RoelfleRoux wrote:I have never seen a leaf sprung rear axle (as on your Colt) with an anti-rollbar.
It is not uncommon. The Nissan Patrol 60 Series already had such an arrangement back in 1960 and the current Land Cruiser 79 pick-up also has this.
RoelfleRoux wrote:Yip, it does reduce articulation. Stable road holding and good articulation do not go together - choose your weapon.
In my humble opinion, body roll and poor handling are not nearly as closely linked as many people believe in the case of beam axle suspensions. Roll is very uncomfortable and hence is perceived to be dangerous. Handling balance is tuned using anti-roll bars, though and before removing such an item willy nilly, one must make sure that you know what you are doing.
Anti-roll bars definitely hurt flex. There are no two ways about that.
RoelfleRoux wrote:One of the very few coilsprung rear axle cars to NOT have an anti-rollbar is the Fortuner. Guess why some experience scary rear end problems on older shocks?
I have an unproven theory about the Tuna's woes. I don't believe it is necessarily related to the fact that it has no anti-roll bar, but rather is the result of poor rear axle location due to the need for soft location bushes in order to have rear axle flex, given the suspension design selected (the vertical load is transferred to the rear coils via the lower trailing arms and not directly via the axle housing).