Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications Suspension Front Strut Tower Brace

Originally posted by Contouring:

---

With the SHO SHOP FSTB I noticed a huge friggin difference, it was like night and day. OMP is for show, SHO SHOP is for GO, Or don't you know?

---

Is this a joke?

You've had both bars, and are able to compare?

Please describe the huge friggin difference... It certainly doesn't help with body roll, so what did it do for you?

(hint: I know what they do, I'd like to put an end to the "you-gotz-to-gedit-itz-so-awesome" comments we keep reading on strut tower bars. This thread has become my guinea pig.)

Originally posted by Contouring:

---

a huge friggin difference, it was like night and day.

---

Originally posted by Contouring:

---

OMP is for show, SHO SHOP is for GO, Or don't you know?

---

So I guess all the other front STBs designed like OMP are all show?

Originally posted by SVT ST PETE:

---

So I guess all the other front STBs designed like OMP are all show?

---

Yes, of course.. you didn't know that? Welding in a solid bar between the strut towers is also only good for show. You want to tie the damper's shaft pins together to get night and day improvements!

EDIT: I still want the technical explanation though. LMAO..

Originally posted by Derk2000:

---

The way I see it...one would probably require solid metal for "struts" and uncompressable springs before the unibody flexed enough to need a front strut tower bar.

---

Originally posted by Shaun G:

---

psst..psssttt.. the strut towers are so close to the firewall in the contour that you don't need a front strut tower brace. Please don't tell anyone I told you that.. ok?

---

We won't.

Depending on application. I assure you there are suspension and tire combinations that can flex a CDW27 chassis. Mirko was running font bracing, and so are the Mumm brothers.

Their conditions don't even remotely translate to street use, which is why I said the front strut brace would be the LAST mod.

Chassis bracing has but one purpose: enable the suspension to perform its work. Whether it's a couple braces, a full cage, seam-welds, subframe connectors, or 2x4's jammed in a few select places, the ONLY function is to make sure all the action transmitted by the rolling stock up into the chassis actually gets taken care of by the suspension, and doesn't make it's way into the unibody.

The unibody (the actual car) is an undamped chassis component, and its action while under load affects the suspension geometry, and ultimately the tire's contact patch. This isn't evidenced on the street, as almost all suspensions are way more compliant than the body. On a racetrack where spring rates are four times what they are on the street the problem is further aggravated by the R tire's high grip levels. The unibody starts giving up, throwing off alignment settings and behaviour.

I've seen studies on racecars where they focused an in-car camera on the hood-to-fender gap while circling the track. This was an all-out racecar, and the gap would enlarge, and then narrow up to 1/4" while cornering. Imagine running that suspension and tire combo on an unbraced car...

I doesn't go the other way around though! Welding a 10 point cage to a stock Buick Regal will not make it handle a single bit better, the problems are somewhere else.

Chassis bracing is like drag slicks on a Toyota Echo. Unless you're spinning the OEM rubber, you won't benefit from slicks. There's other areas to adress first, namely power. It doesn't mean that slicks would be entirely bad though, just that it wouldn't be money well spent for that specific application.

This is why I laugh at people who spend 100$ on a front strut bar, while they leave alone all the worn bushings and awful alignment specs...

The bar looks good though. I'll give it that.

Originally posted by JETNBYA:

---

TOTALLY WRONG!!! Give me a break!

---

Ok, Jim, I admit I was slightly exaggerating.
But, the point I was trying to get across was this: there are other moving parts (i.e. springs and struts) that should take the blunt of all the bumps and the jarring before the chassis starts flexing enough to have negative effects on handling. Am I wrong?

Edit:
Just read Pascal's post. Add what he said to my post, too.