I was trying to answer this question, not 'go off'.

 

Apparently not, no. Not like I didn't QUOTE him in one of my posts above, or anything.....

Just another persons OPINION. A person who, to my knowledge, has no more credibility than other members.

I posted a quotation from Ground Control, who we all KNOW, knows their stuff. Read that quotation above & get back to me.



You REALLY enjoy arguing with ME. Don't you, James? I find that you seem try to contradict me on a LOT of my posts. Or argue points with ME. Do you search my posts to argue against? Kinda amusing.....

 

Yes, you did.

Really amuses me, that you "waste your time" responding yet again....

 

[QUOTE=Stephen;4245384]You REALLY enjoy arguing with ME. Don't you, James?/QUOTE]

Actually, I don't, but you're wrong so often that I feel obliged to point those errors out to keep the information on the board correct.

You're welcome to continue ranting and raving now. I'm out.

JamesC

 

I won't take direct issue with that 1/4" (yet). But without knowing the magnitude of the force that produced it, as well as the location and direction at which it was applied, it doesn't mean a whole lot. Knowing if it's even possible for a dynamic driving condition to duplicate it would be nice as well. If, say, it would require driving the car off a loading dock and landing it onto one front corner - I would not be particularly worried about it (and a 2-point STB would be unlikely to help much).


There are quite a few instances where automotive suspension and chassis items are being sold based on advertising claims that the OE pieces they replace or reinforce are weak or flexible. The problem I have with that comes when the direction in which the piece visibly looks weak or flexy is not the direction that it is actually loaded in. I won't say that's absolutely the case here, but I can't say it isn't, either. Not without more information.


Norm

 

[QUOTE=JamesC;4245653]I don't rant & rave. I just feel the real need to correct stupidity, when I see it posted. I'd love to see your examples of where I'm "wrong so often".....

PM me with those examples, if you don't wanna continue littering a thread.

 

This was the test I did on my 3pt Edelbrock STB WITH the 3rd pts attached. The fronbt of the vehicle would be to the left. The force under braking and corner entrance applied forward movement off the firewall forcing the STB forward and these edelbrock brackets to flex when I test boxed them with carboard papaer and tape.

One side broke, and one side pulled the tape streaching the gap like the underneath of the tape was still gummy- you could see where it pulled because of applied force. I then box welded these STB brackets with steel plates.

Dean

Stephen, Argue facts, don't just argue bitch points. Money is tight for most of us- THATS why I list important mods that are the best bang for your buck. You simply even per say bitched at me I felt because you came back snippy like you didn't have a money tree- well, if you bought a STB, my point is I am trying to teach people to not nnuy that first and save that money FIRST for better Strut mounts.

Now just man up and realise no response is needed anymore unless you bring facts.

 

Great! I forgot to post my stupid picture above- here...

 

I don't understand why you are singleing ME out.

I never got "snippy" at you. The ONLY place I can even find where I quoted YOU, was asking WHERE to find these inserts for stock mounts. If asking where to get them is "snippy"..... HOW?

Your only reinforcing my beliefs that STBs DO make an improvement.

Granted, the Edelbrock one has really thin mounting brackets & is therefore probably the weakest one out there, but.....

How YOU man up & admit that I said nothing negative towards YOU & realize that you attacked me, wrongfully.

 

i know that this is a little late in the day to ask this question but what is the darn thing connected to?
i see the shocks - ok struts - go in that area but the brace does not look like it bolts into it.
so what does it bolt into that boxes the top of the front sub frame.

 

Your so called ignorance is bliss. You mock everyone of us here when you asked what products are availiable. Most here KNOW you are active on this suspension board and your question to me was pathetic knowing you already know the answer.

By the time I came into here to respond, I see Greg had already responded exactly as I would have so I did not bother being retoricle. Your then attack on him was also an attack on me since I was about to post the very same thing to you.

You got the answer you deserved and now you whine like a bitch and keep trshing this post- **** you-you are now pissing me off

 

back to basic 101- If you look in the engne bay you will see the area next to the strut top is called the strut mount. It is bolted to the strut Tower. The strut Tower is part of the chassis contruction that makes up the subframe- The STB bolts form strut tower to strut tower.

I am guessing you just do not know that the strut tower is part of the subframe structure- now you do.

 

Another thing to keep in mind about that 3rd point on the firewall, which is what customblackbird is referring to, is another weak link. I'm sure it helps with it connected, but I have seen some cars with those bend and even crack the metal there. It might help to reinforce that area or even install a larger plate behind the one from the STB to help distribute the load over a larger area.

 

hey thanks man. appreciate that. what i was looking at was this pic and it looked like all the bolts part of the oem stuff were not used.
so do you have to drill new holes?
this is one of those topics i will have to do a major search on to get up to speed. think i will probably just start by looking at your posts first - to see where that takes me.

its always good to find a few experts to follow around.

thanks again

tony

 

ok answered my own question. there is a brace that fits over the struts brace and then the mount goes onto it.
sorry for wasting time guys.

thanks

tony

 

Thanks.

That suggests two things. One is that longitudinal bending stiffness is a little "soft" in the vicinity of the firewall (which doesn't surprise me much, knowing how flexible frames can get when there's a kink in them once they get behind the wheel well). The other is that there is some torsional stiffness to be gained (otherwise both tapes would have either broken or both just stretched). I'm guessing that it was the right side one that broke.

So it comes back to how good the firewall shape is in terms of stiffness, and whether it's sufficiently resistant to buckling. A reinforcing strap at the 3rd/4th point connections helps. But I'd rather see a full-width bar. Together with a dash bar and some lightweight diagonals between the two you could put together a really stiff firewall attachment point.


Norm

 

lol man i really woke this thread/convo up huh lol.

everyones finally bringing out all the points, i was just referring to the mounting point and the way most of the 3point braces attach to the firewall/windshield cage. thank you madmax for my original statement. the 3pt is a great idea over the standard 2pt STB, but i think there has to be a better way of attaching the 3rd or 4th point for increased rigidy over the edelbrock design. the swiveling points on most aftermarket STB is weak but has to be done due to so many strut tower configurations since not every 3rd gen is the same, this allows easier installment on 3rd gens.

the pic that stephen posted with the guy who made like a 12pt STB is where im trying to get at... it shows essentially a 3pt brace but with mounts that attach the firewall/windshield CLOSER to the Apillars, it also attached the strut tower itself alot like roll cages that have the bars run down from the inside cage through the firewall and into the strut tower/front subframe.(see attached photo) im sure something like this can be incorporated into the STB but instead of attaching to a cage you could attach to the Apillars/firewall/window cage.

You are correct on the fact that ppl never really upgrade anything before the STB goes on and that a car is only as strong as its weakest link, figure that all points have been addressed, bushings, wonderbar, SFC, tubular rear components, and rust has been fixed/no rust so it has a solid body. the stock strut mounts are poo which is a given but its great that this has been brought up, maybe ppl will realize that and upgrade there strut mounts before or after the STB install.

My point was to just design a better 3pt STB, perhaps instead of just the Triangle in the back, one could design a W to attach the STB to the firewall with the Apillars/windshield cage to the STB, the metal where the edelbrock STB attaches below the windshield is thin and by no means optimized for an achor point for the brace. MAdmax also said this should be reinforced, i agree. just like a roll bar has to be mounted with 6x6 plates for even load distribution.

also welding all the seems at the strut tower "cap" where the strut mount bolts to will help with flexing and integrety, as wellas the the other spot welds should be seam welded for increased strength ( in the whole engine bay). attached is a quick rendering of wat i was trying to get across, the yellow would be the STB with the W support including the 3pt configuration but with the extra mounting points for the apillars for increased rigidy (like caging the strut towers to the stronger points of the engine bay near the firewall) the blue lines could be a way to mount the STB to the front SF like the bar is in the pic (in the original pic which can still be seen) with a plate like a roll bar to spread the load over a wider area.

 

opps, I can't type for ****- I hit the wrong button- look to next post.

 

My only response is that the Edelbrock firewall mount on my car was substantial and did its job. My car was in solid shape, maybe I was lucky.

I have always had a problem with swivel joints on each end of the 2pts. Sorry to tell everyone, I have a design that is ground breaking - it is user friendly and easy to attach. It will only involve the car be realigned after install so I would suggest anyone buying it to install it when they need a new set of tires and alignment. BUT, I am not about to let that design go.

Someday I get a shop or garage back in order (I was close when my personal life took a sidetrack from a divorce) and get my machinery set back up I plan to start producing specialty race parts for the decerning buyer. Very high end low volume specialty parts. A little side business I was getting started with until this divorce happened almost two years ago now.
Someday, but I can not tell anyone when- it would be minumium a year since I need to find/buy a new home and get that in order first. I have ALOT of specialty designs I have done. I have given out a few minor ones(to Spohn) and one more major one (Mumford link), But I will not discuss any more of them so please do not ask me privately.

 

Do you guys see any advantage to mounting the brace to the strut mount itself, instead of the car? Didn't someone used to make alluminum strut mounts?

 

That is where my UMI STB mounts to. It uses 2 of the 3 studs to mount to.

 

Not really, with how all the ones I have seen are designed. They are all 2 point attachments so the little distance from the mount that you give up isnt really worth seeking one out that attaches that way. The whole area where the strut mount attaches is pretty strong so an inch isnt going to be the end of the world. Now if you had one that attached at 3 points or to the strut itself, different ballgame entirely. The only advantage for some would be not having to drill holes in their car and keep it so it can be reverted to stock with no evidence it was any other way.

 

I was thinking of a mounting "ring" that welded to the strut mount (spohn maybe) and had a Heim joint with a double adjuster for length. Would there be any advantage to a design like this?

 

the only real advantage with an adjustable STB would be the ability to preload the suspension aka strut towers. other than that no advantage, and 99% of us would have no reason to preload the strut towers.

the mounting ring i have seen done alot on ford mustangs esp the new models, ford racing has a bunch but the import scene is where u see the ring type STB. altho cool looking they are not needed in our situation. the ring wouldnt really off much over the standard 2 point bolt mounting since really its only controlling inward flexing of the strut towers. if u look underneith the strut towers in the wheel wells u will notice that the strut bearing cap (stock) already uses a ring type of mounting... this is what holds the bolts and reinforces the strut tower for the bearing cap to mount to. the amount of flex you would loose would be extremely small with the STB mounted to the strut tower and not the strut mount bearing cap assembly.

there are a few companies who make them out of aluminum, it is howerever alot weaker than steel, the aluminum would have to be a bunch thicker than a steel one. also most ppl dont have the ability to weld aluminum or get awhole of the material that would be needed, it can be done tho.

essentially, one could weld the pivot brackets of say the edelbrock STB to the strut tower instead of bolting them down, and remove the STB from the bracket vs drilling holes in the tower and removing it that way. issues would be that the brackets would be there permently and the welds would have to be good and strong.

 

Adjustable for length has some advantages in fit-up when you're dealing with older cars that are dimensionally "uncertain".

But Heims/rod ends/whatever give away some of the stiffness that you're looking to add because they won't hold the two pieces in rigid alignment with each other.


Norm

 

If you had ever held one in your hand, off the car, you'd realize it merely holds the 3 studs, making it a 1 step operation for all 3. It is not strong at all & provides zero reinforcement.

I bet I could hold it in 1 hand & cause it to bend between my palm & with just finger pressure. Wouldn't take much to build a stronger one, for the bottom side.

The top side is MUCH stronger & where the strength comes from, besides the sheet metal itself.

 

So can i assume that a rigid bar with no pivots of any kind is preferable to connect the strut towers? If i built a bar that only bolted to the shock towers, meaning without separate mounting brackets, would that be superior to pivots? (i assume so)

While i have the attention of a group of engineers and suspension Gurus, Gee, U R U (Mike Myers). Should i be looking at the Spohn mounts or the J&M mounts? I always have trouble with outer edge tire wear and if one gave more camber and caster adjustment i think that would benefit me.

 

Yes, because any pivot allows movement in some direction. The chassis isnt loaded from one direction only so at some point there will be a force that is not counteracted due to rotation of the joint.

The advantage of a ring or other similar mount is that it essentially counteracts the movement of the strut tower where the load is coming from: the strut. The bars that mount in front of the strut mounts can allow some movement and/or rotation relative to the strut. How much, I dunno. The mount on these cars by itself is fairly substansial unlike the brand F products. I've seen those bend the cap where the strut attaches whereas our cars if anything will break the spot welds from the cap to the strut towers. Without a doubt it would be better than a bar that attaches away from the strut, it would remove any of the questions of movement before the bar has the ability to counteract the forces involved, and it would place less stress on the strut cap and spot welds. Ideally what you are trying to do is minimize deflection of where the strut mount is when the car is static to when the car is moving. The best way is to attach to that point as solidly as possible. No joints, not attaching away from that location. In the real world you have to make compromises here and there, and all that does is allow additional deflection over what an ideal setup would have.

 

i was merely stating that the ring that holds the bolts on the underside acts like a big washer vs just having the bolts put through the holes and then torqued down. without the ring im sure the bolts would pull through eventually. hence why it reinforces the strut tower by sandwiching itself against the strut tower sheet metal and by acting like a washer. of course thicker steel could be used to make it stronger.

pivot points are not optimal... as i stated in my other post the aftermarket has put them there so they allow fitment to all models and years... since these cars are so worn that none of them are the same or straight. solid ones with no pivots are the best and allow the least defection. these are usually custom made for the car its gona be used on. however the only ones ive seen at BMR and older kenny browns that are the solid types.

 

So does installing any king of STB require an alignment because of whatever deflection is created in the metal when everything is bolted up tight (2 pt or 3 pt), or would that only be required with Vtruck's ground breaking design.

 

Nope.

I suspect his redesign is both complete strut mount top, with the STB as part of them. Unless you move the strut mounts, there is no need for an alignment afterwards.

 

no alignment needed, you are not moving the towers at all, and if yo udo preload the towers, they dont move enough to really need an alignment. Maybe if you are a perfection ****, but its really not needed.

As for the STB, im using edelbrocks 3pt TBI brace, the solid version, not the one with the 2 flimsy bolt on bars running to the firewall. I did notice that the strut mount ends that edelbrock provides seem pretty flimsy, and the fact that they pivot seems to defeat the entire purpose of even having the bar in thei first place. I posted it before, but i cut the ends off the bar and fabricated solid mounts for the strut towers.





i preloaded my bar a little, basicly i just drilled the holes and installed the bar with the car supported by the k-member, letting the suspension droop and pull the towers out a little bit. Then when its back on its wheels the bar is slightly loaded.

 

I see, .

 

There would be no need to re-align for street use, since the static alignment settings would not change.

But if some extensive combination of STB and miscellaneous other bracing actually did add much chassis stiffness, you might want different alignment settings for all-out competition. For example, a more rigid chassis could be expected to cause different amounts of camber (front wheels with respect to the pavement here) during cornering than you get with the OE platform only, so you'd tweak the static alignment settings to compensate.


Norm

 

quick question- i'm thinking about trying to make a stb- is it better to make one out of round steel tubing or square steel tubing? or should i just go with a solid steel bar?

any insight would be helpful. thanks!

 

Solid
Rigid
Lightweight

Pick two. (I'd scratch the solid bar off the list.)


Norm

 

That's funny Norm. I just read this a couple of years later. This thread was linked from another current thread in the suspension forum.


I still never bought another 3rd gen, but I help out alot of local guys arouind So Cal and we go to the local tracks alot. When I get some time here real soon- hopefully around the holiday's, I plan to build a STB for Valentin (Black Mamba) alot like what I mentioned. It will have adjustments on it so I can push and pull each strut mount with the STB as I do his alignments for track setup and then back to street setup without banging the strut mounts into position with a rubber mallet (god I hate that)

Dean (aka Vetruck)

 

I just read this whole thread. I like the idea that the OP was willing to build something himself. I dislike that it is making me seriously wonder about the condition of my upper strut mounts. I do not mind spending the money when I get ready but was hoping it wasn't necessary. I was planning on building my own STB and want it to be for more than looks though it will normally never do much if anything with just normal driving.
At least I learned a little something though.