Adjustable Rear Sway Bar TCP vs Hellwig

[MN69Grande 203]

So I'm making my Christmas list of projects I'd like to do over the winter and I'm thinking of putting in a rear sway bar.  I really like the idea of the adjustable style bars.  So there are 2 that seem almost identical.  The TCP and Hellwig.  Does anyone know why the TCP one would be worth $100 more?

 

http://www.cjponyparts.com/total-control-products-sway-bar-rear-adjustable-3-4-kit-1965-1973/p/TCPARRM112/

 

or 

 

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hel-6806

[1969_Mach1 333]

They both seem to have the same style of mounting hardware.  The only difference I can see is the shape of the bar.  Summit has simple easy return policies and no restocking fees if you are not happy with it.  If Summit has what I am looking for I tend to buy from them for that reason and in my area their lowest cost ground shipping is most always next day.

 

6-in-1, half-a-dozen-in-the-other decisions are always more difficult for me.

[mwye0627 44]

Several years ago while working for W*/son Engineering, i did several comprehensive

test on front and rear sway bars for their S197 (2005 style) Mustangs. Both for production

intent and their Ford Racing catalog...

I cannot divulge actual data, but i should be able to report that I tested several different

combinations, from totally solid bars, to tubular bars with crushed ends at the link mounting

points.in various configurations. I using specialty load cells and deflection measurement

techniques, I was able to determine that the only significant differences in force was dependant

on the Diameter of the bar, and of the distance from the end Link to the straightest portion of the bar.

There was not a largely significant difference between the solid bar and the tubular bar.

The differences were the diameter of the bars, and the distance from the end link to the

straightest portion of the bar (Leverage)...

I guess that's the best I can explain it without getting into too much trouble...  :)

[MN69Grande 203]

They both seem to have the same style of mounting hardware.  The only difference I can see is the shape of the bar.  Summit has simple easy return policies and no restocking fees if you are not happy with it.  If Summit has what I am looking for I tend to buy from them for that reason and in my area their lowest cost ground shipping is most always next day.

 

6-in-1, half-a-dozen-in-the-other decisions are always more difficult for me.

 

 

Several years ago while working for W*/son Engineering, i did several comprehensive

test on front and rear sway bars for their S197 (2005 style) Mustangs. Both for production

intent and their Ford Racing catalog...

I cannot divulge actual data, but i should be able to report that I tested several different

combinations, from totally solid bars, to tubular bars with crushed ends at the link mounting

points.in various configurations. I using specialty load cells and deflection measurement

techniques, I was able to determine that the only significant differences in force was dependant

on the Diameter of the bar, and of the distance from the end Link to the straightest portion of the bar.

There was not a largely significant difference between the solid bar and the tubular bar.

The differences were the diameter of the bars, and the distance from the end link to the

straightest portion of the bar (Leverage)...

I guess that's the best I can explain it without getting into too much trouble...  :)

 

I actually think these are the same product in two different packages.  I pulled up the install instructions and the photos and diagrams are identical.

 

https://static.summitracing.com/global/images/instructions/HEL-6806.pdf

http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/download/instructions/7903-ARRM1-12.pdf

 

I think both are re-branded.

[Vicfreg 773]

I guess it depends on what outcome you are looking for.   I have a '68 coupe that is lowered 1" and I am running 5 leaf springs in the rear, and a large front sway bar, and 16" wheels.   I am very happy with the way the car handles.  On a previous, similar build, I had a rear sway bar installed and the front sway bar, and I felt like they were "fighting" each other.   So, I removed the rear bar and I liked it better.  

 

I am now building a 1970 convertible, and I just purchased the TCP panhard bar setup for the rear with no rear sway bar.   I believe this is the best set up for leaf springs.   TCP does offer the rear sway bar, which I can order later if I think I need it..

 

The other option, which does not require welding, is to use a Watts Link.   Street or Track sells these, and they are bolt in.  This is another "centering" device to help with leaf spring suspensions.   Like the Panhard bar, it also has an adjustment to change the "roll center" of the car, which I think is a better way to dial your car in than the rear sway bar.

 

Good luck with your Christmas list.  A call to one of these companies tech lines is cheap and will get you access to the "experts", which I am not...

[MN69Grande 203]

Interesting notes.  I'm running almost the same setup you are talking about.  5 leaf HD springs in back with coil overs and an upgraded front sway bar with lower Shelby style coils in the front (the rear is not lowered).  What happens when I drive into a hard corner is a bit of over steer as the front settles into the curve the rear axle pulls out and the body rolls a bit.  I was hoping the rear sway bar would keep the rear axle centered a better.

 

After seeing your post I read up a bit on Panhard and Watts Links.  I don't think I'd like the Panhard bar according to what I am reading is it still allow a lot of that body roll.  The Street or Track Watts Link looks great, but is 2.5 - 3 times the cost.  I might have to sell some blood plasma to make up the difference.

 

If anyone was interest here is the Street or Track Watts Link Vicfreg is talking about.

http://www.streetortrack.com/Street-or-Track-Watts-Link-pr-24578.html

 

Or a Similar Alternative

http://scandc.com/new/node/792 

 

Here is an interesting write up on the 2 different systems.

http://www.americanmuscle.com/what-is-a-watts-link.html

[Vicfreg 773]

I will let you know how the Panhard Bar works.  I just got it today, and will be welding the braces to the rear frame rails soon.  Both the Watts Link and the Panhard Bar allow adjustments to change the roll center of the car.  They also keep the lateral loads off of the leaf springs, so the rear end should not move around during hard cornering.  The other advantage of the Panhard Bar is that it leaves room for your Exhaust.  The Watts Link makes things pretty crowded under the car.  I am going to lower my 1970 and run big tires in the back. Going to roll the wheel lips and cut off the axle bumper pieces that stick out.  Should be able to run an 11" tire with no problem.

[MN69Grande 203]

I will let you know how the Panhard Bar works.  I just got it today, and will be welding the braces to the rear frame rails soon.  Both the Watts Link and the Panhard Bar allow adjustments to change the roll center of the car.  They also keep the lateral loads off of the leaf springs, so the rear end should not move around during hard cornering.  The other advantage of the Panhard Bar is that it leaves room for your Exhaust.  The Watts Link makes things pretty crowded under the car.  I am going to lower my 1970 and run big tires in the back. Going to roll the wheel lips and cut off the axle bumper pieces that stick out.  Should be able to run an 11" tire with no problem.

What Panhard did you get?  I've only seen the Maier racing one (though it is re-branded by TCI too).

[1969_Mach1 333]

By geoetry with a Panhard bar, as the suspension travels up and down the Panhard bar wants to move the rear axle side to side relative to the body of the car.  The leaf springs are trying (to some limited degree) to prevent axle side to side movement.  So in that respect the leaf springs and Panhard bar will be working against each other.  I think with leaf springs a Watts Link would be a better option as it doesn't move the rear axle side to side relative to the body of the car