rear anti roll bar
Discussion
depending on your damper set up . . 
BYRON said:
hi just about to start a body off resto on my griff 4.3......................
,well done Byron
I cant wait to see it
.As for the roll bar,i think i wouldn't be too difficult to try out,then you could see if you prefer it or not?I'm told they started fitting them on the 500's to avoid having to have the rear suspension too stiff,and this is where the pre-cats got the reputation for being a bit skittish from.I've tried my mates pre-cat without a roll bar and it felt neither skittish or had too much body roll though
!Mind you that was with some rather special Bilsteins on there
He's now got std 500 shocks/springs and i think they also give a good ride without an arb.Remind me to have a chat with you about the Bilsteins
Edited by The AJP Griff on Tuesday 22 January 10:40
Don’t know if this helps but in an effort to control body roll I replaced the original, slightly past their best rear rollbar bushes for some neoprene ones and noticed a considerable improvement on sweeping fast corners. Didn’t seem to do a lot for the front end dive on a quick sharp corner however.
Page 206 in the bible discusses this. Main issue is the 4.3 chassis doesn't have the ARB mounts or the drop link plates on the wishbone which means that either some fabrication or replacement needs to be done. The ARB may need to be sourced from a scrappy.
I know of someone who did the retrofit and reported that it was a big improvement. There are quite a few 4.x cars out there with it judging from my droplink sales.
I know of someone who did the retrofit and reported that it was a big improvement. There are quite a few 4.x cars out there with it judging from my droplink sales.
shpub said:
Page 206 in the bible discusses this. Main issue is the 4.3 chassis doesn't have the ARB mounts or the drop link plates on the wishbone which means that either some fabrication or replacement needs to be done. The ARB may need to be sourced from a scrappy.
I know of someone who did the retrofit and reported that it was a big improvement. There are quite a few 4.x cars out there with it judging from my droplink sales.
Steve, I know of someone who did the retrofit and reported that it was a big improvement. There are quite a few 4.x cars out there with it judging from my droplink sales.
The ARB was offered as a retrofit from the factory as a kit with all the drawings to suit, I have these drawings, (as I fitted one to my 4.0 when it was new) I sell the MK2 brackets, to upgrade from MK1 (for when they fail).
Adrian@
trackcar said:
the factory offered a kit which was essentially 500 spec suspension for the earlier cars, so when your konis died you replced with bilstein/HBE as per the then current cars plus the rear roll bar. was a ghastly affair using exhaust clamps to fasten to the lower wishbone.
Joolz....Looking at these drawings you are SO right, I remember that I was supplied with the later MK1 wishbones as the car was only a couple of weeks old, when I was bitching about rear-end grip!Adrian@
At the risk of opening up a whole ARB vs nonARB debate (especially with respected names on this thread!) I think it's important to remember what an ARB is supposed to do, and what the compromises are.
An ARB seeks to reduce vehicle roll in corners by CONNECTING one side of the suspension to the other. At this point the suspension ceases to be independent. On a flat track, all is well. The vehicle turns, 'weight' is transferred to the outside suspension and this loads up - the vehicle rolls. If the outside suspension is connected to the inside suspension via an ARB, the ARB acts to transfer some of the load to the inside suspension, tending to decrease roll by transferring some of the load to the inside suspension, thus 'pulling' the inside suspension into compression and reducing load on the outside suspension.
Problem is, in the real world, every time one side compresses (eg on a normal road) the affected suspension movement is transferred to the other side of the vehicle. Obviously most vehicles are fitted with some sort of side-side connection - I beam, de-dion or ARB so on balance the system works. But on a RWD car a non-optimal rear ARB set up risks causing as many problems as it solves. As one wheel moves under acceleration, so will the other, potentially causing a difference in traction. Under braking, instability might be induced by one wheel moving away from the road surface through the ARB. On a car with an already 'wayward' rear end caution should be excercised.
I'm absolutely not an expert, but a bit like lowered uprated springs not necessarily giving better grip/handling, so just bolting on an ARB might not necessarily give a benefit overall.
If a car with (otherwise) fully independent suspension works acceptably I think it's wise to optimise shocks/springs to get the best out of a truly independent set up before bolting on an ARB and hoping for the best.
An ARB seeks to reduce vehicle roll in corners by CONNECTING one side of the suspension to the other. At this point the suspension ceases to be independent. On a flat track, all is well. The vehicle turns, 'weight' is transferred to the outside suspension and this loads up - the vehicle rolls. If the outside suspension is connected to the inside suspension via an ARB, the ARB acts to transfer some of the load to the inside suspension, tending to decrease roll by transferring some of the load to the inside suspension, thus 'pulling' the inside suspension into compression and reducing load on the outside suspension.
Problem is, in the real world, every time one side compresses (eg on a normal road) the affected suspension movement is transferred to the other side of the vehicle. Obviously most vehicles are fitted with some sort of side-side connection - I beam, de-dion or ARB so on balance the system works. But on a RWD car a non-optimal rear ARB set up risks causing as many problems as it solves. As one wheel moves under acceleration, so will the other, potentially causing a difference in traction. Under braking, instability might be induced by one wheel moving away from the road surface through the ARB. On a car with an already 'wayward' rear end caution should be excercised.
I'm absolutely not an expert, but a bit like lowered uprated springs not necessarily giving better grip/handling, so just bolting on an ARB might not necessarily give a benefit overall.
If a car with (otherwise) fully independent suspension works acceptably I think it's wise to optimise shocks/springs to get the best out of a truly independent set up before bolting on an ARB and hoping for the best.
I fitted a rear ARB to my pre-cat about 3 years ago. I had a big problem with tramlining on certain road surfaces (SO3s) which completely disappeared with the ARB.
Secondhand ARB, droplinks and fittings bought from breakers from a 500. You will also need 500 lower rear wishbones. I bought new ones at the time. Leven fitted it for me. About 4 hours labour from memory. Total cost was about £450.00.
Secondhand ARB, droplinks and fittings bought from breakers from a 500. You will also need 500 lower rear wishbones. I bought new ones at the time. Leven fitted it for me. About 4 hours labour from memory. Total cost was about £450.00.
thanks for all the replys, im fitting some different shocks and springs not sure which ones yet i have spax on the at the moment and also poly bushs on all the wishbones etc i just wondered the differences in the two cars plus,s and minus,s is the 500 rollbar a tvr item or is it from another source
Gassing Station | Griffith | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff