vwlover77 wrote:VW designed the suspension of the Bus for predictable handling and response, good feedback to the driver when approaching the limits of adhesion, and to skid rather than roll over. I'm content to trust their design.
Good shocks and the appropriate tires will do a fine job of reducing buffetting to an acceptable level. Sway bars cannot change the aerodynamics!
Those are valid points, within limits. The VW like most cars, is designed for good functionality and safety in the widest variety of circumstances/drivers. That doesn't mean the performance is optimized; rather, the original design is the one that works in the broadest set of variables. Changing design variables
can make vehicles unstable, but it's more likely that it simply changes the normative characteristics. VW is OK with that; they understand that circumstances dictate methods, which is why they put some of that stuff in the manual. For instance, new VW owners ask about the best oil (meaning weight) to use; this question has already failed insomuch as it has built into it a flaw in thinking. To wit: there is no "best oil" weight, only "best oil"
for a given application.
The same must be said here; changing the sway bars only changes the application. Case in point: the Volvo 240 came standard with a set of 21mm sway bars front and rear. However, when they began manufacturing the 240 GT/Turbo came with a larger set of sway bars 23mm front/rear, and later (I believe; I could be wrong) 25/23mm front/rear.
Neither of the sets is meaningfully optimal; rather, Volvo felt that someone buying a GT/Turbo would likely be driving in a different style, and consequently chose some to enhance some driving characteristics at the expense of others.
My recommendation to the OP stands; in changing the sway bars, he is changing driving characteristics which means adjusting his driving to those characteristics. His ride will be firmer, but less forgiving should he enter a corner too hot.
*************************
There is another point that I think might be made here, though I suppose Colin might want to move it, since it's really off topic here; the issue is OEM design and its relative inviolability. Having worked for several manufacturers, and knowing people who have worked at others, it is not really appropriate to refer to any product design as the "best" solution. Products are always subject to the revisions of a variety of groups ~ engineers, accountants, salesmen and even top guys who want to stamp their ego on the car.
The choice of automotive design in any vehicle is always a set of decisions based on engineering, safety, mfg costs, saleability and other, often incomprehensibly abstract influences. The stock vehicle, especially one with a long design shadow (like the VW bus) is pretty well designed; that doesn't mean it is optimized, however. As with my decision about the 16" wheel/tire combo, I would argue that the 14" is NOT the preferred solution; it's the best solution that VW thought they could offer while maintaining their cost-to-market ratio, was readily available (at the time, not so much anymore in the US) and met the safety needs of design.
The list of automotive design failures (from engineering to aesthetic) among the different manufacturers is lengthy; VW was not immune to those possibilities (nor are they now, if the Routan is any measure of what they're willing to do to make a buck) and it would most useful if we, as a community, maintained an open mind and flexible approach to how we deal with these marvels of engineering. And they are marvels; how many other models remain on the road in numbers as large as the vintage VWs? None, to my knowledge. But their excellence does not preclude the recognition that the designs are imperfect, and that there is room to improve upon them, based on experience, knowledge and thoughtful application of those elements.
Michael L