Daniel Marsh

Hello again all,
I am confused, isn't there 1 bar used in the front of my 1969 442? Why are there more than one possibility for the sway to frame bushings? There should only be one possible bar with the nubs on the end right? Am I to order 15/16" bushings or 1"? What I read is 31/32" so which should I use? This is the last item I need before we begin reconstruction so any help would be awesome and appreciated!

Ozzie

This probably won't answer your question, but the Olds parts book I have dated Aug. 1973 shows four different numbers for front stabilizers and three different numbers for the bushings for the Olds "A" body for 1969. Diameters are not referenced for all applications. It's a bit of a guess, but the GM part number for your application will probably be 388294. Perhaps you could check the shaft diameter and/or refer to the old bushings.(?)

joe_padavano

OK, well, this WILL answer your question.

The 442 used the 31/32 front bar. The Vista Cruiser used the 1" front bar. If you have a 1" bar, get the bushings from a VC.

Keep in mind that proper handling requires a balance between the front and back bars. The A-body is an understeering pig to start with, and making the front stiffer without also making the back stiffer just makes it understeer more. The VC used a bigger front bar because 1) it wasn't intended to be a sports car, and 2) the rearward weight bias made it oversteer more than the coupes anyway. Herb Adams would actually use a larger rear bar than the front bar on A-bodies to really make the back end come around.

Ozzie

Joe's comments appear to confirm your reading of 31/32" as the diameter of your bar. I'm assuming that the bushing sizes available to you are either 1/32" smaller @ 15/16" or 1/32" larger @ 1", and you're wondering which way to go. My choice would be the smaller size. That way, if they proved to be too tight, they could be reamed a bit larger. If they were too large, getting a snug fitment would be a bigger problem.

jpc647

So if thats the case, wouldn't we all be better off putting the 1" sway bar in the rear and the smallest possible bar in the front? Like a 5/8" diameter bar?

I think we'd all rather have oversteer than under. At least we can compensate for over, and any of you guys with slightly hopped up drivetrains could just power through.

I only revised a dead thread because I'm about to start a suspention overhaul, and wondering if it's even worth upgrading the front 7/8' bar. To go from the 7/8 to 1 1/4 is a substantial increase, but it'll just push the car to understeer.

cdrod

Put one of these on the rear. Hellwig #55868.

http://scandc.com/new/node/267

It has three settings so you can adjust the amount roll control to suit your car and driving style and the end links are adjustable too. It also moves the sway bar off the lower control arms to reduce suspension binding. I'm building my suspension after powder coating the frame and just put one one my car. It's a very nice kit with clear instructions and all the necessary hardware. I've attached a few pics below, unfortunately I haven't taken a good back view pic.

Adjustable End Link


Side View

joe_padavano

No, not really. First, with a musclecar, it ALWAYS easier to compensate for UNDERsteer - just get on the gas and the rear end will come around.

Second, you still want to minimize roll at both ends of the car. If the front rolls too much you'll get undesirable front tire camber angles, which will really hurt both cornering ability and ride quality.

Bottom line is that you do want a big front bar, just be sure the rear bar is bigger.

jpc647

Joe P,

Make sure the rear sway bar is bigger than the front?

That's what that sentence means, right?

The largest rear bar I can find is a 1" diameter, but the front one can be had up to 1 5/8".

johnnyjaws

I just did a new front end on my 70 cutlass s and it has the 1 inch bar

joe_padavano

Unfortunately, the aftermarket seems to adhere to the mantra that it's better to understeer than oversteer. Herb Adams used to sell a 1.5" rear bar for the A-body, to be used in conjunction with a 1.375" front bar. Unfortunately these are long out of production but show up for sale used occasionally.

I've scored both a 1.5" and 1.25" rear bar and plan to use the latter with a 1.25" WS6 front bar. Keep in mind as you go bigger on the front bar you increase the tear-out loads on the crappy self-tapping fasteners that GM uses to hold the front bar to the frame. Herb Adams used to sell a nut-sert kit to provide a much stronger front bar attachment.

tru-blue 442

Don't mean to highjack, but where
can you find the part # on the front bar?
I have one very similar to the one on my
69 442. I would think it would be the same as the H/O?

joe_padavano

And yet, you are...

Which front bar? The WS6 bar? The stock bar? The Herb Adams bar? The 1 5/8" bar?

tru-blue 442

Kinda thought it might be helpful
for anyone wanting to know where
on the front sway bar of an original
where the p/n would be.
All I could find was a C at the top
of one of the holes.

cdrod

You can identify a factory sway bar by the shape of the ends. This is shown in the ASM and part numbers are listed there as well. See the attached pics from the ASM.

RetroRanger

Are these or an alternative availible? That happened to me on two bolts, I backed the bushing bolt up w a nut but access to the nut us poor, and makes disassembly a PITA?

joe_padavano

Note that this info varies by model year. I assume the chart you posted is for 1972? Also note that the VC got a bigger bar than even the 442 package, proving once again that it's the front-back balance that's important.

cdrod

Joe:
I did get the info from the 72 ASM, and the part numbers I provided should be good for '69-'72. I don't know why the larger VC bar isn't referenced in the ASM. Isn't a VC a 4800 model? The chart only lists a 1" bar for the 4800 models.

On a side note, and I'm no expert here, but I've learned that these cars have very poor front suspension geometry with respect to positive camber gain during compression (like in a hard turn). The suspension design allows the tires to lean out at the top during compression and when combined with the body roll from a turn, the car loses traction as the tire rolls on to the outside edge. If you corrected the geometry so that the car has negative camber gain during compression, it shouldn't understeer so much. With better front-end geometry, do you still need a rear bar that's larger than the front?

joe_padavano

That was my point. VCs (4800 series) got the 1" front bar and no back bar. FE2 cars (including 442s) got the 0.970" front bar and a 0.875" rear bar in those years.

cdrod

For some reason I thought 442's got the 1" bar, guess I should have read the chart more carefully-LOL.

tru-blue 442

Thanks for posting Rodney.
Looks like my extra is a 399924.
I take it this would be correct for the
4400 models, 68-71. (442's)

cdrod

Here is the same info from the '70 ASM which lists the 442 (4400 model).

joe_padavano

Yes, just confirming what we saw on the 72 chart, that FE2 cars got the 0.970" bar, not the 1.00" bar.

Note that six cylinder cars got the front bar made from coat hanger wire. Also note that there were no six cylinder cars for the 1972 model year, which is why that 0.875" front bar doesn't show up on the 72 chart.