Yes. If you're lifted, why would you only do the fronts? You wanna do both.
PSA - For Lifted 100s - Front extended sway bar links (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter uzj100
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I've seen very few mentions of folks only doing the fronts that's why I ask. I figured it had something to do with the ifs up front?
I'm not clear on how changing the swaybar link length changes response at all. The sway bar gets "loaded" by twisting, like our torsion bars do. But it's only twisting if one side is compressed more than the other. (the bushings that mount it to the frame allow it to turn freely, more-or-less) With a lift, on level ground, both sides are even, and so there is no load on the sway bar. Albeit the angle the sway bar meets the link has changed, but that doesn't affect the torsion on the bar.
Now when one wheel moves up some amount, whether you're lifted or not, the amount your control arm moves is the same. Thus the load on the sway bar is the same in both cases. So unless I'm missing something, the only thing extended links change is the angle that your sway bar meets your links. I'm not saying that effect isn't important (don't know if it is or not, personally), but that's the only effect I see. What's the thing I'm missing?
Now when one wheel moves up some amount, whether you're lifted or not, the amount your control arm moves is the same. Thus the load on the sway bar is the same in both cases. So unless I'm missing something, the only thing extended links change is the angle that your sway bar meets your links. I'm not saying that effect isn't important (don't know if it is or not, personally), but that's the only effect I see. What's the thing I'm missing?
Eyedaho
SILVER Star
I agree with you that having a greater angle between the end link and the sway bar is not ideal. You have a rod passing through the center of a hole. In its designed configuration, with the rod parallel to the hole, most of the forces applied to the rod are in tension and compression which the rod handles well. Once they are no longer parallel due to a lift, you introduce more bending and possibly shear forces, which are more likely to damage the link and distort the bushings.
Regarding the torsion being applied to the sway bar, remember that you're not just talking about a straight bar. You also have the end portions that act as a lever to apply the force. As you change the angle that the force is applied to that lever, you change how much torsional force is applied to the bar I think. At least, those are my uneducated thoughts on it. I'm sure @TRAIL TAILOR could explain it better and more correctly.
Last edited:
Been finding ways to help make the 100 drive a bit better. Feels like an adventure every time I get in for a drive lol
started out with the OME lift..leaky CV axles led to diff drop..slight vibration and torn boots led to CV axle swaps...SPC UCAs for more travel... and now looking at the extended links to cure the uneasiness.
In any case the bushings are chewed to oblivion so I can only benefit at this point lol
started out with the OME lift..leaky CV axles led to diff drop..slight vibration and torn boots led to CV axle swaps...SPC UCAs for more travel... and now looking at the extended links to cure the uneasiness.
In any case the bushings are chewed to oblivion so I can only benefit at this point lol
@TRAIL TAILOR carries them.
We have the identical setup, will let you know the difference when I get them delivered
Thanks!
So TT links for front n rear came in, installed it, and just went for a short drive through some moderate 50mph backroad turns.
It feels more planted as opposed holding on to dear life before.
Mind you, my OME bars are cranked to damn near level.
Wasn’t really expecting a crazy change, but now I’m curious if new bushings would achieve the same planted behavior...
I also used @TRAIL TAILOR for front and rear. I did rear first then front a couple weeks later. Just doing the rear solved my "flop" and firmed up the ride in the twisties and the back to back traffic circles in the neighborhood. Adding the front helped just a bit more, making my 14 year old ride feel many years newer. It was admittedly unscientific to replace the link bushings and extend them at the same time--changing two things at the same time. Given @TRAIL TAILOR 's obvious expertise I'm willing to admit the extended links made at least some difference. And, my bushings were compressed with age so the new ones could not have hurt either. Bottom line, I'm far more confident rolling into highway turns with extra speed and can get back on the gas earlier leaving the turns. It's no porsche but it feels like a modern "car" again. $250 very well spent and given the ease of the project (14mm and 12mm socket and wrench), totally worth doing to get under the car as a noob mechanic. Totally recommend a flexible ratcheting 12/14mm closed wrench for the rear.
Since it (seems it) is impossible to put a torque wrench on the rear upper bolt, can anyone recommend a calibrated eyeball/elbow amount of bushing compression/bulge and advise if compressing tighter or not enough has any impact on handling (on road) assuming there's no free play at least? Seems to me like at some point torque isn't really increasing but the bushing continues to compress.
Last edited:
It can only help--in my one experience with the same setup (including old bushings).
No one here in Australia makes or supplies longer front swaybar links, I ended making my own up just to see the difference... I noticed very little difference, certainly not enough to bother doing what I did. The standard length front links don't limit any droop, and the sway bar angle isn't that bad when lifted to the maximum ride height. Even with the longer front Icon shocks I have, the standard links work fine and don't limit articulation/droop.
When we do a lift on the ifs, the extra height and suspension travel we gain isn't anything crazy, not like what we gain on the rear axle, the longer links are certainly needed on the rear due to the much longer droop we can achieve with long travel shocks.
With those that are reporting a massive differences with the longer links... My guess is... You're standard oem link bushes were probably stuffed and the new longer links just feel that much better, mostly because the bushes are new. However, there's no harm in using these slightly longer links, just not necessarily worth the extra effort or dollars. Just my opinion.
When we do a lift on the ifs, the extra height and suspension travel we gain isn't anything crazy, not like what we gain on the rear axle, the longer links are certainly needed on the rear due to the much longer droop we can achieve with long travel shocks.
With those that are reporting a massive differences with the longer links... My guess is... You're standard oem link bushes were probably stuffed and the new longer links just feel that much better, mostly because the bushes are new. However, there's no harm in using these slightly longer links, just not necessarily worth the extra effort or dollars. Just my opinion.
Just did this. 01 LX, Ironman foam cell pro lift, spc UCAs, 285 KO2s. Didn’t expect it to do much, but it actually did help a little bit. Truck just feels a little more “relaxed” I guess. It’s not back to AHC comfort mode glory, but it’s a slight improvement. I think some of that is just from replacing 23 year old bushings though.
Truck still rides like s*** though lol. but I think that’s mostly on the KO2s being E-rated, and a little bit on the Ironman lift being a little stiff for its current weight. No armor or other silly heavy stuff… yet.
Truck still rides like s*** though lol. but I think that’s mostly on the KO2s being E-rated, and a little bit on the Ironman lift being a little stiff for its current weight. No armor or other silly heavy stuff… yet.
