Astonishing find! Front Sway Bar Links
- Thread starter HKPRO5
- Start date
2003.5_MSP
Member
- :
- 2003.5 MSP
Yup I do love it but not a fan of slammed though yours is about the lowest I like by ur pic
Ok glad to see other people are on the same quest.
Can you measure the K80104 from stud to stud? How did you discover this one?
The stock MSP front links are 10.5" long.
I've discovered the Mazda 3 front links are 11.7" long, so nearly perfect for an MSP with a 1.5" drop. I just flipped through the Moog catalog at Checker yesterday until I found something that looked close. They didn't have any in stock, so I called Mazda and they had some. I then drove over to Mazda and measured them, but they wanted $36 each.
The Mazda 3 Moog part is K80235, and they look about the same length, but are much pricier than the K80104 though. I am curious what the difference is between the two. From the pics it looks like the 235 is greasable and the 104 is not, but pictures aren't always accurate.
For the rears, the stock MSP links are 7.5". I wanted something 8.5" long, and found this Moog part, K80869, which says it is 8.5" in the catalog, but I had to special order it. It should be in today so I can verify the length, but Checker wants $37 each. RockAuto is much more reasonable $23 each. BTW, the K80104 is only $13 on RockAuto.
Can you measure the K80104 from stud to stud? How did you discover this one?
The stock MSP front links are 10.5" long.
I've discovered the Mazda 3 front links are 11.7" long, so nearly perfect for an MSP with a 1.5" drop. I just flipped through the Moog catalog at Checker yesterday until I found something that looked close. They didn't have any in stock, so I called Mazda and they had some. I then drove over to Mazda and measured them, but they wanted $36 each.
The Mazda 3 Moog part is K80235, and they look about the same length, but are much pricier than the K80104 though. I am curious what the difference is between the two. From the pics it looks like the 235 is greasable and the 104 is not, but pictures aren't always accurate.
For the rears, the stock MSP links are 7.5". I wanted something 8.5" long, and found this Moog part, K80869, which says it is 8.5" in the catalog, but I had to special order it. It should be in today so I can verify the length, but Checker wants $37 each. RockAuto is much more reasonable $23 each. BTW, the K80104 is only $13 on RockAuto.
Ok bad news. I stopped buy Checker to see the K80869 end links for the rear. They are only 7.5" stud to stud. The 8.5" must be the total length from the end of each bearing housing.
Most dimensions are by the stud so I was a little disappointed.
My rear isn't making much noise just a small metal clank when going over large speed bumps, it may not even be the sway bar, although I've already tried the washer trick on the rear struts to no effect.
They had K80235 and K80104 in town, so they will both be at the store tomorrow and they said they will price match Rockauto. I'll do a comparison and let everyone know if the 235's are worth the extra coin.
Most dimensions are by the stud so I was a little disappointed.
My rear isn't making much noise just a small metal clank when going over large speed bumps, it may not even be the sway bar, although I've already tried the washer trick on the rear struts to no effect.
They had K80235 and K80104 in town, so they will both be at the store tomorrow and they said they will price match Rockauto. I'll do a comparison and let everyone know if the 235's are worth the extra coin.
So stud to stud on the 104's are right aroun 10", 99prolx, you can maybe verify that. They are actually shorter than the stock Mazdaspeed links which are 10.5".
The 235's are 12", which is exactly what I want, 10.5" + 1.5" drop. They unfortunately, are much more expensive $31 each, and are not greasable, and are comparable in thickness to the Mazda 3 OEMs that I found. I went ahead and bought them and put them on tonight. It's nice to have a quiet car again, well as quiet as an MSP gets.
I am surprised your LX has a level sway bar with a 10" link since you have a 3.5" drop. Seems like you might want to go longer. Mine were actually fine, but I think it put extra stress on my sway bar bushings and my sway bar started rattling around a few months after lowering the car. I've heard of others that have lowered their MSPs on the stock links without any problems, but maybe the extra heat out here in Phoenix takes more of a toll on the bushings.
Anyways, I hope they last. I never did find any 8.5" same way facing links for the rear. Those K80500 look too long so I didn't bother looking for them. If anyone comes across an 8.5" stud to stud link, that would be a great find.
The 235's are 12", which is exactly what I want, 10.5" + 1.5" drop. They unfortunately, are much more expensive $31 each, and are not greasable, and are comparable in thickness to the Mazda 3 OEMs that I found. I went ahead and bought them and put them on tonight. It's nice to have a quiet car again, well as quiet as an MSP gets.
I am surprised your LX has a level sway bar with a 10" link since you have a 3.5" drop. Seems like you might want to go longer. Mine were actually fine, but I think it put extra stress on my sway bar bushings and my sway bar started rattling around a few months after lowering the car. I've heard of others that have lowered their MSPs on the stock links without any problems, but maybe the extra heat out here in Phoenix takes more of a toll on the bushings.
Anyways, I hope they last. I never did find any 8.5" same way facing links for the rear. Those K80500 look too long so I didn't bother looking for them. If anyone comes across an 8.5" stud to stud link, that would be a great find.
Yes they're about 10 inches. The stock lx links are way shorter. The 10 inch ones actually limit the droop of the control arm when its jacked up. The driver side link actually hits the control arm after its lifted about 5 inches lol. Looks like I'm staying way low for good!
Yeah, the longer 12" links from the 3 cause the sway bar to hit the control arm when you jack the car up. Even the stock MSP links aren't far from it. There isn't a way around that, you simply have to jack the rotor up until the sway bar and strut line up with the link to remove/install them.
I don't see it being a problem unless you go all Dukes of Hazard and your front wheels leave the ground. Even then it's not a lot of weight and the end link can obviously handle it so I don't think there would be any adverse effects. Only issue I would see is the metal on metal clunk it would make when you left the ground, and there are probably better things to worry about at that point.
My ride height is pretty similar to yours, maybe a couple tenths of an inch higher. Even when stock my rear was a few tenths lower, and now after installing the HPK, the rear is still a couple tenths lower. Kind of annoying and seems like a problem with every set of springs made for this car. I guess the only solution would be coilovers and continually adjusting them until it's perfect.
When I had two guys in the back and a bunch of luggage in the trunk I had some rubbing over bumps just on my driver's side. Not happy about it, but not sure if I am willing to roll the fenders.
I don't see it being a problem unless you go all Dukes of Hazard and your front wheels leave the ground. Even then it's not a lot of weight and the end link can obviously handle it so I don't think there would be any adverse effects. Only issue I would see is the metal on metal clunk it would make when you left the ground, and there are probably better things to worry about at that point.
My ride height is pretty similar to yours, maybe a couple tenths of an inch higher. Even when stock my rear was a few tenths lower, and now after installing the HPK, the rear is still a couple tenths lower. Kind of annoying and seems like a problem with every set of springs made for this car. I guess the only solution would be coilovers and continually adjusting them until it's perfect.
When I had two guys in the back and a bunch of luggage in the trunk I had some rubbing over bumps just on my driver's side. Not happy about it, but not sure if I am willing to roll the fenders.
M3Silverfox
Member
- :
- 2016 Mazda 3 Hatch
In regards to length, wouldn't it be a little bit better to go a little shorter on the links for better performance? If my physics on the matter are correct, wouldn't that shorten the travel distance required to engage them to full support? I had the adjustable links on my "00 Prot and shortened them an inch or so and I gained improved handling. I would assume that extending the links for lowered cars (to make them level) would give you stock engagement travel. Just a thought...
That's a misconception I had as well. The sway bar is not supposed to bend, it is supposed to twist, or rather keep from twisting. This is why the sway bar end links MUST be at a 90 degree angle from the sway bar, because you want the force from the end link to only rotate the sway bar.
Imagine looking at the car directly from the driver's side. The sway bar actually rotates around an axis, which is the attchement point on the vehicle (our bushings). If the car wasn't in the way and the endlinks weren't attached, your could draw a circle with the end of the sway bar as you spun the bar around.
The endlink also spins around the strut bracket and makes another circle. Where these two circles intersect is where there is no flexing on the sway bar or end link. Since the two radii are bolted together think of any place where they do not intersect as either pushing or pulling on the sway bar. You want the two circles to intersect at 270 degrees (straight down) on the endlink circle and 180 degrees on the sway bar circle. This is how Mazda designed them or any manufacturer for that matter. It is not supposed to stop the car from traveling up and down just one side traveling without the other.
If you lower the car, which lowers the axis of the sway bar, you will intersect some small amount past 270 degrees on the endlink's circle, and just before 180 degrees on the sway bar. Now when one side travels upward, some of that stress (cosine of >270) will actually bend the bar instead of just rotating it. If you think about the intersection of the circles as where the stress on the sway bar goes from pushing to pulling, if the bushing isn't completely tight around the bar, it will spring back once you level out and make the infamous clunk.
The concept of adjustable links and "pre-loading" a sway bar is complete nonsense. All you are doing is taking stress that should be going into twisting the sway bar and instead bending it, reducing it's effectiveness, creating non-linear response, and shortening the life of your bushings, sway bar, and end links.
Any improved handling that might result is because you are altering the torsional strength of the sway bar by bending it, but I believe this would be more than offset by the force that is being wasted bending the bar instead of leveling the car out like it is intended to do.
I'll try to draw something up this week in inkscape or something to help explain this better.
Imagine looking at the car directly from the driver's side. The sway bar actually rotates around an axis, which is the attchement point on the vehicle (our bushings). If the car wasn't in the way and the endlinks weren't attached, your could draw a circle with the end of the sway bar as you spun the bar around.
The endlink also spins around the strut bracket and makes another circle. Where these two circles intersect is where there is no flexing on the sway bar or end link. Since the two radii are bolted together think of any place where they do not intersect as either pushing or pulling on the sway bar. You want the two circles to intersect at 270 degrees (straight down) on the endlink circle and 180 degrees on the sway bar circle. This is how Mazda designed them or any manufacturer for that matter. It is not supposed to stop the car from traveling up and down just one side traveling without the other.
If you lower the car, which lowers the axis of the sway bar, you will intersect some small amount past 270 degrees on the endlink's circle, and just before 180 degrees on the sway bar. Now when one side travels upward, some of that stress (cosine of >270) will actually bend the bar instead of just rotating it. If you think about the intersection of the circles as where the stress on the sway bar goes from pushing to pulling, if the bushing isn't completely tight around the bar, it will spring back once you level out and make the infamous clunk.
The concept of adjustable links and "pre-loading" a sway bar is complete nonsense. All you are doing is taking stress that should be going into twisting the sway bar and instead bending it, reducing it's effectiveness, creating non-linear response, and shortening the life of your bushings, sway bar, and end links.
Any improved handling that might result is because you are altering the torsional strength of the sway bar by bending it, but I believe this would be more than offset by the force that is being wasted bending the bar instead of leveling the car out like it is intended to do.
I'll try to draw something up this week in inkscape or something to help explain this better.
Last edited:
diabolichippo
Member
- :
- 2003.5 MSP
Thanks for the tip. Checker has them for $12 (dunno the brand) and $19 for the moog.
Neubreed I think that the escape endlinks would actually be too long and limit the down travel on your suspension. Maybe you could measure your stock links and let us know how long they are and go from there. For mine to be the right length I mush be at full drop of 3 inches or at least 2.5 inches. At 1.5 inches your stock length should work just fine.
Ok well my endlinks are shot. When I replace them I'll see how level the sway bar sits and update this then. But I'm curious as to why when you lower a car you want a longer endlink? To me it seems like a longer link on a lowered car would cause The sway bar/endlink to contact the control arm losing all ability for the sway bar to perform like it's intended.
