Swaybar sizes

Post by **Fuse** » 16 Oct 2006 08:30 pm

Does the GLT have a thicker swaybar than GL?

I was just wondering because I measured the one in GLT and it is between 23mm and 24mm. Then I measured the GL's swaybar and it's between 19mm and 20mm.

The one in GLT is also a bit different shape than the one in GL.

Is the swaybar in GLT always thicker as stock or is mine custom?

Post by **classicswede** » 16 Oct 2006 10:07 pm

I did not thing the GLT had a thicker bar. I know the 340 and the 360 GL both have a 19mm bar. Anyone with a GLt going to measure one for us?

Post by **dalahare** » 17 Oct 2006 03:01 am

The one on my '86 GLT is 20mm.

Post by **mac** » 17 Oct 2006 10:27 am

Mornin' all,

As far as I recall there were only ever 3 anti roll bars.

Up to '85' 340 = 3293123 (19mm) 360 = 3294701 (havn't got a clue)
From '86' 340 and 360 = 3208956 (19mm). The change took place when the bars changed shape and mounting arrangement (end links moved from wishbone to strut).

I don't know if some markets had a 'local' spec. - the Aussies spring to mind for generally beefed up underpins (although I hear rumours that they have tarmac in some places now).

Mac.

Post by **dalahare** » 18 Oct 2006 04:46 pm

mac wrote: (although I hear rumours that they have tarmac in some places now).

Mac.

It's true! though i try to avoid that stuff...

Post by **classicswede** » 19 Oct 2006 08:07 pm

mac wrote:Up to '85' 340 = 3293123 (19mm) 360 = 3294701 (havn't got a clue)
From '86' 340 and 360 = 3208956 (19mm). The change took place when the bars changed shape and mounting arrangement (end links moved from wishbone to strut).

Mac.

It was only the 360 that changed mounting from the wishbone to the strut. 340's stayed the same on the wishbone.

Post by **mac** » 20 Oct 2006 01:36 pm

I'm confused now !!

Vadis shows the same bar (pt.no.3208956) for all 340 and 360 variants from ch.148288 on. The end of the bars are different depending on whether the link goes to the strut or the wishbone. (the 'wishbone' type have replaceable bushes and the 'strut' type have balljoints). The same bar cannot use both types of link rod.

My '84' 340 had the early type bar and I changed to the later type when I fitted struts from an '88' B14. (very low mileage car with no strut changes).

I also recall a problem in about 89 when 'we' had a batch of link rods that squeaked in service and from memory that affected 340s and 360s. I'm pretty sure (well as sure as my age allows) that at least some 340s got the later type bar and links.

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong however - please somebody go look under their car !!

Oh, I've found a part no. (3208955) for an AUS market only bar (don't know the size though).

Mac.

Post by **Chris_C** » 20 Oct 2006 03:15 pm

I just thought I'd have a look on VADIS... and it's confused as anything if you look up an 89 (well, blatently shows two different end types). It also only finds the pre 85 part number... and the see note goes to the front shock page.

Hang on, Fakes oil drip tray is off, I'll see if I can get some piccies.

Post by **Chris_C** » 20 Oct 2006 03:24 pm

Not sure how long the piccy will stay for, uni is going to cut that account soon...

Anyway, not sure if it helps the argument or not, but this is Fakes... '89 340 1.7 on an F plate

Didn't take the verniers out, but 19mm doesn't sound far out.

Would get parents to take a piccy of Kar ('91 B14) but don't think they'd be amused if I asked them to climb underneath...

Post by **classicswede** » 20 Oct 2006 09:26 pm

That is the std 340 and early 360 set up with the links to the wishbone. It is only the later 360's that used the ball joint link to the strut.

Post by **Chris_C** » 20 Oct 2006 11:40 pm

So whats the advantages of having it on the strut then guys? Having never actually thought how the arb does what it does...

Post by **classicswede** » 21 Oct 2006 03:10 pm

I personaly prefer the 340 type of conection. The down side it the rubber bushes - very simple to sort out with one of my link kits.

The adavtage of the 360 set up is the ball joints hold the anti roll bar quite positivly but when the links fail they often fail totaly meaning you j=have no working anti roll bar.
When the 340 bushes fail you just have play.

Post by **classicswede** » 24 Oct 2006 09:51 pm

This is what the bible has to say.

Post by **mac** » 25 Oct 2006 09:11 am

Well done that man - confusion clears!

It seems a small number of 86yr. B14s did indeed get the 360 type link rods.
That explains 1.Why the 'New Features 86' green book suggests all variants had the change. 2.Why I remember a squeaking problem in about 89 (3yr. old cars in service sounds right) 3.How I managed to fit 'late type' struts to my '84' from a B14 (I'd remembered it as an 88 but it was obviously an early 86!). It also helps to explain why Vardis is so damn vague!

Incidentally - for those who don't know the 'Blue Top' sevice bulletins such as Dai has posted were not issued by the factory but were locally researched and produced at the import centre in Ipswich and applied only to the UK market. It looks like this bulletin was issued to clear confusion. My own TMA dept. produced many such bulletins but I must confess I don't remember this actual one.

The 'factory' service bulletins had a green top and blue was used only for accessory information.

Hey ho - I was right but Dai was more right !!

Mac.

Post by **classicswede** » 25 Oct 2006 10:00 pm

I was chuffed when I found this amoungs my green books. I do have quite a bit of info from the pv's to 700's.

The fact only a few 1.4's had the 360 style set up explains why I've never seen one.

Tbh I have seen a few 340's with the lugs on the struts for the 360 arb links. I always thought the struts had been replaced with ones of a 60. Does anyone know if both types of strut are still available from Volvo?