This looks like it would be pretty rigid...anyone have any experience with this product? quality, strength?

Saw it at http://www.cpracing.ca/

 

My big beef with full triangulated bars is it makes working on the car a bitch. It's really hard to say how much extra stiffness you get - if it's truly worth it on something less than a full-on track car.

Dale

 

do a search on cp racing

 

Thanks GOTBANNED...forget about them...bad news.

I like the idea of the triangulated bar, possibly in chrome, anyone know of anyone decent who make a good one?

Thanks again,

Ian

 

I can get you one Pm if your interested.

 

I have one from them on my FC. It made a huge difference on that car. I can certainly feel the difference when doing some spirited driving on curvy mountain roads. It is night and day. As far as the company.... I have no idea. I bought mine a long time ago with no problems.

 

well do a good research

 

I question how rigid our firewalls are. On some cars that have weaker firewalls, the firewall has buckled under heavy loads.

 

I have one, it came in silver, not that nasty blue color. As far as regular driving I felt the difference and havent seen any warpage in my firewall; although I have not run my car on any kind of track. Also work that involves moving the engine around should wait until you have a few things to get done otherwise you will be taking it out and putting it in and thats a chuck of time added to the job.

 

JebenKurac, where did you get yours? Any pics?

 

I am vaguely interested in this. Doesnt CP Racing have very shitty customer service?

 

That is the rumor.

 

I dont see how this thing mounts to the firewall, I feel like there is **** in the way there right? It is pretty sexy though and reasonably priced at 150 i believe.

 

Excellent point. I wouldn't think the sheet metal there to be robust enough to mount something like that effectively. Maybe there is a brace behind the firewall somewhere that makes this possible?

I dunno....for some reason I just don't really like the looks of it....seems....'cluttery' or something.

 

since the fd is a double A arm front the primary forces act upon the chassis where the A arms bolt to the body. securing the top of the spring shock tower will yield miniscule returns. i do enthusiastically support a lateral brace as it laterally boxes the "U".

i see a further issue as the frame appears to conflict w my Garfinkle engine torque brace which i consider to be an essential part of any FD.

finally, although the support is properly designed to butt against the stronger part of the upper firewall (stronger because of being 2 faced) the metal is approx .065 wall and was not designed to carry dynamic loads, rather it merely separates the engine compartment air from the ventilation duct. the firewall below the horizontal seam is designed to carry load and is mucho stronger.

since i haven't seen an FC picture i reserve comment except to say that the FC chassis is so flexible that any help should pay dividends. importantly, the FC is a strut front so the major forces act upon the top of the tower making it more important to add additional support.

howard coleman

 

Lots of good info in your post as usual howard.

Assuming the garfinkle brace is a typical engine torque brace, why do you consider it essential? I had one of the early ones that Cripsy made, and it transmitted lots of vibration into the interior, and I am pretty tolerant of that stuff. Since I have added gotham urethane mounts and a diff brace, my driveline is nice and stiff, havent felt the need for an ETB, unless you can convince me otherwise

 

Rich,

there are three (N,V,H) good reasons to insulate the powerplant and transmission from the chassis. while the rotary produces alot less NVH than a piston engine as long as there is NO performance advantage in replacing the rubber w a higher durometer material i will opt for the NVH insulation of the OEM mounts.

torque opposition should come from a brace not solid, or near solid mounts.

the engine produces torque Vs the chassis and there needs to be an opposing force.

bad leverage
the stock setup relies on only one (BOTTOM) engine location of what is essentially a square or circle to oppose this force: the motor mounts. that's why the rubber mounts fail.

good leverage
add another oppositional location at the TOP of the motor and a great deal of stress is removed from the motor mounts. no more failed motor mounts. this returns the mounts to what should be their primary function: to support the drivetrain mass. the optimium way to distribute the resistive force is to locate the vector at the top of the motor. so you will have both the top and bottom tied in instead of just the bottom. that's just what a properly located (Garfinkle) engine torque brace will accomplish. top and bottom. as to NVH from Garfinkle's brace.... there is none that i have noticed... it is rubber bushed at each end.

with my twin TO4 setup last year i had 1/4 clearance between one of the turbo actuators and my engine bay. there never was contact so the motor is solidly in place. (i have relocated the actuator for 06.)

as to the rear of the FD.
i do agree that the diff does need significant help. put a jack under the diff and start jacking and you will raise the diff almost an inch before the chassis starts to rise. a very bad situation. wheel hop, sloppy rear dynamics. ditch the big fat rubber diff bushings and replace w nylon and you can throw away the cumbersome heavy diff brace. problem solved.

w a proper engine brace and diff bushings you may also pitch any trans brace.

howard coleman

 

you have no idea....

gotbanned is right, just do a search.

howi