Jump to content

Sway bar for 510 KA swap


Recommended Posts

Hey guys, I just picked up a 71 510 that has ka24 in it and i noticed it had no front sway bar because of the oil pan iterfeirance. I have been searching for a while now and i have been unsuccessful in findding a sway bar that will work without changing the oil pan. Does someone make a bar spacific to my application? If so I was hoping you guys could point me in the right direction. If not I would love to have some ideas or examples of what else I could do.

 

Also I'm new to the forum and looked through the older post and didn't find anything about this topic. So if I missed something I apoligize.

Are there any members in ventura!?? If so are any meets near ventura?

 

-thanks Josh

Link to comment
  • Replies 19
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

try maddat, though they are in aussie so shipping might be brutal.

 

DGR used to sell them a lot on ebay, I would check there every now and then.

 

Mckinney seems to mention sway bars for the ka/sr, I would try calling them and see whats up, if they have the product, it may be your best bet.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 year later...

DGR advertised their last front sump bar on eBay a while back saying they were not going to make any more.

 

Give me a shout at FutoFab, we will have 1 1/8" front sump and 1 1/8" stock configuration front bars in stock next week. We will also stock rears for both sedans and wagons.

 

Check out our facebook page (FutoFab, LLC) for pics of the prototype front sump bar during test fitting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Next Monday, August 18th, FutoFab will take delivery of our sway bar order from the manufacturer.

 

We will have in stock the following sway bars for the 68-73 Datsun 510's (bars will include mounting brackets and end links)

  • Front, 1 1/8" for front sump engine swaps with a flipped cross member - $265/ea
  • Front, 1 1/8" in stock configuration - $265/ea
  • Rear, 3/4" for IRS sedans - $195/ea
  • Rear, 5/8" for wagons - $195/ea

Sway bars are so new we have not gotten them poste to our website, so please email me at FutoFab@gsinet.net for details.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Next Monday, August 18th, FutoFab will take delivery of our sway bar order from the manufacturer.

 

We will have in stock the following sway bars for the 68-73 Datsun 510's (bars will include mounting brackets and end links)

  • Front, 1 1/8" for front sump engine swaps with a flipped cross member - $265/ea
  • Front, 1 1/8" in stock configuration - $265/ea
  • Rear, 3/4" for IRS sedans - $195/ea
  • Rear, 5/8" for wagons - $195/ea

Sway bars are so new we have not gotten them poste to our website, so please email me at FutoFab@gsinet.net for details.

 

 

Hey Dave, I have heard that too much sway bar can effectively negate the benefits of independent suspension, i currently run a 7/8" bar with my L18, but am sourcing a KA24 soon, I run 10" 200lb front springs, will a 1.125" bar "function" properly?? Thanks!

Link to comment

Over the years the modifications made to 510 suspensions have been refined. Today many street cars run higher spring rates and larger sway bars than were used back in the days when BRE and Mulholland products were the hot 510 suspension kits. In fact, spring rates on today's street cars are often higher than the original Datsun Comp suspension packages sold in the '70's.

 

The 510 suspension design is not new and is at best a compromise even with it being independent suspension.

 

A 510 with lowered suspension, even when adjusted for proper toe and camber settings has some very drastic alignment changes during movement of the suspension.

 

The outside wheels during cornering need to have increasing camber (camber gain) when the suspension compresses. With body roll, the camber on the outside tire will become positive. For optimum cornering a tire should stay roughly square to the ground with only a slight amount of negative camber (roughly -1.5 to -3.0 degrees depending on the tire used). When the load is shifted to the outside wheels in a corner that load compresses the outside suspension, if the suspension is designed properly, camber gain will happen, compensating for the amount of body roll and the tire will stand vertical to the pavement.

 

The 510's MacPherson strut design works very poorly in producing camber gain. In a severely lowered 510 most of the camber gain designed into the factory front suspension is lost. Body roll then adds more positive camber to the loaded tire than it would normally have. To have some amount of camber gain on a lowered 510, the lower control arm angle needs to at least be flat with the ground or better, slope downward from inner pivot toward the ball joint.

 

The use of bump steer spacers helps regain this downward angle on the LCA, but in a severely lowered car (2, 3 or more inches) a 1" bump steer spacer is only a partial fix for regaining lost camber gain. Your only other option (short of cutting the suspension apart and redesigning it) is to limit the amount of body roll, which in effect will reduce the amount of induced positive camber gain at the outside wheel during cornering. This can be done by adding stiffer springs and/or increasing the sway bar diameter(s).

 

Back when a 1.5" suspension drop was considered radical, a 7/8" or 1" front sway bar worked with the 120# spring rates that were being used. Today with suspension's being lowered by 3" or more, spring rates have increased (some as high as 300# or more) and larger sway bars are being added to limit body roll and compensate for the lost camber gain this extreme lowering has created.

 

So basically the lower you go, the less efficient your front suspension is at producing camber gain during cornering and the more need there is to increase roll stiffness to limit the positive camber gain induced by body roll. So short of a major suspension redesign, bigger sway bars and/or higher spring rates are your only reasonable option on an dramatically lowered 510.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Dave, great info up there. Pretty sure im still in for the bar.

 

question if i may pick your brain. On a "dramatically lowered 510" do you find that adding more static camber has an advantage. I would think you might get slightly weird tire wear going straight, but when the body started to roll, you would lose camber, and the tire would become perpendicular to the ground in the corner where you needed more front grip. I would think there would be a decent amount of camber change with the arms being so short so you would really just be moving the range in the suspension travel that the tire is perpendicular to the ground, is the rate of change so great that adding static camber doesn't really matter or help and your just doing damage on your straight line / turn in grip?

 

I'll be asking you for a bar at some point i'm sure, and it seems like the best way to limit the roll. I need to get some roll center adjusters / bump steer spacers as well. I have a big list haha

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.