All the swaybar?

Car in question is my 2003 Accord. We've about maxed out the spring we can run with off the shelf Koni Yellows. It comes with a 25.7mm front sway bar. There is a 31mm version available from the Acura TL SH-AWD that fits with just a few tweaks. What I can't remember is whether adding roll stiffness to a double wishbone FWD car is alway beneficial? There are off the shelf solutions for the rear to get it stiff enough to bring balance back, so that's not really an issue. 

Basically I'm chasing what possibilities are out there for that last little bit of suspension without moving on to $$$$$$ shocks and my memory of theory is letting me down. 

It's worth a try, factory sway bars are usually fairly soft and when you install harder springs, their effect is relatively lower. It's hard to say whether adding roll stiffness to any type of car in general is always beneficial, depends on the design of each model...double wishbones generally have good geometry so there's less to be gained by making the suspension harder vs. something with crap geometry like most macstrut cars.

Being DW does confuse the situation a little. What's the static camber like? How badly does it wear the outer edges of the front tires? And does it have any issues with wheelspin currently (I'm assuming it's an open diff)? If it has minimal static camber and/or torches the outer edges of the tires currently it's probably at least worth trying the bigger front bar. On the other hand, if it already struggles to put power down, a big front bar is likely to make that situation worse. But if the alternative is just an OE bar from a heavier model it's probably fine.

The only issue with "check and see" is the $250 or so it costs to upgrade front and rear to balance, and the fact that I have to drop the front subframe to change front bars. 

All of my reading shows other double wishbone Hondas going with less/no bar, but they also run TONS of spring in front. Well, not tons, but a lot. 

Edit: Looked it up. In front the stock CRX/Civic has 250lb/in and they go up to 400 for a race-ish setup. I'm ballpark doing that already. Hmmmmmm.........

Maz, since you are looking to (at least partially) keep the splitter from contacting the ground in corners, any roll stiffness you add will help. Consider the idea that if you touch the ground with something that is reasonably solidly attached to the car, you are keeping the suspension from doing what it is supposed to do. Increased roll stiffness can reduce grip on the end that is stiffened, but if the loss of grip by unloading the car is significant the net gain is a benefit. Basically, increase stiffness enough to keep the splitter off the ground before going much further.

Can you move the drop link closer to the sway bar pivots to find out if more roll stiffness is the solution (without buying stuff)?

In reply to dps214 :

We have all the camber (3 ish?) and in fact the car might benefit from a bit less, we're working on tire temp testing to determine that. It's as hard on inside edges as outside edges with the current setup. 

Maybe that's what I need to think about? Can I run less static with a bigger bar? 

In reply to stafford1500 :

Not a good way to modify the current bar. But yes, the splitter is a big part of the issue. I'm not sure we're hitting hard enough to upset the car, but probably a little bit. 

If you can reduce body roll then you can run less static negative camber, I don't think there'll be a huge difference between these two factory bars though, maybe you can get down to -2.5deg.

We're also perpetually trying to keep off the bump stops. Mostly successfully, sometimes not. 

Sway bars can help keep the outside off the bump stops. If you can't stay off the bumpstops, at least make sure you have good ones - progressive multicellular urethane types are easier to drive on.

If you're getting into the outside bump stops too hard, then yes, more bar might help.  But too much bar at the drive end can hurt your ability to put down power coming out of a corner, so don't run more bar than you need to.  

400lb front springs on a big car with DWB front sounds way soft.

Are you spinning the inside tire at all?  Almost all autox Hondas run no bar up front.  And a 213543214125312 mm bar in the rear.

As much caster as you can.

ProDarwin said:

400lb front springs on a big car with DWB front sounds way soft.

Are you spinning the inside tire at all?  Almost all autox Hondas run no bar up front.  And a 213543214125312 mm bar in the rear.

 

Well, that's about all we can run with off the shelf shocks. We're on the hairy edge of damping. Stock would have been about 250-ish according to my extremely scientific testing using a press and a bathroom scale and what not. We're not spinning the inside tire but that probalby has a LOT to do with being the absolute worst K24 they made and maybe maybe maybe making 140ph to the wheels on it's best day. 

It was my experience with FWD Hondas that adding front sway bar only served to make the car push on entry by trying to apply more load to an already overloaded tire, and cause the car to spin the inside tire on corner exit.

I would say that if you need to lower the amount of front roll, do it by upping spring rate.  I know you say that you're on the edge of the spring you can run with your current shocks, but remember that a bigger sway bar is effectively the same as adding spring rate - both a coil spring and a sway bar apply force that the damper has to resist - it doesn't know the difference between the two. 

Seth, if you do standard intake/header/exhaust and a tune you should get up into the 160s for whp.   I’ve been researching this lots lately as we are swapping our Civic to a K24a2. 

In reply to dinger :

This is what I thought the answer was, and I'm very much leaning toward just rolling as is instead of opening pandoras box by changing things. The car works now and I'm comfortable driving it. 

In reply to Sonic :

The issue is tuning the 2003 ecu. From what I can find most people are messing with the 2005+ ecu. I can go grab one of those and go through all the steps, but I'm not 100% sure I want to stay with a K. The J32/6spd/led combo from the TL is tugging at me. 

mazdeuce - Seth said:

In reply to Sonic :

 The J32/6spd/led combo from the TL is tugging at me. 

Let me help you with that:

https://milwaukee.craigslist.org/cto/d/waukesha-2003-acura-cl-type/6788540382.html

In reply to Robbie :

I can put eyes on. I live at max 15 minutes away from that guy.

Edit: I know exactly where that parking lot is.

Couldn't you just unhook the front bar to know if that's not the answer? Now hear me out.... The civics typically ran without one, and since we're making the comparison to the accord, why not try the easiest way and just unhook it and take a few laps. If it feels unbelievably worse in every way you know that's the wrong direction. Just don't let your transit driver adjust the tires......

I'd run stiffer springs.  I wouldn't worry to much about being underdamped.  Think about how underdamped you are now if you are legit on the bumpstops.

In reply to nocones :

It's the whole "we have to drive this stupid think 6k miles in a week" that prevents me from doing that. 

So why not a bigger rear bar to start with?  More roll stiffness without the corner exit traction compromised.

In reply to ProDarwin :

We already have enough rear bar to balance the car. It's a bar from a TL and it's 19mm vs the stock 17mm. I need to run the rear shocks full soft right now or I get more high speed oversteer than I like. Rear spring rate also increased proportionately more than front. Probably. Bit home brew going on. I will need more rear bar if I increase front roll stiffness, but not otherwise.