strut tower brace info

[speedfreak1000]

im looking to buy a strut tower brace to install when i put on the rest of the suspension this coming weekend.

i was wondering which bars will fit over the ford plenum cover and work with the MM CC plates? before someone says it...no i didnt use the search i would rather ask. from looking around it looks like the BMR one will work but i need to be 100% sure. also did you notice a difference after you installed it?

 

[Sky Render]

All strut tower braces work with all caster/camber plates. The plates install under the strut towers.

As for one which will clear the manifold, I like Whiteline's unit, since it is adjustable for both height and length using eccentric bolts on each side:

 

[Full_Tilt]

Don't waste your money.
If the front clip was really able to flex that much you would see braces on the 302S/R race cars, but you don't. Until you have very stiff suspension, you front need to worry about rigidity anyway, and even then I would be thinking about a roll bar, not a strut tower brace.

 

[speedfreak1000]

i was actually wondering what to go with first sway bars or STB. i was online reading how when "people" put on a STB they could tell a big difference so i was leaning toward that but if its not that noticable i'll go the swaybar route first. thanks for the input guys.

 

[Whiskey11]

Don't waste your money.
If the front clip was really able to flex that much you would see braces on the 302S/R race cars, but you don't. Until you have very stiff suspension, you front need to worry about rigidity anyway, and even then I would be thinking about a roll bar, not a strut tower brace.

This argument has always bothered me. It is the same argument used when people mention sub frame connectors for the S197 chassis, they instantly jump to the Griggs racing or the FR500/Boss 302 R/S cars cars and say "see! They don't use them, neither should you!". That, of course, ignores the full cages they run. I still think an STB is bunk unless you have changed the vast majority of your suspension. Jury is still out on sub frame connectors for street cars without roll structures.

As for doing an STB instead of sways... No way I would do that! Sways are a huge tuning tool and are necessary on any serious corner carver.

 

[OkieSnuffBox]

i was actually wondering what to go with first sway bars or STB. i was online reading how when "people" put on a STB they could tell a big difference so i was leaning toward that but if its not that noticable i'll go the swaybar route first. thanks for the input guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

[speedfreak1000]

ha, i hear ya.

 

[frank s]

I'm surprised they didn't mention Cognitive Dissonance, as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I have done a before - after - before test with a STB on a V6 convertible Mustang. It was intolerable cowl-shake - barely tolerable - intolerable again. A convertible might benefit more than a coupe: same bar on a GT coupe, I couldn't tell any difference.

The 5.0 Brembo comes with one from the factory, but it has bolts where I'd rather not see them, so I'd call it cosmetic. Not that there is anything wrong with looking good, if you like it.

On the other hand, I really, really like stabilizer bars.

 

[SoundGuyDave]

This argument has always bothered me. It is the same argument used when people mention sub frame connectors for the S197 chassis, they instantly jump to the Griggs racing or the FR500/Boss 302 R/S cars cars and say "see! They don't use them, neither should you!". That, of course, ignores the full cages they run. I still think an STB is bunk unless you have changed the vast majority of your suspension. Jury is still out on sub frame connectors for street cars without roll structures.

21,000 NM of torque to get one degree of chassis deflection...

http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/the-list-torsional-rigidity.12334/

Stiffer than a Murcialago.

My datalogging shows NO increased lateral grip before or after caging the car, which is probably fairly more aggressive than any subframe connector in terms of reinforcing the chassis. Also, while SFCs were mandatory for the FOX/SN95 chassis, the earlier chassis were also orders of magnitude twistier than the S197.

 

[908ssp]

Caging is probably ten times as strong as any combination of so called frame strengtheners.

I don't believe strut tower braces do much of anything the way they are designed for the s196. If the tubing was perfectly straight and the ends were welded solid with four bolts and there were bars going back to the real firewall bulk head on an angle it might make a difference anything less not so much.

 

[Whiskey11]

21,000 NM of torque to get one degree of chassis deflection...

http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/the-list-torsional-rigidity.12334/

Stiffer than a Murcialago.

My datalogging shows NO increased lateral grip before or after caging the car, which is probably fairly more aggressive than any subframe connector in terms of reinforcing the chassis. Also, while SFCs were mandatory for the FOX/SN95 chassis, the earlier chassis were also orders of magnitude twistier than the S197.

I don't think the goal here is increased lateral g's so much as reducing the chassis flex that slows suspension response right? That said, I agree, a cage is a heck of a lot more reinforcing than SFCs. No one is going to argue otherwise. My point was that saying SFCs have no place on a street car that is driven aggressively frequently (autocross/HPDE) implies that these cars are immune to chassis twist and it's subsequent problems. Everything has a fatigue life and I'd rather have the peace of mind of having at least SFC's then not. If nothing else they serve as convenient jacking rails.

I really wish I could find the picture again, but this conversation came up on ModdedMustangs and someone posted a picture of a 2005-2009 Mustang GT launching at the strip with a decent amount of chassis flex (it wasn't just torque over, it was full on flex) and it was a hardtop. Of course I can't find the damn picture anymore!

Caging is probably ten times as strong as any combination of so called frame strengtheners.

I don't believe strut tower braces do much of anything the way they are designed for the s196. If the tubing was perfectly straight and the ends were welded solid with four bolts and there were bars going back to the real firewall bulk head on an angle it might make a difference anything less not so much.

Again, i would agree. I don't think SFC's will ever replace a full cage. That wasn't my point! I've also wondered about how a STB with articulating joints ever hoped to accomplish the goals of chassis rigidity... doesn't seem like it would work out at all.

 

[SoundGuyDave]

I really wish I could find the picture again, but this conversation came up on ModdedMustangs and someone posted a picture of a 2005-2009 Mustang GT launching at the strip with a decent amount of chassis flex (it wasn't just torque over, it was full on flex) and it was a hardtop. Of course I can't find the damn picture anymore!

Well, 21,000 NM converts to nearly 16,000 lb-ft of torque, so that S197 had the mother of all top-fueler motors and some serious hook to get visible flex! Either that, or it was a case of weight-reduction gone awry, or perhaps some photoshopping... The S197 is just STIFF. When I wrecked, it was an offset-frontal crash that absolutely destroyed the entire right side of the car, shattered both rod-ends in the PHB, snapped the R/F strut, and mangled that control arm as well. Yes, the frame was bent, but the maximum frame displacement was only in 7mm and up 1.5mm, and that was with a near triple-digit initial impact speed. That kind of a hit on a FOX would have bent the car damn near into a "U" shape.

Yes, we have lots of anecdotal evidence, but when you see trends of pro race teams, and factory-designed and built cars ALL skipping subframe connectors, you have to start to wonder if certain manufacturers are simply running on inertia. "It's a Mustang, of COURSE it needs subframe connectors! We can take our SN95 design, change the mounting pads for $80 in tooling, and then market the new one for the S197."

If FRPP, Griggs and MM haven't seen fit to develop and market the things, when they cater to the aggressive crowd, I would be suspicious of offerings from other manufacturers that cater more to the hard-parkers... Steeda doesn't offer full-length subframe connectors, and even pokes fun at them for the S197 when marketing their torque-box reinforcement setup, an area that I don't hear a lot of people complaining about in the first place.

 

[Full_Tilt]

I cant totally write off a STB as being useless, because I dont know for sure but Im almost certain it is useless. I think that the fact that ford put them on the GT premiums and Boss is just a marketing thing. Guys see that and say "Hey, thats like a race car brace for +1 handling, it will treat me well."

Im thinking about it this way.
Ive seen substantial effects on lap times from small changes in tire pressure, more than some of the most fundamental important suspension mods, like good shocks for instance. But even still, you cant feel a difference in how fast youre able to get around the track.
Were talking a fraction of a percent of the overall lap time changing, which is important for racing, but its hard to perceive.

So when people say they "feel" an improvement from something like a STB, I think that they have to be nuts.

The other thing is that without high spring rates, rigidity isnt a problem. Think back to touring cars in the 80s, the chassis were shit compared to what we have today, so even in full race trim they kept the suspension pretty soft because there wasnt enough rigidity in the chassis to get a benefit from higher spring rates.

Our cars come with pretty low spring rates, and even the more competition oriented springs are still quite low. I think the Steeda Comp springs are only like 225 up front.
From what Ive heard, the race cars are running more like 600 front, 300 rear, and still not finding it necessary to run a STB.

 

[BMR Tech]

Just to add, I had a customer order a STB from us, and it did not fit his car. (1/2" off)

We went back and forth about it and I eventually sent him a new one. I knew initially that his car was not "right"...so I snapped a picture of the exact bar I sent him, on our car...

He got it, tried installing.....and it was still not fitting. 1/2" off again.

I was the person who broke the news to the guy, and he was very upset about it. After a few weeks, he called me back to apologize and he found pictures of the car. I really wish I would have saved them, but you would be very, VERY surprised at the pictures.....especially when knowing it caused his strut towers to become 1/2" closer together. The car was involved in a passenger-side frontal impact, and it couldn't have been more than $3500 in damage.

That being said, I wouldn't run a STB on my car. The blower and intake are too big....

 

[Whiskey11]

Well, 21,000 NM converts to nearly 16,000 lb-ft of torque, so that S197 had the mother of all top-fueler motors and some serious hook to get visible flex! Either that, or it was a case of weight-reduction gone awry, or perhaps some photoshopping... The S197 is just STIFF. When I wrecked, it was an offset-frontal crash that absolutely destroyed the entire right side of the car, shattered both rod-ends in the PHB, snapped the R/F strut, and mangled that control arm as well. Yes, the frame was bent, but the maximum frame displacement was only in 7mm and up 1.5mm, and that was with a near triple-digit initial impact speed. That kind of a hit on a FOX would have bent the car damn near into a "U" shape.

Yes, we have lots of anecdotal evidence, but when you see trends of pro race teams, and factory-designed and built cars ALL skipping subframe connectors, you have to start to wonder if certain manufacturers are simply running on inertia. "It's a Mustang, of COURSE it needs subframe connectors! We can take our SN95 design, change the mounting pads for $80 in tooling, and then market the new one for the S197."

If FRPP, Griggs and MM haven't seen fit to develop and market the things, when they cater to the aggressive crowd, I would be suspicious of offerings from other manufacturers that cater more to the hard-parkers... Steeda doesn't offer full-length subframe connectors, and even pokes fun at them for the S197 when marketing their torque-box reinforcement setup, an area that I don't hear a lot of people complaining about in the first place.

Well I found the original post on Modded Mustangs but the links to the pictures are dead. Of course, my luck! I don't remember the specifications but it was a relatively high horsepower car without a cage so it couldn't have been too fast (or ran at altitude?). Not sure how that works but there was some noticeable twist that couldn't be attributed to torque over on the launch. It very well could have been caused by something else.

Griggs doesn't really cater to the light duty crowd and I'm pretty sure they recommend cages for tracking which is exactly what their own racecars do as well as every other professional race team running the S197. At that point SFC's become weight additions rather than a chassis stiffener. Maximum Motorsports is just now getting onto the S197 custom parts crowd. They have a Torque Arm (yeah, I know...) coming out for the S197 chassis as well as front control arms with delrin bushings pre-installed (factory arms BTW). It's on their Facebook page. They are only 8 years behind. As for Steeda, well, as much as I like some of their parts, I had one of their reps tell me that they were never designing a proper camber plate for the S197 because the Steeda HD mounts were the only mounts made that maxed out the negative camber at the strut tower for the chassis and he was VERY confident of that fact that they were the only ones with "plates" that did that... that is, of course, as we all know, very, very, very false and it's really caused me to pause on the rest of their line up as well.

I honestly don't know, just kind of spitballing at this point so I'll keep my trap shut. If I knew how to test it with any reasonable amount of accuracy I'd be buying them and testing them (of course I'd be limited to bolt in units thanks to the SCCA) as well as testing Terry's "theory" of the "Billy Bob" (Fays2) Watts link frame strengthening the chassis at the rear of the car compared to the stock PHB brace.

 

[Sky Render]

I hate to say it, but I really didn't notice a difference from the strut tower bar I posted up there. Other than the fact that it looked effin' sweet in the engine bay.

 

[weather man]

Other than the fact that it looked effin' sweet in the engine bay.

Yep!

 

[OkieSnuffBox]

The other thing is that without high spring rates, rigidity isnt a problem. Think back to touring cars in the 80s, the chassis were shit compared to what we have today, so even in full race trim they kept the suspension pretty soft because there wasnt enough rigidity in the chassis to get a benefit from higher spring rates.

From talking to guys like Sam McDonald (old AMA champ), it was the exact opposite. The chassis' were so floppy, they had to run crazy high spring rates to account for the chassis flex.

He said the bikes he set-up for his son, Tyler, used softer springs than the old bikes even now with much better tires, because the chassis' don't flex like they used to.

Just as an opposing POV.

 

[Mountain]

This argument has always bothered me. It is the same argument used when people mention sub frame connectors for the S197 chassis, they instantly jump to the Griggs racing or the FR500/Boss 302 R/S cars cars and say "see! They don't use them, neither should you!". That, of course, ignores the full cages they run. I still think an STB is bunk unless you have changed the vast majority of your suspension. Jury is still out on sub frame connectors for street cars without roll structures.

As for doing an STB instead of sways... No way I would do that! Sways are a huge tuning tool and are necessary on any serious corner carver.

I have seen one on the Capaldi BOSSR car at one point.

 

[Mountain]