MX-3.com

My modified Corksport clears my curved neck ZE IM with the thermal spacers, barely, and it even pushes up against the hood. There's not much room there for it. I even had to shave off those parts sticking up from the VRIS cover.

i custom made both front and rear, the front is eliptical 1" diameter tubing with a 1/8" wall thickness just clearing the k8 intake with thermal spacers and clearing the kl by a long shot. unfortanatly it does not clear the curved neck with spacers, so i am building one that runs behind the intake close to the firewall not over the intake. i am using an arp bar off of a tib for the new one and having the mounts cnc'd at a local shop. i think this is the best way to go with any motor set up you have.

bc93mx3 wrote:i custom made both front and rear, the front is eliptical 1" diameter tubing with a 1/8" wall thickness just clearing the k8 intake with thermal spacers and clearing the kl by a long shot. unfortanatly it does not clear the curved neck with spacers, so i am building one that runs behind the intake close to the firewall not over the intake. i am using an arp bar off of a tib for the new one and having the mounts cnc'd at a local shop. i think this is the best way to go with any motor set up you have.

hmm post up pics when you are done... I'm interested!

ok got the brackets made but hit a snag. the bar is still to close to the intake (did not allow for it to set back enough), and the bar mounts just barely hit the hood.

this is what i am planning to do to fix

mill down top of mount to allow hood clearance makke new bar or bend current bar to allow clearance.

i am a little disapointed that i hit these issues but i think it looks greet and it is going to be the best way to do it





need to also get a shorter bolt for the second hole in each mount

hmm that looks really nice! but my question is... it just seems like that it be better performance to have the bar go further up the engine bay as opposed to just a few inches off the firewall? maybe this is a n00b question

I tried to find my answer here but to no avail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strut_bar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i thought it was a bad idea to have the vaf facing down word? (first pic)

Mooneggs wrote:hmm that looks really nice! but my question is... it just seems like that it be better performance to have the bar go further up the engine bay as opposed to just a few inches off the firewall? maybe this is a n00b question

I tried to find my answer here but to no avail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strut_bar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was thinking this when I looked at it as well. The problem I see with this design is that it inparts a torque on both of the strut mounts. I think this could actually increase deflection of the strut tower. When the wieght of the car is is moved to the outside wheel in a corner, the outside strut tower deflect away from the center of the car and the inside tower deflects towards the inside of the car though to a lesser degree (because there is way less weight on the inside wheel). The strut bar uses the inside tower to limit the deflection of the outside tower.

I don't want to crap on your work man, but I would not use this design. It looks really nice but I don't think it will have the desired affect. When the outside wheel deflects it's going to put a significant torque ont he inside wheel's strut mount and the entire tower. I've never seen a strut bar that wasn't aligned with the center line of the strut tower.

I'm not an expert, this is just my seat of the pants analysis.

well I was thinking more of the OEM mx-3 strut bar design where the brace comes off the front of the strut towers as opposed to the rear of the towers (towards the front of the car instead of the rear of the car)

Well I might be dead wrong, but I still don't like it. I'm sure it's a compromise which had to be made due to lack of space, but I think this is definitely not optimal.

bc93mx3's design is a nice looking strut bar though.

i am no expert let me start out with that, but i think it is a descent desighn the mounts that atach to the strut to the strut towers are a snug fit without any play and the bar is also a snug fit with no play the way i see it is that if there is no slop in anything then it should transfer force equallly through the strut mounts. hey, i might be dead wrong but i payed to much money to toss the idea.

what was this about the vaf facing a downward angle? what will it hurt?

what about something like this



or instead of going forward to the radiator support, maybe backwards to the firewall

bc93mx3 wrote:what was this about the vaf facing a downward angle? what will it hurt?

i dont remember where but i read somewhere that having the vaf facing downward would give inaccurate readings b/c it wasnt designed to be in that position.

neli_nael wrote:or instead of going forward to the radiator support, maybe backwards to the firewall

like this

How about like this?

When the strut bar pushes or pulls on the bracket, because it's offset it creates a torque around the bolt circle of the strut mount.



The problem is not how tight the fit is but how it is going to twist the strut tower. It will actually magnify the deflection of the suspension I think.

i think in order to twist the strut tower in that way you would have to twist the whole frame of th car. the strut towers are tied in to the front and the back of the car fine that is not a weak point in the system. the week point is the individual side to side movement of the strut towers. the out side strut tower is going to flex more then the inside around a corner do to the extra pressure putting on it, causing the suspension travel to be diferent on either side of the car. all a strut bar does is tie the two together so they move equally together, which causes overall less movenent in the whole system. mind you all this movement is side to side not frot to back.