Rear Shock Tower Brace

[SADL-UP]

When I did the rear seat delete in my GT, I opted to add the rear shock tower brace to maintain some of the torsional rigidity. That being said, I also have a LCAs, FLSFCs and a Panhard bar. Without the rear seat steel brace, I believe there is some benefit of having the shock tower brace to tie everything together.

 

[san~man]

Neither MM nor Griggs (I may be wrong) sell such an animal nor do they recommend it. The rear is tied together by the frame, the trunk floor, as well as the upper pillars and body panels, whereas the front isn't. Hell, Griggs doesn't even offer a front bar in their top GR-40 package:

On my car, with all the MM parts I had, there simply wasn't a use for it. IMO, the rear bar is more of a gimmick from the import world more than anything.

 

[twogts4us]

When I did the rear seat delete in my GT, I opted to add the rear shock tower brace to maintain some of the torsional rigidity. That being said, I also have a LCAs, FLSFCs and a Panhard bar. Without the rear seat steel brace, I believe there is some benefit of having the shock tower brace to tie everything together.

I see your logic, though I'm not totally convinced that the brace, even in this instance, would do any good.

Neither MM nor Griggs (I may be wrong) sell such an animal nor do they recommend it. The rear is tied together by the frame, the trunk floor, as well as the upper pillars and body panels, whereas the front isn't. Hell, Griggs doesn't even offer a front bar in their top GR-40 package:

On my car, with all the MM parts I had, there simply wasn't a use for it. IMO, the rear bar is more of a gimmick from the import world more than anything.

Great post - Thank you...

 

[bhuff30]

I've researched quite a bit about mustang suspension and chassis design and optimization for open track, auto X and drag racing. Everything I've read says there is no benefit to running a rear shock tower brace on a mustang. If you want to read it in writing from a more reputable source than stangnet, then take a look at the Mustang Performance Handbook II, by Mathis. This book focuses on suspension and chassis upgrades for all types of mustangs, including open track and auto-X, and is a huge asset if you really want to modify your car to handle. He recommends not wasting your time or money on a rear brace, because it is not useful on a mustang.

Just think about the geometry of installing a rear shock tower brace. The rear shocks carry none of the weight of the vehicle and have absolutely NO EFFECT on the geometry of the rear suspension. The geometry is governed completely by the control arms. Futhermore, the shocks are mounted to the frame with rubber... you aren't going to strengthen the chassis with a bar suspended by rubber or polyurethane mounts.

The front on the other hand is a whole different story. The front struts have a major effect on the suspension geometry.

 

[trombonedemon]

I've researched quite a bit about mustang suspension and chassis design and optimization for open track, auto X and drag racing. Everything I've read says there is no benefit to running a rear shock tower brace on a mustang. If you want to read it in writing from a more reputable source than stangnet, then take a look at the Mustang Performance Handbook II, by Mathis. This book focuses on suspension and chassis upgrades for all types of mustangs, including open track and auto-X, and is a huge asset if you really want to modify your car to handle. He recommends not wasting your time or money on a rear brace, because it is not useful on a mustang.

Just think about the geometry of installing a rear shock tower brace. The rear shocks carry none of the weight of the vehicle and have absolutely NO EFFECT on the geometry of the rear suspension. The geometry is governed completely by the control arms. Futhermore, the shocks are mounted to the frame with rubber... you aren't going to strengthen the chassis with a bar suspended by rubber or polyurethane mounts.

The front on the other hand is a whole different story. The front struts have a major effect on the suspension geometry.

You don't think people here are being a bit car snobbish? If this guy thinks taking a dump on the top his car would be in the least bit advantageous as far as handling goes, then we should be supportive. I know, a bit extreme, but, the analogy still fits. No one knows everything about these cars considering Ford hasn't tested these cars in every situation w/every person. Point being the bar wouldn't hurt, and the bar only has room to improve the handling.
Thats how things are improved, invented, and made to make driving better by not listening to people who live and die by the book. Thinking outside the norm is what car modding is about. *Enter National Anthem, wipe tear from eye* This my friends, is what the U.S. is all about. *Dramatic Exit and Flyover from Stealth Bomber*

 

[bhuff30]

Seems ironic that you say this to a person who built and races a low 12 second 4cyl mustang. Talk about thinking outside the norm... I run less than half the displacement of any v8 mustang produced, run a factory ford camshaft (smaller than even a NPI cam), and make peak power at a lower rpm than a PI 4.6.

As you can see, I'm all for trying something new and different... but there is no need to waste time and money proving what has already been rigorously tested by others. In the case of the rear shock brace, it has already been proven to be dead weight. His reaction to the handling of the car is entirely perceived. Further, the idea that you can determine handling ability on the street is absolutely inane.

Thats how things are improved, invented, and made to make driving better by not listening to people who live and die by the book. Thinking outside the norm is what car modding is about. *Enter National Anthem, wipe tear from eye* This my friends, is what the U.S. is all about. *Dramatic Exit and Flyover from Stealth Bomber*

 

[007]

Its not going to do anything.

 

[40oz]

Just think about the geometry of installing a rear shock tower brace. The rear shocks carry none of the weight of the vehicle and have absolutely NO EFFECT on the geometry of the rear suspension. The geometry is governed completely by the control arms. Futhermore, the shocks are mounted to the frame with rubber... you aren't going to strengthen the chassis with a bar suspended by rubber or polyurethane mounts.

The front on the other hand is a whole different story. The front struts have a major effect on the suspension geometry.

I'm not going to dispute your post. You make very good points.

I would never recommend a strut brace, front or rear, that just connected to the nut at the top. I would buy one that connected the actual towers. You are correct about the rear shocks not impacting suspension geometry, but when you connect the rear towers, you've provided a stiff support across the body in addition to what the sheet metal already provides. The shock towers just provide a mount for this brace, and at the same time ensure that the right shock tower doesn't deflect relative to the left when you hit a bump. IOW, it increases the side-to-side stiffness of the car.

Whether this is cost-effective is a different discussion than whether this provides a noticeable benefit. People have to make a choice where they spend their money. Two people aren't necessarily going to make the same choices, but that doesn't make either person a fool. There is more than one valid approach. But it is the height of ignorance to cover your ears and shout "LALALALALA" when someone says they notice an improvement after installing a part you haven't installed.

If you notice, there is more than one book on race car building. And more than one company selling parts designed to improve Mustang handling. The fact that one company believes in one set of parts and another believes in another doesn't make either wrong, just illustrates that there is more than one valid opinion on the subject. I feel no obligation to buy into one person's ideas entirely and exclusively. I am free to think one person has good ideas but is wrong in some areas. I can pick and choose what I think works best, regardless of whether there is a book published that matches my ideas point for point.

Sometimes companies don't make a part simply because they can't see a way to make a profit with it. It has nothing to do with the value of the part.

 

[40oz]

Seems ironic that you say this to a person who built and races a low 12 second 4cyl mustang. Talk about thinking outside the norm... I run less than half the displacement of any v8 mustang produced, run a factory ford camshaft (smaller than even a NPI cam), and make peak power at a lower rpm than a PI 4.6.

As you can see, I'm all for trying something new and different... but there is no need to waste time and money proving what has already been rigorously tested by others. In the case of the rear shock brace, it has already been proven to be dead weight. His reaction to the handling of the car is entirely perceived. Further, the idea that you can determine handling ability on the street is absolutely inane.

The idea that one cannot tell the difference in set-ups on the street is inane. I don't think you really mean that.

And let's say right out in the open that your drag racing experience, while valuable, is of absolutely no use to this discussion.

 

[san~man]

The idea that one cannot tell the difference in set-ups on the street is inane. I don't think you really mean that.
.

I'd have to agree with him. There are certain parts that one can install, suspension wise, that easily make a difference in "feeling" once installed. FLSFCs, GOOD LCA's, springs/struts, and PHB are ones that come to mind right off the bat. When I installed those on my car (in that order btw), I could easily feel the benefit while driving. There was no doubt that each one made a noticable difference. Hell, even a proper alignment makes a difference in feeling while driving.

For someone to say that installing a rear strut bar made a "huge, noticable difference" after installation, handling wise, is next to impossible. I would wager that anyone who drove two identically equiped cars, sans the rear bar, would never tell the difference between the two.

 

[Dr Jay]

opcorn:

 

[40oz]

Once again, if you don't have any experience with the mod, why not listen to what someone here and now is saying? You can say all you want that "the community says it doesn't work." But as we are seeing, "the community" is hardly in agreement about damn near anything. And the people who are so fond of flying the flag have zero experience with the subject.

No offense.

 

[bhuff30]

I say that because of experience in auto X. I have several 1st place finishes for my division back when the 88 was more setup for handling. Without being completely insane, there is no way to truly test suspension parts on the street. It is impossible to see the levels of grip and limit of the tires on the street like you could experience on the track... and if you are SHAME ON YOU FOR DOING IT ON THE STREET.

Ever been to an auto X event? There are slaloms and quick changes in direction... sure you can do a steady state corner on the street on a highway onramp, but that is nothing like what you do on the track. At the track, if you don't spin a few times, you aren't pushing it hard enough. Come even close to spinning on the street, and you risk the life of yourself and everyone around you.

Back when I was doing the auto-X stuff in the 88, I put stiffer springs and heavier sway bars in the 88, and on the street there was definately a big feel of the pants gain. There was less body roll and increased grip... but on the track it could turn into a whole different animal. The back end became MUCH less predictable and would bite you in the ass if you pushed it just a little too hard. It was great fun, but that particular combination wasn't any faster because it wasn't well balanced... and you don't learn that until you really PUSH IT HARD! So my point is, you can't and shouldn't push the limits of the car on the street, to really see the true effect of suspension changes.

From back in the day:

The idea that one cannot tell the difference in set-ups on the street is inane. I don't think you really mean that.

And let's say right out in the open that your drag racing experience, while valuable, is of absolutely no use to this discussion.

 

[40oz]

I say that because of experience in auto X. I have several 1st place finishes for my division back when the 88 was more setup for handling. Without being completely insane, there is no way to truly test suspension parts on the street. It is impossible to see the levels of grip and limit of the tires on the street like you could experience on the track... and if you are SHAME ON YOU FOR DOING IT ON THE STREET.

Ever been to an auto X event? There are slaloms and quick changes in direction... sure you can do a steady state corner on the street on a highway onramp, but that is nothing like what you do on the track. At the track, if you don't spin a few times, you aren't pushing it hard enough. Come even close to spinning on the street, and you risk the life of yourself and everyone around you.

Back when I was doing the auto-X stuff in the 88, I put stiffer springs and heavier sway bars in the 88, and on the street there was definately a big feel of the pants gain. There was less body roll and increased grip... but on the track it could turn into a whole different animal. The back end became MUCH less predictable and would bite you in the ass if you pushed it just a little too hard. It was great fun, but that particular combination wasn't any faster because it wasn't well balanced... and you don't learn that until you really PUSH IT HARD! So my point is, you can't and shouldn't push the limits of the car on the street, to really see the true effect of suspension changes.

From back in the day:
/Auto-X.jpg

Well good for you. I see what you are saying about how the springs and swaybar might have felt better on the street but were worse when it push came to shove. But we are talking about a brace here.

Theres a difference between noticing the effect of a new brace while driving the same roads you drive every day, and testing your spring/swaybar combo driving around your neighborhood. I think you know that.

Autocross isn't "the track." And at most road courses, spinning a few times is the easiest way to get kicked out. If they don't park you for the day the first time your tires hit the dirt. Nobody wants to share the track with a nut job intent on "pushing the limit."

I've done a few autocrosses. I understand what you were trying to do with your stiffer springs, but I could have told you that stiffer spings and a stiff swaybar weren't going to help. And I'm sure you would have argued and found out on your own anyway. Here you have a chance to learn from someone who has done so, and all you do is argue. WTF?

 

[Winters98GT]

Brian, you have a big head! Sweet pic!

 

[bhuff30]

haha, thanks. I really want to get out an run a few more autoX events, but it would have to be in the 97, which is ok too.

Brian, you have a big head! Sweet pic!

40oz: You often just argue for the sake of argument... I've seen it in here plenty. So I'm going to let this one rest where it lies.

 

[twogts4us]

Damn Brian, I was just getting settled in, ready to enjoy some more...

Nonetheless, thanks for your contributions - you rock! View attachment 222659

As for the rest off you... View attachment 222660

Now quick guys, let's go over to EBay where I saw some headlight polish that was guaranteed to help push me over the 150 MPH barrier...oh, wait, I better not comment on such a product...fact is, I haven't actually tried it and it might just work...

 

[trombonedemon]

Seems ironic that you say this to a person who built and races a low 12 second 4cyl mustang. Talk about thinking outside the norm... I run less than half the displacement of any v8 mustang produced, run a factory ford camshaft (smaller than even a NPI cam), and make peak power at a lower rpm than a PI 4.6.

As you can see, I'm all for trying something new and different... but there is no need to waste time and money proving what has already been rigorously tested by others. In the case of the rear shock brace, it has already been proven to be dead weight. His reaction to the handling of the car is entirely perceived. Further, the idea that you can determine handling ability on the street is absolutely inane.

Uhhh, obviously he has not tested this bar and its not your money or mines, so why are you not cutting him some slack. Grrrrreat, you try stuff, so let him try.
I'm almost pretty sure everything moves at one point or another in these cars, I'm in his corner w/this, if you bolt anything down its gonna make it stiffer to handle. I repeat everything moooooves, especially when driving. Oh, traffic is definately a great test of suspension. What, avoiding potholes, the occasional zoned out driver that needs to be avoided, drifting from time to time, weaving in and out of traffic is not a true test. Then exactly what is?
FURTHER, tests are garbage most of the time, considering these cars are tested in controlled enviorments before mass production. This isn't a big deal considering most of the critiques are typical Sheepal behavior, from reading most of the posts here, they are basically stating, "I believe its a waste and a waste of time from reading other people's work, so I must be right." Try to support others experimenting no matter what the book says, if hes wrong, lets hope hes man enough to say so, if hes right, lets have beer and say conformity is not always the right way.

 

[trombonedemon]

Damn Brian, I was just getting settled in, ready to enjoy some more...

Nonetheless, thanks for your contributions - you rock! View attachment 222651

As for the rest off you... View attachment 222652

Now quick guys, let's go over to EBay where I saw some headlight polish that was guaranteed to help push me over the 150 MPH barrier...oh, wait, I better not comment on such a product...fact is, I haven't actually tried it and it might just work...

Maybe, you never know until you do try. Literaly.

 

[twogts4us]

Autocross isn't "the track."

Well, hell, what do you consider 'the track'? I'd certainly consider an autocross 'track' a track, even if it's simply a sectioned off area of a parking lot. The public won't be driving across the area will it?

What do we make of Sebring 'raceway'? Is it a track or an airport?

Or the St Petersburg Grand Prix 'track'? Is it really a track or part downtown street / part airport?

(Both of these are local to me...but are perfect examples, beyond the Auto X track, of multi-use facilities, all of which are still considered 'tracks', at least in a part time capacity.)