When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
IIRC on my 2003 (E-250 EB) & 2005 (E-350 EB, former people mover) the needed holes were present. I believe I had Hellwig bars on a 2000 E-250 RB with raised roof and the necessary holes might have been present--too long ago to remember sorry to say.
Just two days ago I installed hellwig 7183 on my 1991 E350. The hole pattern shown in the photo did not exist anywhere on my frame.
I ended up installing the axle brackets with the sway bar attached to find out how far forward on my frame the links needed to be, and luckily had a hole in the frame that was about 1 inch rearward of where I needed it. Enlarged that hole and although I have a slight angle to the sway bar links it is all working pretty well.
Point is, Hellwig can be pretty iffy with their instructions. Also, it shows that the 7183 that I used on my 1991 will fit your 1996. Maybe try it out instead? It's even $200 cheaper.
Side note, did the 7008 install well? I was thinking of getting it since they stopped production of the 7158, but it looks to me like the 7008 is for newer E-series and not mine.
Point is, Hellwig can be pretty iffy with their instructions.
Not sure how that even applies since Hellwig mentions specifically the shown holes MIGHT NOT be present? I guess reading instructions before beginning installation isn't necessary?
I'm late to the party... purely FWIW comment:
Our E250 features the body lift and floor cut by RollX for mobility use, along with a side entry wheelchair lift.
I've always presumed that the "substantial" rear sway bar was added by RollX to help counteract usage of the lift (I'll bet that 600+ lbs hanging out of the side could give a noticable tilt without it)
The side benefit is that the handling is pretty good. I've not experienced the sway or body movement - except in severe windy conditons.
I agree 100% with the rear bar being great to have.
I ended up reaching out to Hellwig about part number 7158 and this was there response:
"Thank you for reaching out. In regards to part 7158, yes it has been discontinued. For a 1991 E350 van, we do not make a front sway bars only a rear. The rear sway bar part #7183.
Regarding Part 7008, this is a front sway bar for a E350 cutaway chassis and not a van. This part number will not work on your application.
I would recommend putting the rear sway bar part 7183 on your vehicle to help with your swaying issues. Please let me know if you have an further questions or concerns.
This discussion caused me to look into various sway bars for my van.
1997 E350 extended club wagon (ex-15 passenger), V10, Dana 60
200,000 miles, driven mostly by me
Light to moderate loads used for recreation and rarely tows.
Since I was not 100% sure I needed a sway bar, and new ones were almost $500, I looked for any E350 with a sway bar in our local self-serve junk yards. I only found some older F-series trucks with sway bars so I researched the possibility of fitting them on my van. The main problem is the van frame is about 4” wider than the truck frames.
Research
I spent some time at the junkyard removing sway bars from trucks and test fitting them on an E350 and determined they should fit. I purchased two sway bars along with some various end links, u-bolts, brackets and nuts and bolts for under $100. The two donor vehicles were:
2000 F250 SD: 0.8” diameter sway bar
2000 F350 : 1.2” diameter sway bar
I also researched sway bars and found a spreadsheet that calculates rear sway bar rates.
I used photos to estimate the dimensions of Addco, Roadmaster and Hellwig sway bars that fit an E350. Here is a chart of the approximate sway bar rates
(note the accuracy of this data is not important, only the relative values between sway bars matters for my purposes)
I thought these results were interesting. The dimensions that contribute the most to the sway bar rate are the bar diameter and the arm leverage. The equation uses bar diameter in the numerator and it is multiplied to the fourth power (D˄4) and arm leverage in the denominator squared (L˄2). So a large diameter greatly increases the rate and a long arm leverage will greatly decrease the rate.
Testing
I drove the van on a road that had some sweeping turns. I got a baseline feel for handling specific turns and swerving actions without sway bars.. I could feel the sway and slight understeer. All of this testing was done at speeds around or below 40mph.
I installed the F350 bar (installation notes follow below) because “bigger is better”. My test drive was unsettling. The first time I slightly swerved while in a sweeping turn, the rear end felt like it wanted to keep going straight. Every input that activated the sway bar created and scary back-end break-away feeling that I would never want to encounter on wet pavement. This sway bar created severe oversteer.
I removed the F350 bar and installed the F250 bar. The handling was much better. I could feel a slight push from the rear end when swerving but it quickly turned into a “railing turn” feel. Most of the sway was removed and the van actually felt like it could corner aggressively. The F250 bar is the right choice for my van and how I will use it.
This result probably could have been determined from the data above. Sway bar “rules” state:
1. A stiffer rear sway bar increases oversteer.
2. The rear sway bar should be less stiff than the front sway bar.
3. Severe oversteer will result in the back end breaking tractions and coming around during hard cornering. Fun in a small sports car, not fun in a mile long van.
Installation
Installing the bar was not easy but can be done by anyone that can cut, drill and grind metal. The bar mounts using end links from a 2000 Chevy Suburban 1500. The length and offset of these links work well on the van frame. To make up for the frame width, a bracket is installed on the inside of the passenger-side frame. The thick u-brackets (that clamp over the bushings) on the F-series sway bar are the perfect height for the bracket. You need to drill holes, grind the top flat, and fabricate a curved spacer for the mounting nut (I used sch 40 steel pipe, cut a rectangular piece and ground the back flat to make the spacer). The muffler heat shield needs to be cut to make room for the bracket (I cut using a pneumatic grinder with cutting wheel after loosening and rotating the heat shield).
The F-series bar is mounted to a special casting in the differential housing. This casting is not on the E350 Dana 60. I found 3” u-bolts holding the shock mounts on the same 2000 F250 SD. Use these u-bolts to mount the bar the E350 axle.
The parking brake cable and some wiring needs to be moved a little. I took the parking brake cable/brake line bracket from the top of the differential off another van and used it to extend the existing bracket. I got mounting bolts, extra nuts and other small items from the junkyard. You need at least one Ford M12 flange nut from a sway bar link so you can grind the edges off two sides to fit it under the curved mounting bracket. The Chevy nuts have integrated washers, not rigid flanges.
Donor Vehicles:
2000 F250 SD: 0.8” sway bar, 3” u-bolts (from shock mounting bracket)
2000 F350 : 1.2” sway bar
2000-2003 Suburban 1500: 8 7/8” long end link
I am not a suspension expert. Let me know if there are any errors and I will edit the post accordingly.
I just installed the Helwig 7183 on my 2010 E350 extended passenger. When looking at the instructions and the frame the whole in question was present on my frame but when it came time to install I discovered the whole was too small and it had to be drilled out to 1/2 in diameter. The left side was a lot of work because there are brake lines and electrical wires running inside the frame rail right where that hole needs to be. The right side took 5 minutes. The difference is quite obvious and handling is greatly improved. I haven't yet driven the van while loaded or Towing so we'll see how it feels once I do.
I just installed the Addco 697 and can share some installation experience and the result.
I definitely can recommend this sway bar from an installation perspective. Haven’t driven the van yet. Not 100% Plug n‘Play but it’s definitely doable. Looks like you save money with the Addco 697 but it needs more time to install.
The installation instructions especially the drawings could be better. I found a YouTube video from a guy who installed it on an older E-Series van and this gave me some ideas how it will look like.
The most important outcomes based on my experience with my 97 E-350 Extended Passenger Van :
- you need a 1/2“ drill bit to increase two existing frame holes (I had to use 13 mm in a metric country)
- correct alignment of the mounting brackets and bolts (see pictures)
- The bracket mounting bolt near the lower rear shock mount position has to be faced with the head towards lower rear shock. The second mounting bolt goes the other way.
- I recommend using additional washers for the mounting brackets on the axle. Axle mounting holes on the van are a bit bigger and it gives also more clearance for the bracket mounting bolt length facing towards the axle.
Driving experience not available yet. In my case a little difficult because the van gets all new suspension parts in the front and back. This will hopefully result in a whole new feeling
I'm late to the party... purely FWIW comment:
Our E250 features the body lift and floor cut by RollX for mobility use, along with a side entry wheelchair lift.
I've always presumed that the "substantial" rear sway bar was added by RollX to help counteract usage of the lift (I'll bet that 600+ lbs hanging out of the side could give a noticable tilt without it)
The side benefit is that the handling is pretty good. I've not experienced the sway or body movement - except in severe windy conditons.
I agree 100% with the rear bar being great to have.
The lift is hell on the suspension, most vans end up leaning to the passenger side after a few years use, my 99 E350 seems to have stayed level over my 20+ year ownership, my 73 E100 no sway bars, about 2 months the suspension was in distress on the passenger side, guessing the sway bars have helped me, and the heavy duty suspension, tho the ride is rough.
Donor Vehicles:
2000 F250 SD: 0.8” sway bar, 3” u-bolts (from shock mounting bracket)
2000 F350 : 1.2” sway bar
2000-2003 Suburban 1500: 8 7/8” long end link
This result probably could have been determined from the data above. Sway bar “rules” state: 1. A stiffer rear sway bar increases oversteer.
2. The rear sway bar should be less stiff than the front sway bar.
3. Severe oversteer will result in the back end breaking tractions and coming around during hard cornering. Fun in a small sports car, not fun in a mile long van.
I am not a suspension expert. Let me know if there are any errors and I will edit the post accordingly.
Based on the rules of thumb for the relation of front-to-rear swaybar stiffness, it is understandable you selected the 0.8" rear bar because it is better matched to the stock <1.0" front bar. For example, the Addco F/R bars are 1.25"/1.125" respectively. The 1.2" F350 rear bar is thicker than the Addco 1.125" upgraded rear bar but you are using the thinner OEM within with predictable results. In order to use the 1.2' rear sway bar you would need a (1.25/1.125)*1.2=1.33" front bar. Because the stiffness is related to the 4th power of thickness, keeping close to that 1.25/1.125=1.11:1 ratio is most desirable.
Being a fly in the ointment, the effective stiffness of a torsion bar setup also has a lot to do with the length of the end arms (distance between bar axle), length of the bar between end arms, material, construction (shape, solid/hollow), etc. if all of these are constant between applications, then bar diameter is the distinguishing feature.
The understeer point made is punctuated by load. Constant speed through a chicane is one thing. Hard braking an empty vs heavy van through a turn is another. The effects of a rear sway bar can be very different with an empty vs loaded van.
Apologies if this was stated earlier in the thread.
Note, I made an error in just assuming the moment arm factors are proportional. They are (1/L)^2 because of the two bar ends. I edited my original post.
Originally Posted by tabijan
Being a fly in the ointment, the effective stiffness of a torsion bar setup also has a lot to do with the length of the end arms (distance between bar axle), length of the bar between end arms, material, construction (shape, solid/hollow), etc. if all of these are constant between applications, then bar diameter is the distinguishing feature.
The understeer point made is punctuated by load. Constant speed through a chicane is one thing. Hard braking an empty vs heavy van through a turn is another. The effects of a rear sway bar can be very different with an empty vs loaded van.
Apologies if this was stated earlier in the thread.
Sixto
07 E350 5.4 192K miles
It can not be over-emphasized how much more important fourth power bar thickness is as opposed to squared moment arm length in computing stiffness ratios.
Quoted from the previous poster Don RidleyDon Ridley.
" The equation uses bar diameter in the numerator and it is multiplied to the fourth power (D˄4) and arm leverage in the denominator squared (L˄2). So a large diameter greatly increases the rate and a long arm leverage will greatly decrease the rate."
If you look at Don Ridley's table there are only 10-15% variations in lever arm ratio which is a squared factor in stiffness. This is a far cry from the 4th power of the ratio of bar thickness. In example I we use the bar ratos used by Addco, the front is 1.25" and the rear is 1.125" which is a factor of (1.25/1.125)^4=1.524.
If we now use the F-250 and F-350 bars to compute the ratios for Econoline OEM front bars we get:
The typical Econoline OEM front sway bar is nominally 0.9". If we compare and compute the stiffness ratio for bar thickness alone using the two truck bar thickness we get 2000 F-250 (0.9"/0.8")^4=(1.125)^4=1.60:1
and 2000 F-350 (0/.9+/1.2")^4=075)^4=0.316:1
The stiffness ratio comparing these two bars is 1.60/0.316 = 5.06:1 !!
A 10% moment arm variation would only constitute a 21% variation in stiffness for 5.06 +/- 21% which would be 5.06+/- 1.06
The 2000 F-250 ratio is 1.60 based on an OEM front sway bar which is close to the Addco high stiffness ratio.
As was experienced with the 2000 F-350 1.2" sway bar it was too stiff for the OEM front bar and the stiffness ratio plummeted to 0.316:1.
The squared moment arm ratios are a secondary consideration as compared to the fourth power thickness ratios in computing Front to Rear stiffness ratios**.
** Solid bars which are the only one available for the Econoline.
Gotcha! And I sincerely appreciate the detail. Digging up formulas, a 10% increase in bar diameter increases stiffness by 46%. Decreasing bar length by ~10% increases stiffness by 10% plus effects of new geometry. Decreasing moment arm by 10% increases stiffness by ~20.
