The complete automotive resource for buyers, sellers, and owners like you.
Car, Truck and SUV Forums at Roadfly
+ Bentley Forums
+ BMW Forums
+ Cadillac Forums
+ Chevrolet Forums
+ Ferrari Forums
+ Jaguar Forums
+ Lamborghini Forums
+ Lotus Forums
+ Mercedes-Benz Forums
+ Maserati Forums
+ MINI Forums
+ Porsche Forums
+ General Discussion
+ Marketplace Forums
swaybar stiffness vs. hole setting (archive)
[ Follow Ups ] [ E36 M3 Message Board ] [ Msg. Board FAQ ]
Posted by twhite35 on November 11, 2001 at 18:15:21:

I don't understand the issue of the swaybar thickness/stiffness vs the various (usually 3) holes you can use to set the stiffness to. What is the point of getting a
thick, stiff bar and then setting it to the soft position on the tab? Why not just leave the stock bar in there?

According to the UUC web site, the Dinan sway bars are thinner in the front than stock and thicker in the rear, so that "Dinan's sway bars are designed to dial in more oversteer, to counteract the factory designed understeer. However, this is at the expense of increase front body roll."

Do you guys think this is true? Would Dinan have been better off putting in thick bars front and rear (like Eibach, UUC, etc) to reduce body roll and then using the positions in the holes to counteract the understeer? Or does setting the front bars to the softest hole setting also
increase body roll while cutting back on understeer?

I am very interested in the Dinan suspension, but this issue bugs me. But perhaps its just a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Thanks in advance for any clarification.



Follow Ups:


[ Follow Ups ] [ E36 M3 Message Board ] [ Msg. Board FAQ ]
Questions, comments, or problems, please visit the Roadfly help desk.
Roadfly.com Logo © 1997 - 2009 Jump Internet Inc. All rights reserved.