The "Fix" rear sway bar?

[mc_cc]

I performed the "fix" on the front sway bar this morning and took it for a test drive. I was very impressed with the tighter feel on the front end. Should I do the same to the rear sway bar. Will I notice much of a difference? Thanks

[Rodallg]

Ordering my Helwig rods tomorrow, I seen someone had them adjusted to a certain length for the right fit. I can't find that measurement noe so can someone help me with the best length?
Thanks

[Effy]

jsmart wrote:
I have a 2002 Itasca Sunrise 32V with the F53 chassis, I looked under the rig last night after reading the "fix" post here. My coach has apparently not had
the fix done. Question is, why wouldn't the manufacturer/coach manufacturer make the change with the chassis that everyone is doing (per the posts here)?
It does appear to be a fairly simple fix, however I'm confused by all the different pictures and by some folks using an adjustable link and some using the original links, how do you tell what you have to use? It looks like I could just move the bolts to the other hole? I have learned much from this forum over the couple years I've been on, this "fix" intrigues me. The MH doesn't seem too bad to drive (much better than the class c we had first). Just wondering.

You can just swap the holes. On the rear it will require reversing the z brackets but it’s easy enough. Dramatic difference in handling. Some opt for larger sway bars, hellwig etc, some opt for adjustable ones. Like anything there are all types of parts to do a job differently. Some units require different bars as the adjustment won’t fit. Like moving to the other holes on the rear of some hits the rear pumpkin. Mine worked fine and it was free. As far as why they don’t do it, Ford manufactures the F53 chassis for a hundred different uses. MH’s are just one. Why don’t MH manufacturers do it? Same reason they don’t do alignments or a million other things they could. Money and time. I often wondered how many gassers would have been sold if the adjustment was done as opposed to a scared newbie going for a test drive and it drove like a pig.

[jsmart]

I have a 2002 Itasca Sunrise 32V with the F53 chassis, I looked under the rig last night after reading the "fix" post here. My coach has apparently not had
the fix done. Question is, why wouldn't the manufacturer/coach manufacturer make the change with the chassis that everyone is doing (per the posts here)?
It does appear to be a fairly simple fix, however I'm confused by all the different pictures and by some folks using an adjustable link and some using the original links, how do you tell what you have to use? It looks like I could just move the bolts to the other hole? I have learned much from this forum over the couple years I've been on, this "fix" intrigues me. The MH doesn't seem too bad to drive (much better than the class c we had first). Just wondering.

[topflite51]

If you have an F53 with the V10 engine, you can adjust your sway bar. NO V10 no adjustment. Dang it! 😛

[Mike_M2]

Sure, Hellwig 7962 fit both front and rear. Autoplicity.com has them the cheapest I have found.

[Rodallg]

Mike M2 wrote:
Well this might be old news, but I can't change mine on the rear.
Last month I ordered and replaced the front links from Hellwig to the inner hole and all was fine. I didn't have time until today to tackle the rear and after looking at all the info I thought I could get away with using the stock links on the back. After removing the bolts I notice the sway bar hits the rear end jackpot before I can put them back at the inner hole. Looks like I need to order another set of links to make this work. I don't recall anyone having this problem in the back.
FYI, my sway bar is under the rear not over.

Can you give me the part numbers of the links you used, I think I'm going order new ones for mine.
Thanks

[Mike_M2]

Well this might be old news, but I can't change mine on the rear.
Last month I ordered and replaced the front links from Hellwig to the inner hole and all was fine. I didn't have time until today to tackle the rear and after looking at all the info I thought I could get away with using the stock links on the back. After removing the bolts I notice the sway bar hits the rear end jackpot before I can put them back at the inner hole. Looks like I need to order another set of links to make this work. I don't recall anyone having this problem in the back.
FYI, my sway bar is under the rear not over.

[C-Leigh_Racing]

gasguzler wrote:
Finally got this done tonight, been waiting for decent weather. I adjusted the hellig links on front to maintain the same stock position. Drilled out the supplied sleeves and used the OEM bolts. used the new bushes. Ended up putting the front links on the rear, so I'm ready to roll now.

That push & pull most feel from a passing simi & chasing the steering wheel, is from the rear axle moving side to side under the chassis, tail end wag they call it & in turn the rear end is slinging the front end around.
A trac bar added to the rear axle, is whats needed to stop that.
Neil

[Effy]

Rodallg wrote:
Ok so I tried to do the front but figured out that if I raise the front of the motorhome up with the jacks the sway bar will hit on the leaf springs. It was not raised that much either, only tried to raise to get the bolt in. I'm thinking this would not be a good thing if the front end got light when driving or if trying to level at a camp ground.
Any thoughts?
One of the pics that were attached to this thread shows it on the spring or at least close.

You should not have to raise the MH and I doubt you will ever give it enough rise under normal conditions unless you are hill hopping with your MH. It should be level as can be WITHOUT jacks. If you have one side slightly lower than the other, you should put the the bolts in the lower side first and then use a bottle jack to nudge the sway bar up into position. But don't jack up the MH.

[Rodallg]

Ok so I tried to do the front but figured out that if I raise the front of the motorhome up with the jacks the sway bar will hit on the leaf springs. It was not raised that much either, only tried to raise to get the bolt in. I'm thinking this would not be a good thing if the front end got light when driving or if trying to level at a camp ground.
Any thoughts?
One of the pics that were attached to this thread shows it on the spring or at least close.

[1BryNelson]

Thank you so much Richard for the clarification. Great info!!

[RLS7201]

doxiemom11 wrote:
We are a 2000 F53 and I would consider that an "older" unit as it is now 14 year old. I guess it's all what we each consider as older/newer.

Not exactly. Ford introduced the NEWER 1999 model year F53 chassis in 1998 with V10 and 4R100 transmission. NO 1998 model year chassis was made. All previous chassis had a 460 V8 with E4OD transmissions. There was engine and transmission improvements in the 2006 model year chassis. No 2005 model year chassis made.

So, all 1999 model year chassis and later are considered the new F53 chassis with wider wheel base, improved load capacity and improved drive train.

Richard
1995 Bounder 32H, older F53 chassis

[workhardplayha1]

I guess I have been busted by the "older/newer" Police. I guess I should know what year design changes were made. We would have to agree that when talking of a design the design that was made first would be the "older" and the latest design would be "newer". Any design changes that were made along the way would be inorder from "older" to "newer". The earlier being "older" ad the later being "newer".
I will be sure to add a disclamer with any future post so not to upset anyone.

[mc_cc]

Thanks everyone. I performed the fix with the stock arms on both front and back. I took it out for a couple of mile drive to see if I could tell much of a difference. The steering feels more responsive and the body roll is much less when making a turn. I am making a trip out west this summer. I hope this helps some with the wind.