Although nothing to do with original question I see our car has somehow become mentioned.
You have to realise an anti-roll bar is a spring which works across the car so that when one side of the cars suspension compresses it has an effect on the other side to reduce roll.
There material choice is critical, so you can't use any old steel. Which is why if you want a rear bar either get a pro to make which will cost a few hundred pounds (guy on Clio sport went this way as supplies of Whiteline rear bar are limited from Australia & fail to meet demand) or do what we did and adapt something from another car.
The reason we used a front MGF bar is simple if you think about it, an MGF is mid engined, therefore it doesn't have a huge amount of wright over the front so the bat is not massivly thick, in fact it's about the same as a cento front if not a bit thinner, but not really strong.
If we jack up the rear of the car and place the jack under one wheel to raise it up you can see there is travel before the bar acts on the other side which is what you want.
As the cento as standard as completly independent rear suspension, unlike say the my Clio which as with many French hot hatches for years has a rear beam which in itself by not being fully independent gives an anti-roll effect, yet owners still add a further bar to increase this. The Fiat 500 is similar in arrangement & on the Abarth a anti-roll bar was fitted. This means you can run a softer spring to get better ride but still have less roll, something Fiat got wrong on the 500 that Ford put right on the KA which the Abarth and subsequent CC models adopted and all 500s from this year to get ride of the very poor rear set up which had far to firm springs to soft dampers which gave a very wierd driving experience.
Although not tried on track yet it has been thrown about on country rounds and the roundabout's on entrance to Silverstone & all I can say is I've never been in any cento that has as quick a turn in or can corner so flat, yet retain a very high level of ride comfort, in fact ride quality is as good if not better than the 500Abarth.
Our suspension otherwise is AVO front height adjustable coil-overs with 300lb (kit normally sold with 250, we specced it higher & glad we did as feels spot on so far) springs rear AVO adjustable dampers with Eibach springs of unknow poundage but we do have access to AVO's spring meter so can find out, but seem so far to work well.
Front top mounts original, though given the very wide tolerances on centos we have adjusted the strut top holes so top mounts sit in same place, & using Eibach camber bolts gave about 1.5degrees -ve camber with 10mins toe out. This is based on Clios which run in road trim 2degrees -ve and same toe out with perfect tyre wear. We also run 2degrees -ve on our FTO & that has amazing turn in & grip yet after 6000miles has bearly worn it's front tyres.
You have to realise an anti-roll bar is a spring which works across the car so that when one side of the cars suspension compresses it has an effect on the other side to reduce roll.
There material choice is critical, so you can't use any old steel. Which is why if you want a rear bar either get a pro to make which will cost a few hundred pounds (guy on Clio sport went this way as supplies of Whiteline rear bar are limited from Australia & fail to meet demand) or do what we did and adapt something from another car.
The reason we used a front MGF bar is simple if you think about it, an MGF is mid engined, therefore it doesn't have a huge amount of wright over the front so the bat is not massivly thick, in fact it's about the same as a cento front if not a bit thinner, but not really strong.
If we jack up the rear of the car and place the jack under one wheel to raise it up you can see there is travel before the bar acts on the other side which is what you want.
As the cento as standard as completly independent rear suspension, unlike say the my Clio which as with many French hot hatches for years has a rear beam which in itself by not being fully independent gives an anti-roll effect, yet owners still add a further bar to increase this. The Fiat 500 is similar in arrangement & on the Abarth a anti-roll bar was fitted. This means you can run a softer spring to get better ride but still have less roll, something Fiat got wrong on the 500 that Ford put right on the KA which the Abarth and subsequent CC models adopted and all 500s from this year to get ride of the very poor rear set up which had far to firm springs to soft dampers which gave a very wierd driving experience.
Although not tried on track yet it has been thrown about on country rounds and the roundabout's on entrance to Silverstone & all I can say is I've never been in any cento that has as quick a turn in or can corner so flat, yet retain a very high level of ride comfort, in fact ride quality is as good if not better than the 500Abarth.
Our suspension otherwise is AVO front height adjustable coil-overs with 300lb (kit normally sold with 250, we specced it higher & glad we did as feels spot on so far) springs rear AVO adjustable dampers with Eibach springs of unknow poundage but we do have access to AVO's spring meter so can find out, but seem so far to work well.
Front top mounts original, though given the very wide tolerances on centos we have adjusted the strut top holes so top mounts sit in same place, & using Eibach camber bolts gave about 1.5degrees -ve camber with 10mins toe out. This is based on Clios which run in road trim 2degrees -ve and same toe out with perfect tyre wear. We also run 2degrees -ve on our FTO & that has amazing turn in & grip yet after 6000miles has bearly worn it's front tyres.
Last edited:
i only know the degrees and minutes thing cus of map and compass. im still a trainee mechainc in college. sorry...
