Re: Best of its day?

Posted by BH On 2011/3/1 20:43:07

Keith brought up an interesting aspect on rear sway bars.

RWD cars that had coil spring rear suspension with a solid rear axle used control arms to locate the axle housing. However, lower control arms that pivoted at BOTH ends, allowed for some independent vertical movement of the rear wheels. As such, the ends of a fairly simple stabilizer bar could be bolted between those arms to provide some torsional resistance.

In contrast, the rear axle housing in a Packard with T-L is located by rear support ("trailing") arms which designed to ONLY pivot at the front. The rear of each trailing arm is secured to the axle housing with a U-bolt, much like a leaf spring setup, but without a centering bolt.

Yet, there were later cars with solid rear axle and leaf-spring suspensions that were offered from the factory with a rear sway bar - like Camaro, Firebird, Nova and other GM X-body cars. While '77 and later Caprice, Impala and other GM B-Body wagons used a rear leaf springs (rather than rear coils as on coupe and sedans versions), I don't believe they were ever offer with a rear sway bar.

Some FWD cars of more recent years with IRS have rear stabilizer bars that remind me of the shape that the Camaro used. I can't recall what - if anything - the PT Cruiser had for a rear sway bar, in-conjunction with the rear Watts link set-up.

However, it isn't just a matter of hanging a rear sway bar - that's important. Decades ago, I upgraded my '78 Malibu daily-driver with a rear sway bar from same year Monte Carlo. The Malibu did handle better - except in corners, where it felt like the front end was plowing into the turn and the back end was rising up. A little page turning in the parts books revealed that the Monte also had a larger diamter front sway bar. Another trip to the bone-yard solve that problem.

I'm neither racer, rodder, nor engineer, but coming up with a proper rear sway bar for the T-L Packard could be a rather costly experiment.