Close



Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    FEP Member 86MustangGtRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    351

    Default Maximum motorsports adjustable rear sway bar

    Hi guys, has anyone used the mm rear bar for street use.

  2. #2

    Default

    Yes. Had 2-way adjustable rear shocks with trimmed down factory GT springs on an 86 car. While adjustable there was no setting that provided the desired results with the car. Was helping an SCCA class champion car and driver

    Stock rear spring is too hard for street and front us too soft for roadcourse.

    Factory front and rear swaybar plus adjustable was way too much ó suspension was binding and the car felt like it was bucking with even the best shock setting.

    removed the adjustable when the panhard was installed which eliminated the bind that caused bucking and felt really good. Felt like it needed more spring rate in front for better on track performance.

    Should have tested factory GT and TRX fronts plus no factory rear swaybar with the adjustable, but we didnít

    His car has went a completely different direction ó track only. Serious track use coilovers, torque arm, panhard, front and rear factory swaybar, etc

    I now own the adjustable and may play with it some more down the road on my car or my sonís.

    I run stock GT front springs and 4cyl rear spring and no factory rear sway to give me a lot less binding out back for a better ride. I dropped the front with caster/camber plates and theclonger X2 balljoints which changed the way the car behaves as it rolls in corners. With the stock GT swaybar in front and no rear swaybar it vastly outperforms the stock arrangement mostly because itís around 1 1/2Ē lower than stock.. It could use the adjustable in back for sure. Might be beneficial to run TRX in front with the adjustable as right now rear stays planted and I can push the front ó will just have to see how it feels once itís in place
    Last edited by erratic50; 08-12-2019 at 04:13 PM.

  3. #3
    FEP Member 86MustangGtRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Thank you for all the great information and your experiences with the rear sway bar. I have the mm torque arm with their torque arm springs. I can feel the rear have a bit of body roll. I know I need a larger rear bar to correct that, but I was curious how the adjustable would work out.

  4. #4

    Default

    It depends upon what you are doing. Combined with an oversized front swaybar the adjustable is way better than nothing out back.

    If you step up to hard springs or coilovers you might might the added anti-roll is just the ticket. Its not big enough by itself in my experience.

  5. #5
    FEP Member 86MustangGtRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    351

    Default

    I am just using the car for street use. I currently have the stock gt front and rear sway bars.

  6. #6

    Default

    There is a ton I would do before I would go that route. I would go with their body stiffening mods first. Then I would do the panhard rod setup and then the torque arm. If you have that, then the MM adjustable sway bar makes a lot of sense. Not so much the adjustability, but really, the way it operates. The stock rear sway bar is a really bastardized way of doing it. It works, but not is the bar twisting but it is also stretching at the same time.

    You will love the bracing results for the $$$.

    Good luck
    Kenny

  7. #7
    FEP Power Member qtrracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,793

    Default

    On my 86, I've run the MM solid .75" bar in three of the four settings depending on what suspension I had. For example, with stock K, sn95 a-arms with 300# C/Os and MM's front bar, a PM3L and H&R Super Race rear conventionals, I had the rear bar set at full soft and second from full soft. This allowed the car to rotate with little over-steer drama. However, there was still a lot of push even with sn95 a-arms (increased front track 2" over stock). The rear was too soft with the H&Rs. I upped this to MMs T/A conventional springs (380-420#) and left the rear bar alone. Less push with a little over steer and less body roll. At this time I was still subscribing to the light front bar and higher rate front spring (MM's choice of suspension theory) while trying to maintain a decent street ride. the MM approach needs higher rate front springs to work optimally. This wasn't in the cards for me.

    When I went to the full MM catalogue (k-member, tube a-arms, T/A and rear C/Os) I had to start again. This time however, I'm trying the other suspension theory (heavy front bar and lighter front springs to allow travel and better camber on the inside front) combined with an adjustable rear bar that allows more inside rear tire lift without overpowering the shock valving and lifting the tire off the ground. Haven't gotten too far yet on this but it looks promising for my needs - more so than the other theory.

    Bottom line, rear bars are a tuning tool. This is why MM offers several different sizes. You need to get the rest of the suspension very close to what you want then bring it to optimal with the correct rear bar.
    Last edited by qtrracer; 11-24-2019 at 06:19 PM.

  8. #8
    FEP Member 86MustangGtRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Thanks for all the great advice guys. For now I ended putting an Eibach rear sway bar. It corrected my rear body roll. One day I will get the adjustable rear bar.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •