Sway bar for W124 E420 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Yury · #1 11-17-2004, 11:02 PM

Guys,

Can someone recommend whay frony sway bar to install on my E420? I heard good things about Sportline and E500 bar. Also, how do they fit? Do i need to modify anything?

thanks,
Yury

AustinsCE · #2 11-17-2004, 11:17 PM

I believe the Cabriolet "sportline" has the biggest sway bar of the 124s, not including the E60 or aftermarket like renntech because those are probably either hard to get or expensive. They should fit right on, just get new bushings.

gsxr · #3 11-18-2004, 10:36 AM

No no no no. For a 6-cyl car, yes the "limo" (cabrio sport) bar is preferred over the 500E bar, but the 6-cyl bars won't fit V8 cars - the shape is wrong. You can't use the Sportline or Cabrio bars. You need the 500E front bar. There was an E420 Sportline offered in Europe, which basically consisted of E500 sway bars, front struts, and special springs. No mods needed to put the E500 bar on your car, just get new bushings. Austin is correct, the only larger bars are the AMG E60 front bar and the RENNtech front bar:

E420 = 26mm
E500 = 28mm
E60 = 29mm
RENNtech = 30mm

You'll want to upgrade the rear to the 500E bar as well - trust me. Full details on sway bar sizes, part numbers, prices, etc are in the Excel spreadsheet (or PDf file) located here:

http://www.meimann.com/images/mercedes/W124_sway_bars/

LINDS HANSON · #4 11-18-2004, 10:47 AM

you will need a V8 specific front bar i.e. E500 or E60 to clear your engine the cab/ limo/ sportline bar is only suitable for 4/5/6 cyl cars.

Yury · #5 11-18-2004, 07:52 PM

Guys,

thank you all for your aqdvice! I will deffinatly go with the E500 bar.
Now, where would I go to find one, the local steaqlership?

thanks,
Yury

gsxr · #6 11-18-2004, 07:56 PM

Try Phil at FastLane first (site sponsor - link at top of page). Otherwise call Rusty (800-741-5252). And yes the last option is the stealership... :p

Make sure you get the 4 bushings - two outer, two middle, along with the sway bar.

Subman · #7 11-18-2004, 08:48 PM

Check out my site on this such thing
I have the 500E bar.
http://tom.actionfit.com/500Eswaybar.html

ksing44 · #8 11-19-2004, 06:50 AM

Do you think there is good availability for the "limo" (cabrio sport) bar? It seems like a very special part, so I wondered if will be hard to get. I am still waiting for the funds to get this modification and I hoping I will be able to do it in the spring. Do you think I will be able to find the "limo" bar, or should I just plan on getting the E500 bars for the front and rear?

I just had new tires installed and I had the alignment adjusted. The car drives straight down the road, but my problem is that the wheels are not centered in the fender arches and I have just a little bit of rubbing, even though I went with the recommended tire size of 205/55/16. It seems that the caster may have to be adjusted slightly above the specifications to center the wheel in the fender well, since I lowered my car with the Eibach springs. It is always something. I love the look and feel of my car, but this lowering thing is a real pain in the neck. Is caster adjustment the only way to move the wheel forward in the fender arch?

I also have some concerns about my KMAC bushings. I am always worried that the eccentric bushing will strip or slip or something. Call me paranoid, but the camber is about 0.5 more negative than when the bushings were installed 3 years ago. The car may have just settled on the springs and new spring pads, but the ride height hasn’t changed, based on my measurements. I do worry about those "adjustable" bushings. Do you guys think the KMAC bushings are truly safe?

gsxr · #9 11-19-2004, 11:03 AM

Hi again,

1) There should be no problem with the limo bar availability. It may need to come out of Germany, but that bar was used on a lot of different models over there, it's probably not going away anytime soon. I'd say it would be more likely that the 500E bars would become unavailable before the limo bar!

2) About the rubbing. Did you install the spacers? That should cure the rubbing against the back of the wheel opening. If it's rubbing on top you need to fold the fender lips, as outlined in the AMG wheel install instructions. Otherwise, yes, the only way to move the wheel forward is with caster adjustments. What specs did they use to align the car? It should have been either Sportline or 500E specs.

3) I think the KMAC bushings are probably fine. (I wish I had a set.) The alternative is to get the metal turnbuckle type camber arm, which I'm not crazy about. MBRacer designed a great adjustable arm but decided to exit the MB aftermarket business before going into production on those...

4) BTW - what's your ride height, front & rear, measured from the bottom of the fender lips to the center of the wheel? I think my car is about 13.75 front and 14.0 rear, with a full tank of fuel.

HTH,

ksing44 · #10 11-20-2004, 06:45 AM

Hello gsxr,

I am quite sure that spacers will not help me. It isn’t really an in and out thing, it is a forward and back thing, although moving the wheel in toward the suspension would eliminate the current rubbing problem. The tire rubs ever so slightly on the edge of the plastic panel that creates the lower portion of the outside fender lip on the back of the front wheel arches. It only happens under somewhat extreme handling conditions and I think it may have already stopped, since I already wore off some of the tread of my new tires.

Although the rubbing seems to have subsided, I really want to have the wheels centered in the fender arches. I may try adjusting the camber to the absolute limit or maybe just a hair over the limit to see how much I can move the wheel forward in the fender arch. I initiated a conversation with my mechanic, but he was too busy to talk to me at length about making the adjustments. My car is aligned to within the "92-95 124.034 Sport Suspension" specifications. The actual caster is 10.8 and the specified range is from 9.92 to 10.92 degrees. I am just not sure how much wheel movement I can expect with a 0.3-degree change in caster. It would only take about 0.25 inches of wheel movement to get the wheels centered in the fender arch, so I will have to wait for the input from my mechanic to determine how much movement I can expect from the small change in caster. I also don’t know enough about my suspension to know if it is possible to make adjustments at the top and the bottom, so that the camber stays the same, but the wheels can be moved forward.

My car is about 13.5 inches front and 13.75 inches in the rear, so I guess my car may be just about 0.25 inches lower than yours is. I do quite a bit of measuring, but I usually measure from the ground to the fender lip, since it can be difficult to find the absolute center of the wheel. I have measured my car when it is parked at any number of places all around town, but my "gold standard" is to measure my car when it is parked on my very level garage floor. Measuring from the level garage floor to the center of the fender lip above the tire, my car is 25.25 inches in the front and 25.5 inches in the rear. I guess it is fair to say that I have been a little obsessed with my ride height, ever since I lowered the car. I am always wondering if I should switch the spring pads one more time. The 0.25 inch difference, from front to rear, has always made me think I should change the rear spring pad to lower the back just a little bit more. The OEM configuration also had me sitting 0.25 inches higher in the rear, but the difference in the size of the gap is more noticeable now that it is smaller with the lowered suspension. I suppose I could also raise the front by 1-bump, which might help a number of issues.

It is amazing how many things are affected by such a small change in ride height. My car is only 1 inch lower and it just seems like there is always something to tinker with. What makes it worse, is that it is very hard to find anyone that really knows anything about it. For some reason, it seems that most guys just live with their problems and don’t find solutions or even share their stories about the issues. I have read quite a few posts about lowering a W124, but few guys talk about all of the nagging little issues. Maybe they don’t even know that they have a problem. I am quite particular, so maybe I am just a nut. My car is relatively new for a W124. It is a 1995 Special Edition and it is in very good condition, so maybe my sensitivity is higher than guys that are modding their older 1980s versions of the W124s.

I will keep working at it and hopefully I will get it perfect after some persistence. Perfect for me will include the big fat swaybars, so thank you for the reassurance about availability of the limo bar. I’m sure there are plenty of people that would say the w124 was already perfect, but I think the cars really were way too high and a little too soft to begin with. I just love the look and feel of the car, now that is just a little lower and the suspension is little tighter with the new springs and shocks. The wheels and tires were definitely too small. Even professional reviews criticized the size of the wheels and tires. It also seems odd to me that such a magnificent machine would not have an adjustable rear camber. I can’t believe that Mercedes didn’t allow for adjusting the rear camber. All cars settle on their suspension over time, so all cars would benefit from being able to adjust the rear camber. It seems like it would have been very simple to add an eccentric bushing on the rear camber arm. They have one on what I think they call the rear thrust arm, to make rear toe adjustments, so why didn’t they include camber adjustment?

Thank you for the reassurance about my KMAC bushings. I suppose the dealer or my mechanic would notice during the inspection process if the bushings were lose and slipping dangerously.

Thank you for your support,

Ken

Am I a pukeface for writing so much? What do you think pukeface symbolizes?

JoeR · #11 11-20-2004, 09:34 AM

OK, ksing44, I'll help with your obsession....

First, are you up on your trigonometry? You'll need that.

Next, out to the garage and start measuring. (Why do I picture you out there now with a tape after the long post so early?)

With some "creative" measuring (a level may help accuracy) you need to determine 3 points:

1. Plate at upper strut mount where shock attaches. Try to measure (at least) the approximate center.

2. Vertically, down from #1 at ball joint horizontal level.

3. Center of lower ball joint.

Now, you have 3 points... a triangle!! Draw out this triangle to help you visualize. Dig out those trig skills and do some math. If you measured correctly, the angle at #1 (top) should be the current caster angle. (Caster is the angle of the pivot axis when the wheel turns, IOW, the angle of the "line" connecting points 1 & 3.)

If you feel that the wheel needs to move 1/4" forward to better center in opening, add 1/4" to the 2 & 3 dimension and do the math again. That should give you the angle at 1, which would be the caster angle with the wheel moved 1/4" fowward.

Have fun!!

ksing44 · #12 11-20-2004, 11:58 AM

Thanks JoeR,

You do have the right picture of me out there measuring away. Actually I am pretty good with my math skills and I have done quite a bit of “triangulation” in the past. My previous passion was riding my bicycle and I spent quite a bit of time strategizing about the best configuration for all of the angles on my bike frame to maximize my own physical strengths. I had a nice level, a weighted plum-bob-like device, and a protractor with a string to figure out all of the angles. This time, however, since I am not a car DIYer, I don’t have easy access to all the parts involved in the calculations. I am going to have to defer to my “very special Porsche race-tuner mechanic” to help me figure it all out. I think he may not be as theoretical in his approach and he has far more experience with a 911 than with an E320, but I think that together we can certainly figure it out empirically.

Thanks again,

Ken

In this photo, you should be able to see the asymmetry at the front wheel. Can you see that the tire is closer to the back than it is to the front of the front fender lip? This is the picture with my old tires. Even though I replaced them with the same size tires, the shape of the new tires seems to have it even closer in the rear of the front fender arch.

gsxr · #13 11-20-2004, 12:04 PM

Hi again,

Actually, the spacers are designed for *exactly* the problem you are having. I had rubbing in this area on my lowered 300E. I did not know about the spacer kit back then unfortunately. There was an interesting file in the WIS about installing 16x7 wheels on a 124, it mentioned getting a different side moulding piece for the fender on that part, and painting it to match the car. I need to find that again and post it. BTW, mine only rubbed under hard cornering as well.

About the alignment specs, read the PDF file from the FSM with details. The 124.034 Sport specs are very close to the 124.032 Sport specs, so that's probably not an issue. I really don't think that messing with the alignment is the cure. Get the car aligned properly, and fix the clearance problems by adjusting the fenders, moulding, or whatever else is in the way.

Ride height: My car has settled and is now *exactly* the same as yours - 13.5 front, and 13.75 rear with a full tank of fuel. Always measure from the fender lip to the wheel center. Measuring from the ground will be affected by tire size, inflation pressure, etc. The distance from wheel center to fender lip will always be the most accurate. I was going to put in a thinner rear pad (I have 4pt front, 3pt rear) but I figure when my stereo install is complete, the extra weight will settle it nicely. I actually would like to raise the ride height to 14.0 but I can't without getting new (taller) springs...

Yeah, you probably are obsessing a bit much over the little things, but I know what that's like - I do the same thing to some extent.

And I totally agree the stock 124 sat too high, was too soft, etc... but remember their target buyer back then - older folks who wanted a comfy car, not a rocket! Bigger wheels & tires would have been great and MB obviously figured that out in the later 90's. The rear camber adjustment isn't needed with stock tires that are rotated frequently, but with our wider wheels & tires, it is nice to have. I'd shoot for -0.5 degrees in the rear, -1.0 max, if you want decent tire life and don't autocross the car or anything.

ksing44 · #14 11-20-2004, 12:17 PM

Hello gsxr,

Now I realize that you were talking about the fender spacers, not the wheel spacers. I thought about getting the fender spacers or just stacking some washers to do the same thing, but I still don’t understand why that wouldn’t create gaps and misalignments between the fenders and the other body panels. Could you explain what you do about the irregularities that must be created in the alignment of the body panels, if you space the lower part of the fender away from the chassis?

I have much more negative camber than -0.5. Even with my KMAC bushings, the mechanic only adjusted the rear to the same maximum specification as the front, which was –1.3. Now the car settled a bit, so my camber is –1.8 in the rear. He didn’t readjust the rear camber when I went to the shop this time. I had him focused on the front to deal the toe-in and trying to get my steering wheel perfectly straight. As I explained, I am a little timid about having anyone mess with the adjustable bushings. If my ideas about the toe-in work in my favor, then a little bit of tire rotation should help me maximize my tire life. At least as much as possible, considering the way I have been blasting around trying out my new tires.

gsxr · #15 11-20-2004, 03:23 PM

The fender spacers create a little gap between fender and the inner plastic fender liner, but no gaps to other body panels. The AMG wheel install docs on my website show a good pictorial of where they mount. The link I posted above shows actual photos of the spacers installed on my car. A stack of washers would work fine. I only used them on the rear, although spacing out the front (as the AMG docs show) would make things more symmetrical.

About the rear camber, -1.8 isn't bad, that's about what I have, I think (maybe more like -2.0 or -2.5 now that it's settled lower). Frequent rotations will keep tire wear within reason. I kind of wonder why MB dialed in so much negative camber in the original design, unless it was setup to be closer to zero at the (ridiculously high) stock ride height, which would kind of make sense...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode