Ditching the front sway bar.

[balloo93]

Because after they get done with the lift, tires, bumper, etc...

the swaybar is the LAST thing they are gonna check.

The idea of you getting in additional trouble because of the lack of a front swaybar is nothing more then speculation, unless someone can show me a lawsuit or ticket for no front swaybar.

Rev

Probably about the same odds as hitting the lottery.........people win every day. Like I said all it will take is you hitting someone that knows what to ask them to look for. Lifts may be legal in your state/county, but if there are DOT violations they will go after you for that.

 

[Ben H]

Dig up a DOT regulation regarding swaybars.

 

[96GreenXJjeep]

i runwith oout a saybar all the time and have no problems at all is beenmy dd for 2 yrs and havnt had a problem

 

[balloo93]

Dig up a DOT regulation regarding swaybars.

Good god there are a lot of DOT regs.

In a quick search I did find a court transcript where an expert was brought in and determined that one of the sway bar links being brooken would increase body roll and therefore make his vehicle less stable.

Imagine what would have happend if the lawyer had found NO sway bar at all.

 

[WrenchMonkey]

Dig up a DOT regulation regarding swaybars.

Well, not federal DOT, but...

No person shall modify any motor vehicle registered in this state in such a manner as to cause the vehicle body or chassis to come in contact with the ground, expose the fuel tank to damage from collision, or cause the wheels to come in contact with the body under normal operation, and no person shall disconnect any part of the original suspension system of the vehicle to defeat the safe operation of that system.

I don't run a sway bar, I haven't for years, and I have no plans to. I stay off the interstates for the most part, I know I pay more attention to traffic and pedestrians than 90% of other drivers, I leave more "just-in-case" room. I do not believe my rig is unsafe.

But yes, it does appear it's illegal, at least in Ohio...

Robert

 

[Rev Den]

When you modify your vehicle in ANY way, you immediately wear the fur of a scapegoat.

Better be ready.

Rev

 

[jeepjay90]

mine r disconnected right now becuase of the new tera steering. im at 9.5" with 36iroks with rustys coils,5150s,BOR 8" packs. its my dd but im hardly ever over 65mph

 

[BIGSLVRXJ]

I agree with the whole stiff enough spring theory. My 1990 with the 3.5" Superflex ran without a swaybar for over a year, I had to swerve several times at high speeds and I never felt it was out of my control to bring back in. However, I've driven my buddy's XJ with Rusty's (IIRC) 4.5" springs, with a swaybar, and it's still cushy in the front. I would be scared out of my mind driving that thing with no swaybar. People never say it's a good idea, I guess I just always felt if it got to where it felt out of my control without one, I'd put it back on.

 

[John90XJ]

Because after they get done with the lift, tires, bumper, etc...

the swaybar is the LAST thing they are gonna check.

The idea of you getting in additional trouble because of the lack of a front swaybar is nothing more then speculation, unless someone can show me a lawsuit or ticket for no front swaybar.

Rev

In those states where inspections are done I would assume something negative could happen if you had taken off a piece of equipment required to be in place.

Personally, it's there for a reason. It should be run. I think of it as no different than a seatbelt or brakelights or any other safety item. Running without one generally adds risk that can't be easily mitigated by driving skill.

Further, I don't think this is a speed issue, it's a collision avoidance issue. You're all being safe around other cars and only doing the limit. But what about the kid that darts into the street or the car that pulls out in front of you at the 7-11? Since I know an XJ can be rolled at under 30 mph, all the arguments above for not having one seem weak.

 

[Rev Den]

I never said you should not run one.

Just said that the statement that you will be held responsable in an accident simply due to a missing swaybar is incorrect, or unsupported by facts.

Rev

 

[John90XJ]

I never said you should not run one.

Just said that the statement that you will be held responsable in an accident simply due to a missing swaybar is incorrect, or unsupported by facts.

Rev

Nobody called you out on that......no worries.

 

[balloo93]

I never said you should not run one.

Just said that the statement that you will be held responsable in an accident simply due to a missing swaybar is incorrect, or unsupported by facts.

Rev

While I never said you WOULD be, you can't deny the fact that it COULD be held against you. With a large percent of the population being so willing to sue anyone over anything it's a possibility.

Hell, most coffee cups say CAUTION HOT LIQUID on them for christ sakes.

 

[XJSpencer]

If you or your wife got hit by a lifted Jeep or anything else for that matter, Would you check for swaybars and other safety equipment?

I would. If I was on the receiving end of an unsafe out of control vehicle, I'd go after them for no swaybars. Wouldn't you? What if they hit your kid running out after a ball or something?

And lastly, How would you feel if it were your Jeep that hurt someone because of the silly swaybar?

 

[WrenchMonkey]

If you or your wife got hit by a lifted Jeep or anything else for that matter, what if they hit your kid running out after a ball or something? Would you check for swaybars and other safety equipment?

I would.

Well, no. If she was walking down the sidewalk, minding her own business, and some dipstick hops the curb and mows her down, he's at fault and would certainly be prosecuted, not because of the equipment on or not on his rig, but because he failed to control the rig. Not what he drove, but how he drove.

But if she steps out from between parked cars, or the kid darts into the street after that ball, that's THEIR fault. Tragic as it may be, the fault lies with the victim. You can't legislate how hard a guy has to swerve to avoid your kid in the street.

Blaming someone else, or worse something else, for their fatal mistake is wrong.

Robert

 

[John90XJ]

Blaming someone else, or worse something else, for their fatal mistake is wrong.Robert

Yes it's wrong, but that's American jurisprudence.

 

[RyanM]

Well, no. If she was walking down the sidewalk, minding her own business, and some dipstick hops the curb and mows her down, he's at fault and would certainly be prosecuted, not because of the equipment on or not on his rig, but because he failed to control the rig. Not what he drove, but how he drove.

But if she steps out from between parked cars, or the kid darts into the street after that ball, that's THEIR fault. Tragic as it may be, the fault lies with the victim. You can't legislate how hard a guy has to swerve to avoid your kid in the street.

Blaming someone else, or worse something else, for their fatal mistake is wrong.

Robert

I agree with you 100%

If someone wrecks into me, It's THEIR fault, no matter if they have no swaybars connected or wood spring spacers. It's their fault, am I gonna get extra money or more visits to the chiropractor because he had no swaybar? I doubt it.

 

[XJSpencer]

Call a personal injury Attorney. I bet he'd love the idea of a dangerously modified vehicle hitting a client.

 

[RyanM]

Tell your wife to stop chasing the ball into the street

 

[balloo93]

I agree with you 100%

If someone wrecks into me, It's THEIR fault, no matter if they have no swaybars connected or wood spring spacers. It's their fault, am I gonna get extra money or more visits to the chiropractor because he had no swaybar? I doubt it.

Maybe, maybe not. If they could prove that the guy couldn't avoid hitting her because he had to avoid something in the road, they could say he did EVRYTHING he could to avoid her. If your lawyer says "what about the lack of the factoey antisway control bar?"

Then it would all go downhill from there. Kinda like the trails from years ago where the jury went against a self defence shooting because the guy had a fully customized handgun. They said it was a "combat" gun and that it was designed to kill blah blah blah Don't remember the specifics, but it wasn't so long ago high cap mags and assult rifles were banned.

 

[balloo93]

Tell your wife to stop chasing the ball into the street

No joke, what the hell was she doing out of the kitchen anyway???? :eeks1: