This is interesting ... was cleaning out the shed the other day and found my swaybar, so fitted it up and even flexed the Zook for giggles. That's a '93 tintop with 2" BL, RUF and +30mm shackles so I do get a fair bit of body roll on corners. Haven't had it on there since it was stock, so wasn't real sure whether it would even fit without binding.
Definitely retarded front flex a bit - I reckon it's probably 2-3" shy of the articulation with it removed. I'm pretty certain it made a difference on road though, so I've decided to keep it on there for a bit and see how it goes.
Interestingly I just found that I have three similar photos at different stages in the build. Bracing the shackles has had a huge impact on flex (compare Photo 1 to Photo 2) ... fitting the swaybar has been far more minimal (Photo 2 to Photo 3). Of course if I had have fitted the swaybar without bracing the shackles, I probably would have gone straight from Photo 1 to Photo 3 anyhow.
Despite having lost a considerable amount of flex by bracing the shackles and refitting the swaybar, I think I'm actually happier with the Zook set up like this than I was when it was uber-flexy. Haven't had it offroad yet, but with lockers F&R I don't think the reduced flex is going to worry me all that much, while the increased on-road stability and longer bush life are pretty big plusses.
So... what'dya reckon? Is stability and bush life more important than flex for a locked Zook? Or am I barking up the wrong tree
1) WITHOUT SWAYBAR, WITH RUF (NO CHASSIS EXTENSION), +30mm UNBRACED SHACKLES:
2) AS ABOVE BUT WITH BRACED SHACKLES AND NEW BUSHES
3) AS ABOVE BUT WITH SWAYBAR FITTED
SIDE VIEW AT PHOTO 1 STAGE (TYRE BELOW CHASSIS)
SIDE VIEW AT PHOTO 3 STAGE (TYRE NEAR TOP OF CHASSIS)
