Does HMS plan on making anymore strut mounts?
#1
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: www.thirdgentech.com
Posts: 1,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2004 GTO
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T-56
Does HMS plan on making anymore strut mounts?
Those look very trick and pretty high quality.
I might want some in the spring. My mounts are original and don't bind, but want to upgrade.
Thanks!
I might want some in the spring. My mounts are original and don't bind, but want to upgrade.
Thanks!
#2
Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: Camaro Z28 1LE R7U
Engine: 5.0 TPI
Transmission: G-Force Dog-Ring T5
YES
We do plan on doing another production run in the new year. There are some issues to sort out with finnish quality first - so there is a bit of R&D underway - but stay tuned. There will be more. The interest seems to be there - so why not.
#3
Supreme Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fort Mill, SC, USA
Posts: 6,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: '88 Iroc, '91 RS, and a '70 RS
Engine: 5.7 TPI; 5.0 TBI; ZZ4/T56 on the ag
Transmission: A4, A4, slated to be a T56
Hey Karl. Here's a question...any way of incorporating a strut tower brace into the mounts? Maybe run it mount to mount? I just had a thought...maybe weld a couple tabs onto each mount and then fab a rod ended brace to fit between them???
Hmmm...
Ed
Hmmm...
Ed
#4
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: www.thirdgentech.com
Posts: 1,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2004 GTO
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T-56
HMS, thanks for your reply! I'll be watching for the next batch in the springtime!
Ed,
You wouldn't be able to do that because the strut mounts adjust and the side to side loads would always be throwing the strut angle off. It needs to be securely mounted to the strut tower for the brace to work properly.
Ed,
You wouldn't be able to do that because the strut mounts adjust and the side to side loads would always be throwing the strut angle off. It needs to be securely mounted to the strut tower for the brace to work properly.
#5
Originally posted by formul8!!
HMS, thanks for your reply! I'll be watching for the next batch in the springtime!
Ed,
You wouldn't be able to do that because the strut mounts adjust and the side to side loads would always be throwing the strut angle off. It needs to be securely mounted to the strut tower for the brace to work properly.
HMS, thanks for your reply! I'll be watching for the next batch in the springtime!
Ed,
You wouldn't be able to do that because the strut mounts adjust and the side to side loads would always be throwing the strut angle off. It needs to be securely mounted to the strut tower for the brace to work properly.
Great idea Ed.
Lets go a step further, You could even run triangular rods from the mounts to the firewall to set and maintain caster settings also. Were talking an $$$ setup though. Don't know how many would spend that kind of cash, I certainly would resale my existing HMS mounts an purchase a setup like that
Edit: How nice this setup would be for weekend racers that don't want to drive around daily with -2 1/2 to -3* camber. You could install this setup to daily driving alignment specs, then measure the three rod lengths from bolt to bolt. Then have the alignment mechanic reset everything to racing specs and again measure those setting. One could then drive the car to the autocross track, pop the hood, loosen the strut mount bolts slightly, shorten the rod lengths to the race specs, retighten everything and go racing.The triangular rods would recenter the camber setting each time so you would not end up with like +2* on one side and -2* on the other.
Last edited by AFreaknGoodTme; 11-23-2002 at 11:10 AM.
#6
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: www.thirdgentech.com
Posts: 1,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2004 GTO
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T-56
I would take some serious beefing up of the mount to be able to hanldle both the strut load and the chassis load.
Why would you want to mount a chassis load bearing part to a bolt on part that controls the suspension? The way current STB's mount to the chassis/strut tower is much more stable and that is the part you want controlled, not the strut mount itself.
Sounds cool on paper, but it won't work in real testing.
Why would you want to mount a chassis load bearing part to a bolt on part that controls the suspension? The way current STB's mount to the chassis/strut tower is much more stable and that is the part you want controlled, not the strut mount itself.
Sounds cool on paper, but it won't work in real testing.
#7
Originally posted by formul8!!
I would take some serious beefing up of the mount to be able to hanldle both the strut load and the chassis load.
Why would you want to mount a chassis load bearing part to a bolt on part that controls the suspension? The way current STB's mount to the chassis/strut tower is much more stable and that is the part you want controlled, not the strut mount itself.
Sounds cool on paper, but it won't work in real testing.
I would take some serious beefing up of the mount to be able to hanldle both the strut load and the chassis load.
Why would you want to mount a chassis load bearing part to a bolt on part that controls the suspension? The way current STB's mount to the chassis/strut tower is much more stable and that is the part you want controlled, not the strut mount itself.
Sounds cool on paper, but it won't work in real testing.
Most race cars currently have spreader bars that attach this way to the upper a-arms. I think the poin you my be missing is that the strut is what bears the load, not the fender. When the strut puts force on the strut mount, the strut mount is the part recieving stress and with the current design (3 bolts to the fender) does not slip. what a STB or spreader bar does is keeps the top strut mount locations from flexing in towards eachother under hard loads thus causing the inner and outer tire contact patches to change camber and lose traction. Its the mounts that need to stay rigid for alignment purposes, not the inner fenders.
Trending Topics
#9
Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: Camaro Z28 1LE R7U
Engine: 5.0 TPI
Transmission: G-Force Dog-Ring T5
Do you guys really want these mounts to be that expensive???
I have no plans of incorporating a strut brace into these mounts. That just gets way too complicated.. Then - which car do you design it for?? TPI - carb - TBI - Superram??? There is no way to make one system to fit all these cars... so it won't happen.
The design will be the same as they are now. Strut tower braces are very effective when bolted to the tower - not the mount. However the idea does have mertit, and the concept would work.
I have no plans of incorporating a strut brace into these mounts. That just gets way too complicated.. Then - which car do you design it for?? TPI - carb - TBI - Superram??? There is no way to make one system to fit all these cars... so it won't happen.
The design will be the same as they are now. Strut tower braces are very effective when bolted to the tower - not the mount. However the idea does have mertit, and the concept would work.
#10
Sorry Mr. HMS, I was just dreaming a little daydream, but I did acknowledge somewhere up above that I know this would be extremely costly to do. You have a excellent point about the different engine clearences involve and the gains would not be any greater than the standard STB's availible now. I was just thinking how nice to have the adjustable street-to-race settings with a few rotations of some brace rods. I did this with my Vette for years in auto-x with just a tape measure and a wrench in the rear and shims and a wrench in the front. Took me about 20 mins.
#11
Supreme Member
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 87 IROC-Z28
Engine: 305 TPI-New 355 on the engine stand
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.73 Eaton posi-Soon a 9" Ford!
After I read this thread, I've been thinking about the strut tower brace idea being attached to the strut towers themselves. Then a few days ago I got my first issue of Grass Roots Motorpsorts. In looking at the ads in the back I see strut tower braces that bolt either over or under the strut tower mount on **** grinders. In looking at the strut towers on 3rd gen cars in the boneyard, I've noticed that the bolts that mount the strut tower come up from the bottom and are mounted in a type of "C" shaped support that is removable. It would be an easy task to put bigger and longer bolts in this support to work with the added height of a mounting plate for a stb brace.
If a stb were made that bolted to the same bolts as the strut towers do, then it would seem that this would give you the maximum support available right where it is needed most. The mounting holes for the strut tower are slotted for caster adjustment, and the strut tower mount itself that has the slotted holes for adjustment. So my idea would be to put either rod ends of clevis ends on the strut bar, and after the car is aligned then you would simply adjust out the rod ends to match the holes in the strut tower brace mounting plates.
I own a machine shop and it would be an easy task for me to cnc these mounting plates out. But before I do, I would like input from others with more knowledge and experience in this area.
Thanks-Dan
If a stb were made that bolted to the same bolts as the strut towers do, then it would seem that this would give you the maximum support available right where it is needed most. The mounting holes for the strut tower are slotted for caster adjustment, and the strut tower mount itself that has the slotted holes for adjustment. So my idea would be to put either rod ends of clevis ends on the strut bar, and after the car is aligned then you would simply adjust out the rod ends to match the holes in the strut tower brace mounting plates.
I own a machine shop and it would be an easy task for me to cnc these mounting plates out. But before I do, I would like input from others with more knowledge and experience in this area.
Thanks-Dan
Last edited by alloy; 12-07-2002 at 06:29 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post