Steeda's Rear Shock Tower Brace
6/27/08, 07:15 PM
#21
Yikes--didn't mean to stir it up this much. 
You know, I think I'll actually retract my initial statement. Taking a closer look at the design, I don't think this does a thing as far as chassis stiffness and shock tower bracing.
It has small mounting points which will provide minimal, if any, support of the actual strut contact point (i.e. to prevent tear out or push through). More importantly, IT IS HINGED AT BOTH ENDS! All it can do is provide support in tension or compression. I think we've all been under our car enough, and worked in the trunk with the carpet out enough, to see just how stout the rear strut towers are, and how integrated they are into the chassis.
Take a look at the attached picture--that area of the car is one of the stiffest. Not only is there a massive seat mount/transition to trunk cross piece as an integral part of the rear strut towers, that end of the chassis is also braced and supported by the B-pillar and rest of the roofline at that point. Not to mention the rear seat deck that is yet another cross-bracing component of the chassis.
Keep in mind that the rear springs/shocks see smaller forces than the front suspension. If the addition of a front strut tower brace is barely arguable, I really think that this reaches the point of incontestable bling. At least with the front strut towers the argument is there that they are not as well supported by the frame, there is no cross-support above them, and no cross-support below them. For the rears, you have the entire structure of the car providing cross-support below, and the already discussed redundant cross-support above.
I'd love Steeda to chime in a provide some data to prove me wrong, though. I'm all for looks mods, but not if they add weight and provide no benefit. It does look cool, though.
You know, I think I'll actually retract my initial statement. Taking a closer look at the design, I don't think this does a thing as far as chassis stiffness and shock tower bracing.
It has small mounting points which will provide minimal, if any, support of the actual strut contact point (i.e. to prevent tear out or push through). More importantly, IT IS HINGED AT BOTH ENDS! All it can do is provide support in tension or compression. I think we've all been under our car enough, and worked in the trunk with the carpet out enough, to see just how stout the rear strut towers are, and how integrated they are into the chassis.
Take a look at the attached picture--that area of the car is one of the stiffest. Not only is there a massive seat mount/transition to trunk cross piece as an integral part of the rear strut towers, that end of the chassis is also braced and supported by the B-pillar and rest of the roofline at that point. Not to mention the rear seat deck that is yet another cross-bracing component of the chassis.
Keep in mind that the rear springs/shocks see smaller forces than the front suspension. If the addition of a front strut tower brace is barely arguable, I really think that this reaches the point of incontestable bling. At least with the front strut towers the argument is there that they are not as well supported by the frame, there is no cross-support above them, and no cross-support below them. For the rears, you have the entire structure of the car providing cross-support below, and the already discussed redundant cross-support above.
I'd love Steeda to chime in a provide some data to prove me wrong, though. I'm all for looks mods, but not if they add weight and provide no benefit. It does look cool, though.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
M3hunter
Suspension, Brakes, and Tire Tech
5
9/10/15 09:26 AM