Chevy Impala SS Forum banner

21 - 31 of 31 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
Lol, the picture in the RA link the OP posted is in fact an adjustable panhard bar. I don't care what the part numbers say, so technically I'm not wrong. :p

Steve
Well Steve, I don't care what you say so technically I'm not wrong!

Time to drop out of this silliness and get to things that are way more important!

Mike--94MSP9C1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,131 Posts
Now now now. Everyone's week is obviously going as well as mine to be socratically debating this so much. Post 20 pretty much put it to bed - if not much earlier. Suffice to say there ain't nothing "lateral" pertaining to the rear suspension in a B-/D- except the sway bar. And we've figured out the probability of that skinny little threaded thing being installed 'longitudinally" in our cars is somewhere between "useless" and "stupid". I can just see the kids on FB and W- forum laffin' their asses off all us arguing over this. ;)


Nothing Makes Sense Anymore Traders Fear Debt Market Distortions Signal Something Big Is ...


The Speed Tech rear bar does not mount to the control arms - it mounts to the rear rend itself and up to the frame on the end links - Much like the Crown Vic's

Good find. Much like the TBSS and CV as you say. But what looks like a min. $1,500 ante up for this option new is scary compared to one of those other bars in a JY with just some aftermarket lowers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
"
I'm sure somebody already noticed, but that is an adjustable panhard bar to properly center the rear axle. It would be useful on a b-body that has a fixed length panhard bar in order to center the axle when the car is raised or lowered beyond factory specs. It's too bad nobody makes a watts link for the rear as it is a much better design that prevents the axle from traveling in an arc to just straight up and down.

Steve"


FAYS2 makes a "hotrod" watts link kit with your supplied measurements that would only require minimal welding. I keep thinking about doing this but my concerns are

A) my chassis is already painted, gas tank in, car is almost fully back together and after 13 years of building it the idea of taking things apart again doesn't excite me

B) not sure I want to add more weight to an already pig heavy car. LSX iron block, LSA supercharger, trunk mounted 7 gallon water tank, boxed chassis, 1 3/4 .090 wall "DMR" bar, Dynamat etc... I've already added a ton of weight to the heavy pig

What I do like about the watts link is I think it would greatly reduce bind in the triangulated 4 link setup because the upper arms should never see any side load. IT would probably actually be best to run a parallel 4 link but now you are talking about some major modifications to the chassis and rear to correct the upper arm angle. In theory though, if the watts link is taking on all of the side load, the upper control arm bushings will now only see load from one direction (to maintain pinion angle) and I would think this would help a setup with a one side delrin/poly or double sided deleon/poly bushings move through their range of motion smoother without bind.
 

·
Registered
1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
Now now now. Everyone's week is obviously going as well as mine to be socratically debating this so much. Post 20 pretty much put it to bed - if not much earlier. Suffice to say there ain't nothing "lateral" pertaining to the rear suspension in a B-/D- except the sway bar. And we've figured out the probability of that skinny little threaded thing being installed 'longitudinally" in our cars is somewhere between "useless" and "stupid". I can just see the kids on FB and W- forum laffin' their asses off all us arguing over this. ;)


Nothing Makes Sense Anymore Traders Fear Debt Market Distortions Signal Something Big Is ...




Good find. Much like the TBSS and CV as you say. But what looks like a min. $1,500 ante up for this option new is scary compared to one of those other bars in a JY with just some aftermarket lowers.
What can you tell me about using trailblazer bars on our cars? The ones on the SS and 5.3 models are huge. Big enough that TBSS guys often don't even upgrade them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,131 Posts
No personal knowledge, just some threads on it years back. Either or both the Panther and TBSS (or maybe other sizes on TB) conveniently bolt the end links to existing unused (?but enlarged?) frame holes. And then just muffler clamps to the axle visually sim. to the Speed Tech setup. Reported advantages are not required to either box exist. LCAs or replace them, less wt. than the biggest regular aftermarket sway bars, and less torsional stress on both LCAs and UCAs.
 

·
Registered
1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
No personal knowledge, just some threads on it years back. Either or both the Panther and TBSS (or maybe other sizes on TB) conveniently bolt the end links to existing unused (?but enlarged?) frame holes. And then just muffler clamps to the axle visually sim. to the Speed Tech setup. Reported advantages are not required to either box exist. LCAs or replace them, less wt. than the biggest regular aftermarket sway bars, and less torsional stress on both LCAs and UCAs.
The reason I asked is I have searched this forum for Trailblazer info in the past, and came up with nothing. I've definitely heard about the CV rear bar before, but I have no idea how the b-body frame compares to that of a TB.

If anybody is able to dig up a thread or two, that would be sweet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,131 Posts
Search brings up nothing for me either, but I'm sure you've seen this one referencing the Speed Tech, CV, and even the 'Chevelle Bar'.

I'm 'Conversation'-ing someone who may be able to help......
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,327 Posts
The OP asks whether the $25 part is "viable" to serve any function on a B/D chassis. There are people that have created a panhard for this chassis, however, the standard 4-link with upper & lower arms at opposing angles provides centering laterally by it's design. Perhaps it could be "repurposed" - just doubt it would produce any benefit other than to band-aid another part that has failed or is not working as designed.

Adding a panhard creates a forced motion/travel path that is actually going to restrict motion/articulation of the 4-link design - ie. binding. Only the fact that the ends of this part are rubber would reduce that tendency, but being rubber also make the part useless as an active suspension locating device when that has already been dealt with through the upper control arms.

The application listing (Buyers Guide) for this part is corrupted, and it is not a part made for the 4-link B/D chassis. The vehicles it actually fits are FWD, and the part from Mevotech is replacement for OEM links, of which there are 2, one for each side/rear wheel, locating the rear hubs (IRS) laterally. The adjustability feature is for wheel alignment purposes.

A panhard bar is essential in a 3-link setup, and is found on cars with a torque-arm, such as Gen3/4 Camaro, to provide lateral rear axle location.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,327 Posts
This is an odd listing at SpeedTech, no picture, not clear what "frame mount" is referring to - links or bar Factory Style Mount Sway Bars

Only $299.00​
SKU: 233507

Description:
Frame mount 7/8" Adjustable Sway Bar, Reqired for use with Speedtech Trailing Arms

More here about 4-link, panhard, S/T Articulink, etc: Why is Speedtech's 4-link Superior?
 

·
Registered
1995 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
Discussion Starter #31
Thank you, Bill, for finally clearing up that confusion.
 
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
Top