As you said a million sizes. If you don't have calipers just use an adjustable wrench and then measure the gap.
It's not that I'm set on keeping the stock bar, it's that I am settling for the stock bar for financial reasons. Eventually I will buy some aftermarket bars, but for now I plan to just do bushings & end links.Interested in if/why you're set on keeping the stock bar.
The RWD vans use a 28 mm front bar, but IIRC, they aren't close to fitting. Totally different shape.Couldn't find front stabilizer bar assembly on RockAuto for Caprice RoadMaster or Fleetwood …
… How big is the front stabilizer bar on a '03-'05 Astrafari minivan?
I can measure the front and rear bars on my 96 Fleetwood commercial chassis this weekendInstead of making a new thread, I will bump this one.
I just saw a reference to "limo sway bars" in a for sale ad. Is this a thing?
Rock Auto lists a 1 1/4" bushing (31.75 mm), and I always wondered if it was an error. Now I'm curious if there may be a larger sway bar size out there that most of us are not aware of.
Don't think the '91-'93 9C1s or 9C6s (taxis) used 8X3.Bilstein shocks (RPO 8X3, I believe) were an option on 9C1/7B3 only for some period of time during '91-'96 production. These were the digressive-valve -1516 & -1517 variants, and the rears were longer to allow more axle drop for changing a wheel/tire with the smaller wheel opening in the '91-'92 Caprice.
Never owned a FoMoCo anything, but unless I'm mistaken, Bilstein also did a similar digressively valved option for the Crown Vic P71.Scott Mueller said:1516/1517 shocks feature slightly firmer compression but also much looser rebound settings than the 1104/0929 shocks, which Chevy believes to help control the car better when it is going over large bumps, uneven roads,
or when it is coming down from being AIRBORNE. (emphasis mine)
1516/1517 shocks are also progressively damped, which means they have a variable rate that offers less resistance to light inputs, and much greater resistance to large inputs. This gives a more comfortable ride, especially over rough roads, and still offers greater control than the original factory shocks when the situation demands. Unfortunately the variable rate also makes them feel floaty during normal driving, especially when compared to the DeCarbon shocks that are standard on the Impala. The 1104/0929 shocks are a linear damped shock, and do indeed "feel" much firmer and offer more control, especially with lighter inputs.
Bilstein commented that the 1516/1517 shocks are one of the only ones they have done where the compression rate is higher than the rebound. These were done specifically for Chevy at the SEO 9C1 platform engineer's request. This does give them more of a "built-in float" than the 1104/0929 shocks. It helps cushion an impact (high compression), but the light rebound makes the car feel somewhat floaty.
How do you come to that conclusion - this was an SEO option, not RPO, so it only appeared in the fleet order guide. I imagine the take rate was pretty low - they were not "standard" as part of 9C1/7B3.Don't think the '91-'93 9C1s or 9C6s (taxis) used 8X3.
8X3 Bilstein shocks:1. Quite simply, I've trouble imagining 9C6-8X3.
2. Don't think 8X3 was even available before or until '94.
3. Willing to bet 8X3 was exclusive to 9C1-LT1 (or possibly also 9C1-L05 if I'm wrong about #2).
Since I'm the digressor, may I also try to pull this thread back toward swaybars?
If I'm not mistaken, you were one of, if not the, first to change to a different rear swaybar action.
That is, instead of the rear swaybar acting along the rear axle vs the trailing arms (which were not quite stiff enough even after the 9C1 box-the-trailing arms TSB), your rear swaybar action was along the rear axle vs the frame.
Those of us with very rusty frames might have good reason to avoid it, but those who have preserved and/or reinforced their frames might appreciate what you learned.