Chevy Impala SS Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey guys...


What is the diameter of the factory front sway bar on my 95 Fleetwood Brougham? RockAuto lists a million different sizes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
As you said a million sizes. If you don't have calipers just use an adjustable wrench and then measure the gap.

Mark: Snowman-33
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,911 Posts
This guy states he saw another's post listing a particular dia. as stock for FW. But that's like ?4th party info lol:
https://buickforums.com/forums/threads/28mm-front-sway-bar-with-26mm-rear.43165/


Question now: I couldn't wait to ditch my FE1 front and rear bars for old SS pieces. I felt no degraded straightline floatiness, but felt much more stable in turns. Aftermarket rear LCAs certainly helped too. Interested in if/why you're set on keeping the stock bar.
 

·
Registered
1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Interested in if/why you're set on keeping the stock bar.
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.

I may actually swap the Fleetwood front bar for my wagon front bar, since I think the one in the wagon is slightly bigger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,911 Posts
Check. Glad you circled back. I'm with you biding my time with gradual gains approaching what I consider the 'perfect' ride. Not to be redundant but since the FWB is the driver I found I couldn't beat the "firm up but not lock down" + "cheapest all-in" with just some sacked out SS bars both ends. Those can be had on the cheap and scads less than anything new aftermarket. For my money it's the rear LCAs to apply any extra available funds. A used set of any aftermarket v. boxing the stock ones. I loved the oversteer with double SS rear bars on my first FWB. This time not so much and just my current sig with 1/3 coil off the fronts. Heaven + cheap.

Best luck.
 

·
Registered
1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Instead 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.

Any input?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,510 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
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?
The RWD vans use a 28 mm front bar, but IIRC, they aren't close to fitting. Totally different shape.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
828 Posts
Instead 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.

Any input?
I can measure the front and rear bars on my 96 Fleetwood commercial chassis this weekend
 

·
Registered
1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Just to follow up:

Fix Until Broke has confirmed that the commercial chassis uses 30 mm front and 26 mm rear bars.

In other words, the commercial chassis uses the same sway bars as the SS, 9c1, and V4P cars.

Special thanks to Fix Until Broke! 👍
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,452 Posts
The various GM parts bin combinations were on full display with the B-body.

Sedans could have a 28mm front bar & no rear bar (FE1/FE2), or 30mm front & 26mm rear bar. Applicable models with F/R bars were 9C1, WX3/WX8, and B4U for Chevy. RPO's for the higher level suspension included FE3, FE4, and 7B3
  • FE3 (B4U) was for the Caprice with 15" wheels, standard (twin tube) shocks, and a few other specific B4U only items.
  • FE4 (WX3/8) was for Impala/Caprice SS with 17" wheels, deCarbon monotube gas shocks, and included specific front stabilizer end link hardware (hard plastic/nylon instead of rubber insulators on the links), JB9/JL9 brakes.
  • 7B3 (9C1) was for Caprice with 15" wheels, standard shocks, JA9/JL9 brakes with specific mods for brake cooling, and a different mix of body mount cushions compared to FE3/FE4, special front lower control arm rear bushings
  • Bilstein shocks (SEO (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.
Wagons had ONLY the 28mm front bar in production. FE1 or FE2

Fleetwood had a 28mm front bar, or a 28mm F/small (very small) rear, or the aforementioned 30/26 combination. FE1 or FE2, possibly FE3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,510 Posts
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.
Don't think the '91-'93 9C1s or 9C6s (taxis) used 8X3.
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.
Never owned a FoMoCo anything, but unless I'm mistaken, Bilstein also did a similar digressively valved option for the Crown Vic P71.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caddylack

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,510 Posts
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caddylack

·
Registered
1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Freshly spawned question:

Are there any other rear bars on 94-96 sedans besides the 26 mm? Is the rear bar from my 94 Fleetwood identical to the rear bar from a 96 SS, for example?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,452 Posts
Once GM went to the "conforming" bar - with the kickout for the differential, there was no other (larger) rear bar, all were the same PN. In the 70's there was a Pontiac rear bar for A-body (think GrandAm) that I recall was larger - I had one on a 77 Caprice, but I do not recall whether it mounted in the same manner, but it was BIG - 30+mm. It was the "V" style, that dipped below the diff, not the later design. As mentioned, FW did have a smaller rear bar on a lesser suspension package (FE1?).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,452 Posts
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.
8X3 Bilstein shocks:
The application was 1992-1996 caprice B19 SEO SUSP
front part # 22064499
rear part # 22064600

You brought up 9C6 - taxi....I never mentioned it.

In 1999, I attended the SEMA Show in Las Vegas - the new (at the time) Tahoe/Suburban with coil-spring chassis was being shown, and I crawled under to see what I could of the rear bar setup. When the parts became available, I ordered what was available, made some saddles that were welded to the axle tubes, and put the bar on. It should have been narrowed slightly....but no matter, I jammed it in anyway. Bar arms face to the rear, and I modified the links to mount to the frame. I never even tried to see if it would have been possible to mount the bar with the arms facing forward. Can't tell you how effective it was or wasn't, but I was working on the theory of articulation over bind of the lower control arms, using Global West lower arms with spherical bearings forward and DelALum bushing to the rear. Not ideal, but a big bar was going to put loads on the lowers I didn't want.

Not the best picture to show details.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Wow, Bill. Good stuff.

I still wonder about Trailblazer sway bars.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top