Low CG, max articulation, and biggest tire size without interference?

[omg_bbq]

I've done plenty of real world evasive maneuvering with it, between dodging blowouts on the road, deer, and two guys losing control in front of me, nothing particularly of note as far as stability and safety goes. Some of it is due to the fact that I spent my whole life driving something with a lift and big tires or long travel suspensions, so dealing with less than ideal road manners is natural to me. It might take some getting used to, but I never recall having a problem that wasn't directly related to my vehicle not being a BMW when I was learning to drive or being a teen (I guess that's probably the same thing LOL). I've always treated them as top heavy offroad rigs, lots of body roll comes with the territory and I'm probably going to roll if I get sideways.

I'm not opposed to swaybars, but they have to be done in a way that doesn't also hinder other aspects. The front is the logical place for them and having a beefy front bar makes sense in most vehicles if you're trying to dampen all roll forces, but with IFS and a short throw it really hinders offroad performance. Much of the roll control in a vehicle with lots of wheel travel is done with the coilovers and how they're positioned on the a-arms, and what little roll is left can be countered with a lightweight bar. From what I can tell on the 4dr, the rear bar is a lot lighter than the front, and I suspect that would be everything a Bronco would need to maintain good roll control. You might unhook the front swaybar and leave the rear, then give it a try where it's safe. Work your way up just like a test pilot would when finding limits. You might find the limits of the Bronco, you might find your own limits instead, that's just how it works and it's fine either way. I'm certainly not suggesting anyone does something they're not comfortable with. Modify as you see fit

Sage advice, appreciate it

Sponsored

 

[Arokcrwlr]

Hey Tex, have you also removed the rear sway bar? I left my front sway bar disconnected after I did the Eibach coilovers and while it wasn't bad, I decided to connect it back and do manual disconnects for the trail. I haven't disconnected the rear yet to see the effects - it's such a small diameter bar, I wonder why they even bothered..

 

[Tricky Dick]

Hey Tex, have you also removed the rear sway bar? I left my front sway bar disconnected after I did the Eibach coilovers and while it wasn't bad, I decided to connect it back and do manual disconnects for the trail. I haven't disconnected the rear yet to see the effects - it's such a small diameter bar, I wonder why they even bothered..

If you're keeping the front I'd yeet that rear one yesterday, considering 21s didn't even have them at all.

 

[BroncoAZ]

If you're keeping the front I'd yeet that rear one yesterday, considering 21s didn't even have them at all.

I know I’ve seen this video posted here in another suspension thread. On the Toyota a rear sway bar helps balance the suspension articulation forcing the front to do more work. My 2021 Badlands 2 door also doesn’t have the rear bar. If the rockjock folks make a bolt on unit for the Bronco I’d be interested.

 

[Tex]

Hey Tex, have you also removed the rear sway bar? I left my front sway bar disconnected after I did the Eibach coilovers and while it wasn't bad, I decided to connect it back and do manual disconnects for the trail. I haven't disconnected the rear yet to see the effects - it's such a small diameter bar, I wonder why they even bothered..

I never had one in the rear, I don't know if it's a 2dr thing or a 21 thing. The best part is no part LOL

I figure a rear bar wouldn't hurt flex all that much (and it could potentially help) with the way leverage works on a solid axle compared to IFS. Both solid axles and a-arms will drop a tire to the shock limit when there's nothing underneath, but if the vehicle is twisted up under max articulation, the solid axle is actually trying to push the hanging tire downward even more than what the spring is...the coilover isn't centered on the center of the tire on the ground, so some of the vehicle weight is leveraged toward the floating tire (even though it won't droop any further due to the coilover). That extra leverage added to the spring at full droop helps a lot in counteracting the swaybar that's trying to lift the floating tire to the same height as the grounded tire. Adding to that, there's probably plenty more in the suspension links than what most of these shocks will allow anyway, so forcing a front wheel to take a little more compression via a rear swaybar might actually help it flex a tiny bit more overall in the front.

The mechanics of an IFS with a swaybar is really bad for flex. You're starting off with a suspension that's not particularly known for being flexy unless the pivot points are basically touching each other where the engine should be, and since it doesn't have that extra leveraging effect of a solid axle to counteract the swaybar, the articulation limiting effect of the swaybar is increased when it's on an IFS (not to mention the front is considerably thicker than rear swaybars). If I were going to try an aftermarket swaybar, it would probably be a lighter bar with longer arms on the rear, that would allow it to go full droop and full bump fully connected. It would likely give my Bronco all the anti-sway it needs to be stable through any operating conditions. I can't say with any certainty that this translates 100% to a 4dr, as the weight distribution and wheelbase is different, but a shorter wheelbase is generally more susceptible to swaying than a longer wheelbase, and everything I'm seeing in mine should be less noticeable in a 4dr.

One of the things I've been somewhat interested in along the same subject is seeing how a set of ORI struts might do on a Bronco. They were making an anti-sway device a few years back that attaches to a strut and changes the effective spring rate to counter body roll. When it feels lateral G's, it blocks part of the reservoir and reduces the effective volume to expand into and increases spring rate, but when it's somewhat level, it opens the reservoir back up and effective spring rate is reduced. As soon as you start turning or going off camber it activates, when you're crawling over a boulder it puts more spring pressure on the drooping tire, or at least that's what I got out of it. They're touted to be almost as effective as a swaybar. Honestly I have questions about it, but they're relatively cheap and it might be worth the experiment just to see. Unfortunately they haven't been making them lately due to a huge strut backlog and they're just trying to churn out lots of struts. Traditional ORI's are great for rocks and do okay at high speed stuff (Kings and whatnot are obviously better except in rebound adjustment), and you can fine tune them in a lot of different ways by yourself without buying 10 different sets of coils. In my case I could just add a little extra pressure to get that 2" back from all that added weight in the rear, or I could drop the front down 2" to be level, or I could drop it way down for highway driving and air them up on the trail for a lot of extra clearance. All it takes is a small tank of nitrogen. It might be a good fit for some Bronco owners looking for something that doesn't need to place at a Ultra4 event, but is rather more interested in trails and crawling instead.

https://jensenbrosoffroad.com/products/level-it-pneumatic-sway-assist-by-ori-struts

 

[Arokcrwlr]

I never had one in the rear, I don't know if it's a 2dr thing or a 21 thing. The best part is no part LOL

I figure a rear bar wouldn't hurt flex all that much (and it could potentially help) with the way leverage works on a solid axle compared to IFS. Both solid axles and a-arms will drop a tire to the shock limit when there's nothing underneath, but if the vehicle is twisted up under max articulation, the solid axle is actually trying to push the hanging tire downward even more than what the spring is...the coilover isn't centered on the center of the tire on the ground, so some of the vehicle weight is leveraged toward the floating tire (even though it won't droop any further due to the coilover). That extra leverage added to the spring at full droop helps a lot in counteracting the swaybar that's trying to lift the floating tire to the same height as the grounded tire. Adding to that, there's probably plenty more in the suspension links than what most of these shocks will allow anyway, so forcing a front wheel to take a little more compression via a rear swaybar might actually help it flex a tiny bit more overall in the front.

The mechanics of an IFS with a swaybar is really bad for flex. You're starting off with a suspension that's not particularly known for being flexy unless the pivot points are basically touching each other where the engine should be, and since it doesn't have that extra leveraging effect of a solid axle to counteract the swaybar, the articulation limiting effect of the swaybar is increased when it's on an IFS (not to mention the front is considerably thicker than rear swaybars). If I were going to try an aftermarket swaybar, it would probably be a lighter bar with longer arms on the rear, that would allow it to go full droop and full bump fully connected. It would likely give my Bronco all the anti-sway it needs to be stable through any operating conditions. I can't say with any certainty that this translates 100% to a 4dr, as the weight distribution and wheelbase is different, but a shorter wheelbase is generally more susceptible to swaying than a longer wheelbase, and everything I'm seeing in mine should be less noticeable in a 4dr.

One of the things I've been somewhat interested in along the same subject is seeing how a set of ORI struts might do on a Bronco. They were making an anti-sway device a few years back that attaches to a strut and changes the effective spring rate to counter body roll. When it feels lateral G's, it blocks part of the reservoir and reduces the effective volume to expand into and increases spring rate, but when it's somewhat level, it opens the reservoir back up and effective spring rate is reduced. As soon as you start turning or going off camber it activates, when you're crawling over a boulder it puts more spring pressure on the drooping tire, or at least that's what I got out of it. They're touted to be almost as effective as a swaybar. Honestly I have questions about it, but they're relatively cheap and it might be worth the experiment just to see. Unfortunately they haven't been making them lately due to a huge strut backlog and they're just trying to churn out lots of struts. Traditional ORI's are great for rocks and do okay at high speed stuff (Kings and whatnot are obviously better except in rebound adjustment), and you can fine tune them in a lot of different ways by yourself without buying 10 different sets of coils. In my case I could just add a little extra pressure to get that 2" back from all that added weight in the rear, or I could drop the front down 2" to be level, or I could drop it way down for highway driving and air them up on the trail for a lot of extra clearance. All it takes is a small tank of nitrogen. It might be a good fit for some Bronco owners looking for something that doesn't need to place at a Ultra4 event, but is rather more interested in trails and crawling instead.

https://jensenbrosoffroad.com/products/level-it-pneumatic-sway-assist-by-ori-struts

Great commentary! Yeah, the front sway bar kills any suspension flex and will for sure be disconnected while offroad - or I may remove altogether at some point. However, my 6G will never be my primary offroad rig.

Ford must have added the rear sway bar on 2drs for MY23. If I ever have some spare time, I may experiment to see what the effects are with/without the rear connected.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

in the past I've had the best luck with fully removing the front swaybar and leaving the rear. the rear bar does push or transfer weight to the front.

I even made a sway bar reverser before....where one side pushes the OPPOSITE as the other....works Fantastic. a sway bar that works in reverse when off road is the future folks.

 

[Tex]

I even made a sway bar reverser before....where one side pushes the OPPOSITE as the other....works Fantastic. a sway bar that works in reverse when off road is the future folks.

I lol'd a little bit thinking of a vehicle that is actively trying to roll over for belly rubs.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

I lol'd a little bit thinking of a vehicle that is actively trying to roll over for belly rubs.

here's pics of my Super Flexy IFS Mod..this was 20 yrs ago. @Tex your one of the few folks that likely understands how it works....tip, it used torsen bars instead of coilovers.

lots of folks copied the idea across different IFS platforms. Bronco is next! I'll build a swaybar reverser very soon.

https://www.planetisuzoo.com/threads/super-flexy-ifs-kit.44482/

http://www.vehicross.info/archive/index.php/t-23805.html

http://www.ultimateyota.com/showthread.php?9263-Super-Flexy-Torsion-Bar-IFS

 

[Tex]

I'm not terribly familiar with the Isuzu, was that installed on the crossmember where the torsion bars attached? If I'm picturing it right, instead of the torsion bars being solid mounted, they're attached to those rotating arms, and when one side sees more load, the bar twists the arm which in turn slides the whole thing the other direction and preloads the opposite bar. The result is more preload for the low tire so it droops better, or an alternative view, less preload for the high tire so it'll stuff better. I could see it working well on low speed crawling for sure. You're still limited by suspension geometry, but it's a better use of load balancing than what a linked solid axle with coilovers would have.

I think there were some German designs that did the exact same thing for anti-sway, basically just a reverse of this. Some company even made interconnected shocks, driver front to passenger rear, and passenger front to driver rear.

Trying to think of how it would work on the Bronco...would you keep the coilovers and use torsion bars just for the load balancing, or get rid of the coilovers entirely and run straight torsion bars? A hypothetical alternative would be to cut a swaybar in half, weld a pair of gears to each cut, and then mesh the gears together after you offset the swaybars in pillow blocks. Viewed from the driver side, when the driver side tire rolls up a rock, the driver side swaybar will rotate clockwise, and with the gears reversing that rotation for the other side, the passenger side swaybar will rotate counterclockwise and push down on the passenger tire. Probably be best if it was splined in the center and gears pressed on with a housing and all that stuff, but it could work with minimal mods to the vehicle. If we're hypothetically making gears and a housing....some shift dogs to disengage the gears for a swaybar disconnect in one position, a second set of gears welded to the housing to lock it into swaybar mode for the second position, and meshing the gears together for reverse swaybar operation in the third position.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

I'm not terribly familiar with the Isuzu, was that installed on the crossmember where the torsion bars attached? If I'm picturing it right, instead of the torsion bars being solid mounted, they're attached to those rotating arms, and when one side sees more load, the bar twists the arm which in turn slides the whole thing the other direction and preloads the opposite bar. The result is more preload for the low tire so it droops better, or an alternative view, less preload for the high tire so it'll stuff better. I could see it working well on low speed crawling for sure. You're still limited by suspension geometry, but it's a better use of load balancing than what a linked solid axle with coilovers would have.

I think there were some German designs that did the exact same thing for anti-sway, basically just a reverse of this. Some company even made interconnected shocks, driver front to passenger rear, and passenger front to driver rear.

Trying to think of how it would work on the Bronco...would you keep the coilovers and use torsion bars just for the load balancing, or get rid of the coilovers entirely and run straight torsion bars? A hypothetical alternative would be to cut a swaybar in half, weld a pair of gears to each cut, and then mesh the gears together after you offset the swaybars in pillow blocks. Viewed from the driver side, when the driver side tire rolls up a rock, the driver side swaybar will rotate clockwise, and with the gears reversing that rotation for the other side, the passenger side swaybar will rotate counterclockwise and push down on the passenger tire. Probably be best if it was splined in the center and gears pressed on with a housing and all that stuff, but it could work with minimal mods to the vehicle. If we're hypothetically making gears and a housing....some shift dogs to disengage the gears for a swaybar disconnect in one position, a second set of gears welded to the housing to lock it into swaybar mode for the second position, and meshing the gears together for reverse swaybar operation in the third position.

you are 100% correct.

I will add that where this set up really shines is in a steep climb where the front is mostly unloaded, and don't flex (or compress) much.

This setup actually creates a weight BALLANCE and traction EQUALIZATION to the front suspension throughout all the available travel. This means more traction especially in a limited traction environment like mud or snow for example.

yes, the Bronco will need a different approach. a small differential (w/locker) where the sway bar disconnect mechanism is now, is pretty much all that's needed. I'm sourcing one from a junkyard as a prototype.

if anyone wants to partner up or participate in this experimental venture hit me up. No there isn't BB type profits involved. but it would be cool to make available to those that would use it.

 

[Tex]

you are 100% correct.

I will add that where this set up really shines is in a steep climb where the front is mostly unloaded, and don't flex (or compress) much.

This setup actually creates a weight BALLANCE and traction EQUALIZATION to the front suspension throughout all the available travel. This means more traction especially in a limited traction environment like mud or snow for example.

yes, the Bronco will need a different approach. a small differential (w/locker) where the sway bar disconnect mechanism is now, is pretty much all that's needed. I'm sourcing one from a junkyard as a prototype.

if anyone wants to partner up or participate in this experimental venture hit me up. No there isn't BB type profits involved. but it would be cool to make available to those that would use it.

Right on, a small diff with a locker would work perfectly in that application. With a locked diff it would operate just like a normal swaybar, but unlocked it would reverse the operation. Wouldn't even need to have a traditional swaybar disconnect as you'd be getting better flex with it reversed than disconnected. Would only need relatively level ground to lock the swaybar back up. Maybe a diff out of a SXS or something? I'm not really familiar with the little stuff but they might have a locking diff that would work. I guess doing some rough calculations on weight and moment arm would dictate what size diff to use, ultimately. The custom swaybars used on desert trucks and Ultra4 are generally straight shafts with splined ends (35 spline, 1.5" diameter), would be sweet if they just plugged right in to a diff like an axleshaft with no mods.
https://www.kartek.com/parts/kartek...pline-solid-sway-bar-52-long-1-12-spline.html

Only thing I could see being a problem is the reliability of the locker...you definitely wouldn't want it to unlock at highway speed. I don't know how an e-locker stays engaged, hopefully they're not like an ARB that needs constant input to keep it locked, as that would be ideal for simple integration. A manually operated locker, like a cable operated OX locker might be a safer bet? I know you can convert Toyota e-lockers to cable operated, but those are fairly substantial in size.

When you get rolling with the project I'd be happy to help, I think the idea is definitely worth pursuing. I'll be mostly out of pocket for the middle of June to the end of August, but after that I'll have plenty of free time until next year. Sometime next year I'll be trying my hand at designing a cantilever long travel setup, so I'm going to need some sort of swaybar with it at least. I'm getting tired of waiting on Funhaver and APG to bring something to market so I'll just do it myself.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

Right on, a small diff with a locker would work perfectly in that application. With a locked diff it would operate just like a normal swaybar, but unlocked it would reverse the operation. Wouldn't even need to have a traditional swaybar disconnect as you'd be getting better flex with it reversed than disconnected. Would only need relatively level ground to lock the swaybar back up. Maybe a diff out of a SXS or something? I'm not really familiar with the little stuff but they might have a locking diff that would work. I guess doing some rough calculations on weight and moment arm would dictate what size diff to use, ultimately. The custom swaybars used on desert trucks and Ultra4 are generally straight shafts with splined ends (35 spline, 1.5" diameter), would be sweet if they just plugged right in to a diff like an axleshaft with no mods.
https://www.kartek.com/parts/kartek...pline-solid-sway-bar-52-long-1-12-spline.html

Only thing I could see being a problem is the reliability of the locker...you definitely wouldn't want it to unlock at highway speed. I don't know how an e-locker stays engaged, hopefully they're not like an ARB that needs constant input to keep it locked, as that would be ideal for simple integration. A manually operated locker, like a cable operated OX locker might be a safer bet? I know you can convert Toyota e-lockers to cable operated, but those are fairly substantial in size.

When you get rolling with the project I'd be happy to help, I think the idea is definitely worth pursuing. I'll be mostly out of pocket for the middle of June to the end of August, but after that I'll have plenty of free time until next year. Sometime next year I'll be trying my hand at designing a cantilever long travel setup, so I'm going to need some sort of swaybar with it at least. I'm getting tired of waiting on Funhaver and APG to bring something to market so I'll just do it myself.

Yeah I plan on doing my own 2dr version of the APG bronco...only far less money and probably a similar time frame lol. I really like how theve raised the shock towers, that was my plan as well from day one.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

so who's got a d60 e locker laying around to donate to the cause.....???

 

[kodiakisland]

I know I’ve seen this video posted here in another suspension thread. On the Toyota a rear sway bar helps balance the suspension articulation forcing the front to do more work. My 2021 Badlands 2 door also doesn’t have the rear bar. If the rockjock folks make a bolt on unit for the Bronco I’d be interested.

Yeah, I'm hoping they have a simple rear bar. I will give it a try. I go without my front swaybar and don't miss it. What I do find though is my rear is so much softer than the front, that I get a lot of body roll on the trail that I think a rear bar would stop and make the front suspension work more.

Sponsored