70 A66 Challenger: New Front Sway Bar Size

[YO7_A66]

 I am trying to determine which size front sway bar would be the best selection for my car. My 70 A66 340 Challenger is a street car but I want to get rid of some sway that I still have in the current setup.

I have decided that the next suspension change will be a larger front sway bar (then later in the year change out the shocks). But for now, I want to make a decision on the Hellwig solid 1-1/8" or the Hellwig tubular 1-1/4" for this car. What do you think would be the right choice?

 Current Setup: Monroe shocks all around, 235/60/15's and 255/60/15's, stock front sway bar, 3/4" frame mounted rear sway bar, .92" torsion bars, 11/16" tie rods, new poly bushings and ball joints, #043 rear springs both sides (6 springs) and new alignment done last Spring (no specs).

 From what I have read, the 1-1/4" tubular bar will be stiffer than the solid 1-1/8" bar but I am concerned that it might be too stiff for the front of this car. Summit shows the solid bar at $199 and the tubular bar at $175, so price is not an issue between these two choices.  I am mainly concerned on which size would be the best choice.

 I am experiencing the rear end sliding around when being aggressive around curves at lower speeds. This is one reason why I want to look into a change on the front sway bar. The other reason is that I am getting some sway left to right with quick movements in the steering even with the current dual sway bars.

 Note: Possible future suspension changes: Single adjustable shocks, 1.06" torsion bars.

 My current stock front sway bar passes through the k-frame. Do the larger aftermarket bars mount through or below the k-frame? Any pictures of these two hellwig bars mounted to the k-frame would be  great help!
 Thanks!

[73EStroker]

You will be fine to go with the 1-1/4 tubular. I have that one and it does fit where the stock one resides thru the k-frame. Rear is fine at 3/4 as you cannot have the size of the rear near the size of the front. Good shocks and low profile tires will be a good investment but that most likely means going to a 17" wheel. I believe Brads 70 has talked about wheel size with respect to tire choice and sidewall stiffness. Of course the biggest issue we all face is the steering box. Personally I can't do it because of my TTI headers but addition of  TA style control and pitman arms is a big benefit.

[YO7_A66]

 Thank you for your sway bar reply!

 I have read the same comment about our original style steering boxes but I do not know the issues. What issue is everyone worried about on these steering boxes?

 Thanks

[dfrazz]

Thank you for your sway bar reply!

 I have read the same comment about our original style steering boxes but I do not know the issues. What issue is everyone worried about on these steering boxes?

 Thanks

Steering boxes are just loose and allow a lot of steering wheel travel and the lock-to-lock ratio sucks, but can be rebuilt by Firm Feel to a Stage II or III for tighter feel and better ratio (like a modern car).  If you go with an AAR-T/A fast ratio pitman arm for a better wheel lock-to-lock ratio they do not fit with most headers, although there is speculation that TTI now has a header that works.

[crash340]

If you have a small block, I can tell you the TTI headers fit, with the TA idler and pitman arms fitted with room to spare, that is what I have on my Cuda, and a FF stage two sterring box, go a stage three, you wont regret it.

[HP2]

There actually is not that big of a difference in the applied rate between a 1.125 solid bar and a 1.25 hollow bar. The reason for the hollow bar being larger is to replace the rate lost by being hollow, but it does drop several pounds of weight off the nose by comparison.