Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
'16 ATS-V MT6 Sedan, Alfas: '67 Duetto, '84 GTV6 3.5L 24v/Vette C5 project
Joined
·
533 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey All,

New 2013 ATS 2L Turbo, 6sp manual Premium owner since May 8th. Still exploring the car and its limits. I've seen the BWoody downlinks and the after-market Eibach anti-sway bars for this car. (actually I have Eibach anti-sway bars for an Alfa of mine that work superbly!).

This car is equipped with the FE3 MRC shocks... so it begs the question... with the adaptive nature of the Magnetic Ride control shocks, are upgraded anti-roll bars and associated down links really necessary?

Your input is welcomed!

Ron
 

·
Registered
'16 ATS-V MT6 Sedan, Alfas: '67 Duetto, '84 GTV6 3.5L 24v/Vette C5 project
Joined
·
533 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
No comments .... ?
 

·
Super Moderator
2013 ATS Performance 2.0T M6, 2016 Mustang GT Performance Pack, M6
Joined
·
6,631 Posts
This car is equipped with the FE3 MRC shocks... so it begs the question... with the adaptive nature of the Magnetic Ride control shocks, are upgraded anti-roll bars and associated down links really necessary?
No comments .... ?
I didn't comment because I don't think there is an answer. Everything is a compromise. The factory could have used stiffer bars but they determined the majority of owners would prefer the ones they put in. So for most owners, stiffer bars would make the car worse. So its an individual circumstances thing. You know what stiffer bars do and what stiffer links with less flexible bushings do. So the question is more: do you want that for your car? I would have no idea. Its kind of like when someone asks if they should buy the red one or the blue one? Only they can know which they would be happier with.
 

·
Registered
ATS
Joined
·
455 Posts
The thing with the Eibach sways are that they are designed to replace the non FE2 suspension sway bars,
the rear sway bar on ours is 19mm and so is the Eibach one, still stiffer than ours.
I have the Eibach and I like them a lot but I wish I would have gone with a stiffer setting in the rear (2 settings for front and back)
FE3
Front is 25 mm
Rear is 19 mm


FE2
Front 23 mm
Rear 14 mm

Eibach Sways (2 settings)
Front 29 mm
Rear 19 mm
 

·
Super Moderator
2013 ATS Performance 2.0T M6, 2016 Mustang GT Performance Pack, M6
Joined
·
6,631 Posts
I've never understood why infinitely adjustable aren't more common like in racing. All it takes is the center of the bar to be flat and a way to rotate it. With the flat side vertical there can be virtually no give and with it horizontal, it can be as flexible as a candidate. I can only guess its the sellers being afraid of being sued when some dummy sets the front and back up in a way that makes the car unsafe.
 

·
Registered
'16 ATS-V MT6 Sedan, Alfas: '67 Duetto, '84 GTV6 3.5L 24v/Vette C5 project
Joined
·
533 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I appreciate the input. Very appreciate of the specs supplied by exbagboy... provides good comparison between FE2, FE3, and the Eibachs.

I got to thinking (and I may be wrong) but I thought, given the adaptive nature of the MRC's, that while the Eibachs could/would provide a little mechanical advantage over stock (apparently just up front) that the overall effect/feel might not be much for the driver, seeing how the MRC's are already doing a lot of correction/stiffening on their own. Upgrading the anti-roll bar(s) might only lessen the 'burden' on the MRC shocks, so they don't have to work as hard... maybe adding minimal life increase/less wear.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top