaybars was such a crazy idea for EVOs. It's a good cheap way to reduce roll without using overly stiff main springs. Use the main springs to reach a desired suspension frequency, then use the bars to reduce roll to whatever you want. If you can't afford coilovers, they do a good job increasing grip on their own. IMO they are not a "band-aid" on a stock EVO or even a well set-up track car.


- Andrew

 

Thanks to everyone on this thread who has contributed to debunking the myth that a stiffer front bar will ALWAYS induce understeer, and especially EVOlutionary for sharing his indepth experience with tuning an Evo for autox.

Sorry for the thread ressurrection, but this is only thread I found that discusses front sway bars in detail.

Can anyone confirm that the OEM front sway bar diameters are the same for Evo 8 and Evo 9? The OEM bar on the front of my '06 Evo IX SE appears to be 24.0 mm.

 

To those who have this Cusco adjustable mount, what setting do you use? I just installed it last night and put it to the stiffest setting, while using oem endlinks. The dust boot peels back some due to how much flex I'm putting on it. I can't read the Japanese manual either to know if certain Evo models shouldn't be using certain settings.

 

Sup bro. I've got the KW's, set mine up 2nd from the outside on the mount and outside on the bar (kw as well). So if your on oem i'd say stiffest or one softer depending on where the bar lined up OEM.

 

Thanks. I set it to the stiffest setting with oem swaybar. It looks like the endlinks are stretched to its limits at that setting, the dust cover is starting to peel back. Without changing anything else, I took a strong higher speed turn into a Publix shopping area and the fronts immediately let loose first, understeering. I tested some low speed violent slaloms in the back of the store and the fronts also let loose first. Then I went home and set the rear bar a notch stiffer. It's back closer to a neutral setup now. I took the same turn into Publix again, and all 4 tires are sliding into corner entry. The car seems very stiff and solid now. I may test it with the stiffest rear setting and see. I just don't want it too squirrely doing slaloms. I'm hoping the endlinks will handle it.

Btw, are you in FL again Balrok?

 

If I remember correctly the 3 inside points are for the EVO VIII-IX and the 3 outside points are for either an earlier Evo or the X, can't remember. I had to use some spacers on the mounting bolts to get my Whiteline end links to not bind at the outermost setting with my my Tanabe front bar. If I have it right, the very inside should be softer than stock. 2nd hole is stock, and 3rd hole is stiffer (more roll resistance) than stock. . .

EVOlutionary

 

I'm not sure the 2nd hole is stock. If you look at this picture, the Cusco's 2nd hole lines up with stock, but sits higher, giving the swaybar more slack than stock.

 

Height doesn't matter at all. All that does is rotate the whole bar up or down a bit. In and out laterally is what affects the leverage of the control arm vs. the sway bar.

Don't know what you mean by "slack" . . .

 

Here's a pic of the oem vs the stiffest Cusco setting:



Notice the swabar sits closer to the bracket and the endlink is very stretched.


So I finally understand what you mean, and the meaning of this mod .