Panhard bars...how is yours mounted?

I'm planning to leave them alone.

Or together...as it were.

I would expect you're going to get negative feedback on that plan, ghostrider.

I've been thinking of relocating the lower control arm pick up points a bit for a slight increase in anti-squat but the arms themselves, unless they need replaced, will remain stock.

What's wrong with keeping the stock arms and adding a panhard bar?

I ASSume the 200,000+ mile UCA bushings are soft enough to avoid bind.

In reply to The_Jed:

Just another binding input into an already binding suspension setup.

I'll stay quiet and let more experienced voices have their say, I've got an SN95 so pretty similar chassis and nothing I've seen says that adding a Panhard bar to an otherwise stock axle is a great idea.

The Fox body cars do have a fair amount of suspension bind already. I'd be leery of adding any more.

The Fox body 'Bird we raced in LeMons got its biggest suspension improvements by taking the bind out of the rear bushings. That car handled like magic, just ask Toyman. This was done by removing the arm bolts one at a time, then greasing and reinstalling them. The key was to torque the nut enough so the bolt wasn't loose but the bushing's inner steel sleeve could rotate. You would not want to do this on a street car, but a set of urethane bushings with a ton of silicone grease would be real helpful.

The_Jed wrote: In reply to Moving_Target: Good stuff! What did you do to the K-member? The stuff outlined in chapter 5? I've been considering picking up a boneyard K-member and doing that before swapping it in.

Too funny!

K-member Pics

Basically I moved the control arm pickup points up and in 3/4" and left the anti-dive alone. Moving the engine back seemed like too much of a pain in the butt (shorten the driveshaft, exhaust work, etc) so while I did do the mod to the k-member, I never used it

When I did the panhard bar, I did the torque arm at the same time. Like above, I'd heard dire warning about bind with the panhard bar and stock quadra-bind rear so didn't want to worry about it.

To answer the question, mine's set up like Kenny Brown's. SN95 Mustang.

In racing on pavement you mount it with chasis mounted end on the passanger side and the axle end on the drivers side, For dirt you change it. Why you ask? Pavement circle track car you want body roll to lower the rear roll center and on dirt you want it to riase the rear roll center to help kick the back end out.
For street you just learn to drive it.

In reply to Curmudgeon: Consider some of the alternative Watt's link configurations:
1) If you mount the bell crank to the chassis instead of the axle, and then connect the links to the ends of the axle instead of the chassis, you have achieved the same result.
2) Instead of mounting the bellcrank vertically, mount it horizontally, you have achieved the same result.
3) Examine the Watt's link on the rear of a PT Cruiser. The links are not parallel to the ground, the bellcrank is not located at the center, and the bellcrank arms and lateral links are different sizes. (and it achieves the same result).

Carter

In reply to erohslc: I considered those alternatives, it kept coming back to just not enough available space.

It also helped that the car had a really nice Panhard rod mount in place already.

Sure, 'A Panhard on the chassis beats two Watt's links in the mind' every time.

A lot of the effectiveness of the panhard is determined by how much suspension travel is involved as well as roll.

Let us not forget the "Jacobs Ladder" as an alternative. Widely used on dirt track racers.

Here's mine:

Originally set up for drag racing by PO, future life will be RallyCross. I have no idea how it performed or will perform.

NASCAR race cars have an adjustable anchor on the right/frame side to alter the rear roll center. they adjust them lot during a race.