4kq swaybar questions

[Brian Devlin]

I think the old style would generate a bit of friction, which would
be bad for handling. Add stiffer bushings (or heim joint ends) to the
newer style and you'll have a stiff, low friction set up. But
shouldn't you be worrying more about the diameter of the bars used?
Diameter will have a lot more affect on handling than the type of
linkage at the end (unless you can figure out a way to tune the bar
by altering the linkage). Or is the 4k vs CGT thing really about
diameter?
What's the adjustable  turnbuckle idea? Got photos or diagrams?
Adjustability would be great, if it would help you drive on snow in a
straight line (I think that's the reason these cars have no rear
bars).
-Brian

>Thanks for the help, I tried to head off this type of answer with my second
>post, but everyone is responding to the first.  Once I looked at my car
>(instead of listening to the archives), it was obvious that it had the "85
>style" linkage in front.
>
>Either way, the question was not  _when_ the change occurred but what
>the effects of mixing the two types would be on the handling, and which
>setup was better.  It has been suggested to me that the older style bar is
>actually superior for performance driving, but so far that seems to be
>speculation.
>
>It has also been suggested that the CGT bar will make the car less tail
>happy.  Ideally, I think I'd like a little more oversteer than it has now, so
>that
>when the center diff is _locked,_ the steering is maybe a tad more
>tailhappy than it would be in a stock 4kq with the center diff _unlocked._
>
>Now my question is whether or not an adjustable turnbuckle could be
>fitted to the center of the bar in order to adjust stiffness.  This would seem
>to be the best way to adjust the stiffness to taste.  Another idea to
>counteract a tailhappy bar would be to underdrive or eliminate the power
>steering, but I'd rather have the adjustable bar.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Matt
>82 4ks
>84 4ksq
>
>>===== Original Message From Martin Pajak <martin at quattro.ca> =====
>>The bar itself is the same however there are two ways of mounting the
>bar
>>though.
>>The change in mid '85.
>>Previous version '81-mid'85 attaches using brackets that use only one
>bolt
>>and bracket pivots into place via tab.
>>Mid'85 and newer use two bolts and nuts are welded onto the subframe
>part.
>>Much easier to install.
>>
>>Hope this helps.
>>
>>Cheers
>>Martin Pajak
>>
>>http://www.quattro.ca
>>
>>1983 Audi Ur-quattro (265,000 km) Canada spec. Winter car
>>1985 Audi Ur-quattro (141,000 km) Euro spec. import ;o)
>>
>>
>>
>>>  nicksimc at plu.edu writes:
>>>  > How do the pre-84 bars compare to the 85-on bars?  I assume
>>>  that the later
>>>  > bars are an improvement, but just want to be sure.  I know that
>>>  I'll have
>>>  > to use the later control arms and linkage as well if I go to the 85-on
>>>  > style, but I'm willing to do this if it is worth it, and the
>>>  bushings are
>>>  > to be replaced anyway.
>>>
>>>  The switchover to the front bar with the link rods at the end actually
>>>  occurred in mid-1983 model year in the 4000 and coupe series (earlier
>>>  4Ks and coupes have the bar ends attached directly to the control arm
>>>  without the link rod).  I am not aware of any further change for
>>>  m.y. 1985.
>>>  Since the 4kq was introduced in the 1984 m.y. in the US, all of them
>have
>>>  the "new" style bars.
>>>
>>>  -Ti
>>>  01 S4 2.7 biturbo quattro
>>>  84 5000S 2.1 turbo
>>>  80 4000 2.0
>>>  --
>>>      ///  Ti Kan                Vorsprung durch Technik
>>>     ///   AMB Laboratories, Sunnyvale, CA. USA
>>>    ///    ti at amb.org
>>>   //////  http://www.amb.org/ti/
>>>  ///
>>>
>>>