A







B



A has the bar parallel to the frame where as B as the bar at an angle to the frame.



Which one is mounted correctly?

I was always told to tighten the hardware with the weight on the wheels so A looks correct

Huh?

Isn't B the rear end with everything at full droop?
Look at the angle of the trailing arm...

I think both pics are correct.

Both A and B were taking with the same car sitting on the ground.

A has a spacer that makes the inner mounts for the swaybar move. That makes the swaybar even with the car.

B is just bolted straight into place. Its at an angle to the car.

I think it depends on how much preload you want.

Quoted: Both A and B were taking with the same car sitting on the ground. A has a spacer that makes the inner mounts for the swaybar move. That makes the swaybar even with the car. B is just bolted straight into place. Its at an angle to the car.

Dude, in one picture there's a wheel mounted, in the other picture there isn't.

ETA: As long as nothing hits during full wheel travel on either side it really won't make any difference (that you'll be able to tell) whether it's mounted level or not. It just looks better with eveything parallel. It's the way the brain works.

2nd ETA: Maybe it's just the angle of the camera, but it looks like the top bar is mounted inverted compared to the bar in pic B. That wouldn't effect the way it works, just maybe whether or not it clears everything. MAYBE that's why the bar in pic A had the spacers installed

Quoted: I think it depends on how much preload you want.

There's not really any preload on a sway bar with the vehicle level. It doesn't do anything till the body rolls.

B as long as there is full clearance at full sag and full compression.

A has reduced ground clearance under compression as well as adds more flex overall.

Quoted: Quoted: I think it depends on how much preload you want. There's not really any preload on a sway bar with the vehicle level. It doesn't do anything till the body rolls.

+1

You are correct. Well, there's not supposed to be any preload on them.

The bar end "flats" and the vertical link should be at 90 degrees to one another with the car in a resting, static condition. This allows you to tighten them to specification and during any body roll, the bushings will exert the same force (by storing energy due to deformation of the urethane) on the bar end regardless of the direction of deflection of the anti-roll bar with respect to the vertical links.

In picture "B" (picture "A" did not load, so I can't comment), the bar end "flat" is at an angle to the vertical link, thereby making it difficult to get the bolt tightened properly. Don't know what car it's on, but let's assume that the bar ends point to the rear of the car. In an hard right hand turn, the "joint" where the bushings and the anti-roll bar connect will get tighter and maybe tight enough to actually lift the wheel off the ground, while the "joint" on the left side will actually become looser, much looser than desired and not load the bushings on the left side at all. It would be like not having the anti-roll bar hooked up on the left side, or maybe having it connected but not properly tightened.

If, in picture "B", the links were too short, and we had the same hard right turn, the opposite reactions would take place at each bar end. The right "joint" would loosen, while the left side would tighten too much or reach the "limit" of the bushing's "squashiness" (yeah, that's a technical term) too early. It may be so tight as to make the left wheel break traction way before you wanted it to. Another undesirable condition.

Remember, contrary to what many people say, body roll is not evil. Some is needed to absorb the weight transfer over time (slow down) instead of immediately. Sudden weight transfer can overwhelm the tires and cause loss of traction.

While not the end of the world, picture "B" is a poor way to do it. If it were my car, and I had proper clearance, I'd go for shorter vertical links to get the relationship between the bar ends and the links closer to the 90 degrees, or bend the end of the bar ends to make them work (yeah, right), or find the right anti-roll bar for that car. My guess is that it's the right bar but the suspension height has been changed (lowered) with no consideration for the bar end/vertical link relationship. Buy shorter links if you have the clearance to do so. That's the only practical solution.

And they're not swaybars. They are anti-roll bars.

My $ .02

"A" is correct.

And Ghost Ring, "B' can't be a rearend-there's no differential.

Nick

Quoted: "A" is correct. And Ghost Ring, "B' can't be a rearend-there's no differential. Nick

LOL .  Ever hear of a front wheel drive car?

Quoted: Quoted: "A" is correct. And Ghost Ring, "B' can't be a rearend-there's no differential. Nick LOL .  Ever hear of a front wheel drive car?

Aren't those for getting groceries and going to the post office? Why would you need a good bar on that?  


Nick

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "A" is correct. And Ghost Ring, "B' can't be a rearend-there's no differential. Nick LOL .  Ever hear of a front wheel drive car? Aren't those for getting groceries and going to the post office? Why would you need a good bar on that?   Nick

I won't argue with you there.

Same car sitting on the ground?  Uhhhhh.............

Quoted: "A" is correct. Nick

Yup.

Now that picture "A" finally loaded for me, it looks pretty good. Don't really like the little black blocks used for standoffs, but it gets the job done if there's no clearance to use shorter links. They look like hard rubber, which will put more stress on the bolts and maybe let them work loose sooner, but ya gotta do what you can.

Note the 90 degree relationship between the vertical links and the anti-roll bar flat ends. Exactly like it ought to be. Good job!