CXracer

I can certainly appreciate your POV and its easy to say that. Surpring and I question if you read the entire thread.

Here is my POV - as a customer, I felt disrespected and quite honestly insulted. Not only was I forced into a position to pester them for resolution, the response was slow, days lost, poor communication - I was testing their possible fixes to no success. Then insulted being told I'm not doing it right? Please, this is relatively simple stuff. My original writeup is clear and detailed.

Steeda could have sent me full on replacements and call tags right away as opposed to putting me into a position to repeatedly pull struts. However, I'm not convinced it would have mattered. The product is very nice quality materials wise, my issue is design related. And btw, your talking to an aerospace industry six sigma guy.

In sign-off, there was no way to bring this to my satisfaction -- which means quality suspension components, designed specifically for the 2011+ that operate noise-free, without failure, and not requiring installing/removing 5 times.

I'm now running a plethora of other suspension components, zero noise, first time install, perfect. Eibach adjustable coil overs, MM camber plates, BMR panhard, brace. I added BMR billet lca's and welded relocation brackets to the counter the twisting effect on the rear end caused by lowering.

BMR front lca's/ball joints coming soon to counter the front end geometry changes and stress on the factory units. 2011 specific BMR sways too. Both have yet to be released.

Last - I figured out why the Steeda pan hard was making rear end noise on me. The I.D. Of the bolt holes are approx. 1.5 mm larger than both the BMR and factory bar.

SteedaGus

Ok, I've tried my best not to be baited and stay out of commenting on this thread, but this statement I just cant ignore.

First, the panhard bar we have been selling for the S197 Mustang was first released on November 29th 2004.

It has only gone only one revision since its inception to make it easier to install. Since its inception we are now approaching nearly 10,000 units in the field.

It is the ONLY panhard bar approved for professional competition use for Grand AM and Koni Challenge Cars. Now lets everybody reading this think this through.

Would the race sanctioning bodies approve the panhard bar for use if it wasnt right? The answer is NO.

There is no problem with the holes on our panhard bars. If what we use for our panhard bar didnt work they would not have been allowed to be used in the Grand Am and Koni Challenge Cars.

When you called us with the rear noise, we told you we believed it was the panhard bar. We knew the panhard bar was the source of the noise. Then you told us the next day that it was and when we suggested again what the issue was you simply got defensive about the whole thing like we were trying to insult you.

Your refund like I said was done on 4/8, that was Friday. Anyone with experience with credit cards reading this thread knows banks take their time posting credits to cards after merchants transmit them. Depending on the bank that is anywhere between 2 and 5 business days. Starting from the 8th today is the second business day, so your credit posting should be coming any day now.

In closing, yesterday we sold the panhard bar that was returned to us on this order as a used part at a discount to a local shop install here. It made no noise at all and the customer is very happy with it.

This is the last statement we will be making on this order. We will not make any further comments on the situation.

alkemist

Just saying.. aerospace and cars, in the end are two different things.. mistakes happen. Just move on with life.

sicride

All I have to say now is don't worry. He'll learn about design flaws the hard way sometime after putting on his BMR front lower control arms. He could have just researched the product first.

http://nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?...&sd=a&start=10

BlackBetty

As far as I know, the panhard bar (and I assume other suspension components as well) is constrained by friction with the chassis tab, not by pushing and pulling on the bolt. Thus, the diameter of the hole doesn't really matter... it's all about proper torque on the bolt and creating tension to press the chassis tab and panhard end together. The same way your wheels are held to the hub by friction, not by running into the studs.

If the panhard was making noise due to it moving on the bolt, the mounting bolt was not torqued to spec.

CXracer

Thanks for your contribution.

Good to know on the front LCA's. My interest was based on prolonging the ball joints rather than competition. Regardless, they are not available as of yet.

In the mean time -- after close to 2 months -- I am no longer troubleshooting and finally enjoying my new car and suspension setup. 100% noise and trouble free.

Aside from the front end noise I was getting from the upper strut mounts, swapping put the Steeda panhard bar for the BMR eliminated the rear end knock I was getting on bumpy roads. Simple as that.

Norm Peterson

Yes and no.

Bolt torque is at best an indirect indication of clamping load through the stack of parts being clamped together. It says absolutely nothing about the load path through that stack, which is what really matters here.

What you want is for the clamping load to entirely go between the chassis or axle bracket sides and the bushing inner sleeve. Under that condition, the friction being developed is essentially a linear function of bolt torque.

With the OE rubber bushings, it doesn't much matter if the rubber part is a little longer than the inner sleeve (and this may be intentional to help exclude water). The rubber is soft enough that compressing it does not "bleed off" very much clamp load. In some cases, the OE bushing sleeve is "toothed" at the ends to further reduce the possibility of it slipping.

When you make the bushings much stiffer - generally some sort of polyurethane - and the bushing material is still made longer than the inner sleeve, a lot more clamping load is lost going through the poly, meaning that the clamp load through the sleeve is not what the torque spec suggests. It's much lower, and as a consequence will slip more easily. You can't count on the clamp load through the poly for anything, because as soon as the suspension moves, the poly will slip rotationally. When that happens, the poly is not worth much at all as far as helping to maintain the bolt to sleeve to bracket location. Add the forces on the LCAs/UCA from either braking or acceleration, or on the PHB from cornering, and the rotational slip at the bushing can pick up an axial component, the hole clearance will be taken up, and you'll get a clunk.

Seems to me that you can either spec bolts that are a closer fit in all of the holes, or modify the poly so that it doesn't reduce the clamp load through the bracket/sleeve/bracket load path as much. The second approach may make the joint less water-resistant, so you'd be adding a periodic inspection/maintenance/replacement item. But since poly is kind of a wear item you should expect to have to do this anyway.


Norm