Re: [Chrysler300] Strut / Torsion bars

Larry Jett "If God wanted us to vote, He'd have

given us candidates...."

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Matt Allyn allynentertainment@xxxxxxxxx [Chrysler300] <Chrysler300-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have a '62 Sport that came stock withOUT the sway bar. So I added one.

Matt Allyn
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016, 3:43 PM, 'John McAdams' clafong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [Chrysler300] <Chrysler300-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

To all:

I cannot believe it but it is absolutely true. My ’62 “Sport” Convertible came from the factory without a front sway bar. The holes are there in the frame for it but it never got installed at the factory.

Maybe that guy on the production line was asleep at the chassis assembly line. But somehow it got shipped without the front sway bar.

Anyone else out there without the front sway bar on your 300?

From Big John McAdams
(In Sweltering SoCal)
(Probably just as hot in Arizona or maybe even hotter)

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anna F Noia sa-noia@xxxxxxxxxxx [Chrysler300]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 2:42 PM
To: EMills_ATC; Rich Barber; 'Bob Merritt'; 'John Grady'; charlies@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Strut / Torsion bars

Edward & All
I would like to add my story with sway bars, although not a 300 story but can help. I had an Austin Healey 3000, and it had severe under steer (as most everyone knows). I duplicated the front sway with better spring steel and increase the diameter by an 1/8" (to approximately 3/4"); I fabricated a rear sway bar using the same spring steel. I used heat to bend them. Then had them annealed to return them to their proper torsion strength. I converted the shocks from lever arm to tube shocks with a Koni adapters. Then used the rear shock links to connect to the sway bar ends. to make a long story somewhat shorter. With the upsize of the front sway bar and the installation of the rear sway bar. The car went from a scary under steer, to a near "Neutral" controllable cornering abilities! I am a staunch believer in "Rear Sway Bars" and plan on installing one in my '57 300. They are well worth the effort, stock or not. DO IT. IMHO.
Best Regards,
Stephen A. Noia
1-408-210-4736 cell

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:52 AM, "EMills_ATC millserat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [Chrysler300]" <Chrysler300-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

OK - so Torsional stiffness Torque/Rotation = KG/L where K = Pi/2 x (Radius)4 ---- (Thats radius to 4th power or squared twice - cant seem to make superscripts work) and G is a constant for steel and Rotation is in radians.
But all you want to know is difference in stiffness, so take G as a constant and just look at difference in R4th/L
And since L is constant here at 40 in, difference in stiffness is simply (.505)4 / (.495)4 or 1.08329 - translated 8.3% difference in stiffness between 300 Sport (or Newport Sedan / Conv, etc.) at 0.99 and H at 1.01
H vs New Yorker 12.8% stiffer
H vs Newport wagon 17.5% stiffer
And by the way, to convert to stiffness you need distance from center of rod to centerline of tire - if you want absolutes, need to go thru more calcs incl dealing with G Shear Modulus and radians.
But unless you are playing with different wheel offsets (going to aftermarket wheels - moving out increases moment arm and increases torsion which effectively "softens" car spring rate - moving in effectively "stiffens" but you get interference) or changing hub dimensions (such as may be if changing to disc brakes, etc).
PS - If you are also playing with Anti-sway bars on front only, it would not be unusual to soften spring rate if increasing sway bar stiffness on that end - otherwise you would need to play with back of car to keep handling balance (oversteer / understeer).
For example, if you add a rear sway bar to a car that did not originally have one, and you do nothing else (no change to rear spring rate or better front bar increase in stiffness to balance handling), be prepared for rear end to come around fast in a hard turn - potentially severe oversteer condition. (Personal experience, lesson learned)

Edward Mills Antique Tractors 1930-1960 Antique Cars 1960-1985
On 6/20/2016 1:45 PM, 'Rich Barber' c300@xxxxxxx [Chrysler300] wrote:

HD suspension may have been an option on all ’62 Chryslers and included the thicker torsion bars which were standard on the H.

Rich Barber
Brentwood, CA

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 'Bob Merritt' bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [Chrysler300]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 11:24 AM
To: John Grady mailto:jkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; charlies@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re[2]: [Chrysler300] Strut / Torsion bars

AMA specs for 1962.

Newport Sedan, hardtop, convertible: torsion bar 40.0" x .99" diameter

Newport station wagon: torsion bar 40.0" x .97" diameter

Sport 300: torsion bar 40.0" x .99" diameter

300H: torsion bar 40.0" x 1.01" diameter

New Yorker: torsion bar 40.0" x .98" diameter

------ Original Message ------
From: "'John Grady' jkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [Chrysler300]" <Chrysler300-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: charlies@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 6/20/2016 1:12:32 PM
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] Strut / Torsion bars

To my knowledge the strut rods do not flex or bend or twist at all, they just move a bit in the rubber, to allow the suspension to move up and down , while locating suspension arm / spindle fore and aft. so that thickness is a non issue. (axial loads only); rubber durometer might change that fore and aft stiffness but not much and only of value for that kind of (rare) loads? —in case you hit a very deep pothole. ; I do not understand the torsion bars at all. It should be the other way around., stock ? The 300 should be thicker, as that is (factory) stiffer ; maybe 300 were swapped to smaller in the past? Any chance those numbers are inverted? Or 300 sport was really a very soft car compared to 300H ; which may be true. Interesting info, that is for sure.

But I do not know the factory 300H specs. Others will…

Why would a Newport be sprung stiffer than a sport?

See listings of aftermarket / MOPAR performance torsion bars for B and E bodies, as a rough reference? Thicker bars = stiffer suspension , mostly, usually related to holding up heavier engines too. . Might or might not like that impact on ride . ( I like stiffer) but------Not like it is a race car, screaming around corners on a NASCAR track? IMHO

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of charlies@xxxxxxxxxxxx [Chrysler300]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 9:55 AM
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Chrysler300] Strut / Torsion bars

Hi Group,
Last year I installed a factory sway bar on my 62 Sport. In discussion with Dave Dumais at the MaCunngie meet, he said that it was likely that the strut rods on the doner (Newport) car were likely larger dia. Upon inspection, I found that this was indeed true. My current strut rods measure approx. .015 smaller than the Newport.
Also, a measurement of the torsion bars also reveals a difference. My Sport measures approx. 970 dia. and the Newport at approx 1.010 dia.
So the question is - Would it be worthwhile to swap out these parts to my Sport. I guess I'm wondering what difference, if any, would I notice in ride quality / handling.
Thanks, Charlie in Ottawa