Shock Tower Braces

  • Sponsors (?)


#23
Hey, can I ask you a favor?

Make a post on your blog (or here) describing what you had to do to the filler neck to get it to mate with the big fuel tank. Please?

Glad you're happy with the GW brace. They are good people.
 
#24
Not to hijack my own thread, but...

Ok thanks, no problem at all. I'd put it on my blog but don't have any good pix unfortunately. We used my stock 66 filler neck then cut about 300 degrees out of it near the top leaving enough room to weld it back up. The cut was a short pie slice to get the tube pointing a bit more to the driver's side of the car when installed. This needs some accuracy since the metal support in the trunk where the latch connects only allows the neck to fit just so. After tacking and checking, we welded it up. Use a bright light to look for pinholes in your welds and weld them too. Then I cut about 1/2" to 1" or so off the length of the neck at the bottom (been about a year can't remember how much was cut.) I ground down the cut to make it smooth. Then we cut down a new rubber fill tube for a 66 a good inch or two. I used the stock fill tube clamps. I've heard of some people bending the fill tube on the top of a new tank, but this seemed like a good way to go.
 
#25
rbohm said:
the system might be newer, but in my opinion it is worse than the stock system since you introduce several flex points into the system at each rod end. save your money and stick with the odl school stuff. if the new school stuff was so good then why dont they use it on race cars? because it allows too much flexing.
Click to expand...

The TCP and MPG systems offer the user the possibility of removing one of the braces in the event you need to pop the valve covers. This means that you do not have to remove the entire brace in order to get to your valve train. Even with the rod ends, they are plenty stiff. Unless you are really putting a lot of stress on your car at the track, you won't notice the tiny extra bit of flex.
 
#26
you know what? I don't remember if they mentioned this in the instructions, but if you do the TCP export brace and MC bar, you can set those rod end members under tension, pushing against the top of the shock tower tabs and the firewall brace and the MC bar about 1/3 of the way in on either side. Since they are angled downwards in both cases, that tension will make them quite stiff - for the shock tower to push up and in, it would have to push the MC bar forward or the shock tower back, or both. I should try threading them out until they are both equally stiff. I guess I could hit them with a metal bar to see if they ring at the same tone? But then there's the question of the downward angle the arm is pushing at. Eh, I guess that some tension is better than none.

The only reason I did the TCP kit is that my Unique/TCP coilovers had a top plate with no bolts or provision for the export brace. I had to put something on there, and since they give you tabs for the TCP kit, I figured "why not"? I might end up grinding off the tabs and welding studs on and attaching something else, but I think I'll try this tension experiment in the next few days.
 
#27
70vert said:
you know what? I don't remember if they mentioned this in the instructions, but if you do the TCP export brace and MC bar, you can set those rod end members under tension, pushing against the top of the shock tower tabs and the firewall brace and the MC bar about 1/3 of the way in on either side. .
Click to expand...

I am sure they are the same as the MPG ones I have. Depending on how you point them, you can set them either to push from the firewall to the shock towers (yes) or pull the shock towers towards the firewall (no!).
 
#28
jerry S said:
The TCP and MPG systems offer the user the possibility of removing one of the braces in the event you need to pop the valve covers. This means that you do not have to remove the entire brace in order to get to your valve train. Even with the rod ends, they are plenty stiff. Unless you are really putting a lot of stress on your car at the track, you won't notice the tiny extra bit of flex.
Click to expand...

While I agree it allows for more clearance, but if you can get them off with the stock system, you can definately get them off with the hard mount systems as most go over the top of where the originals were. Plus the handling of your car is more important IMO then getting to the valve covers if needed. These rod end versions simply do not hold the vertical plane. If you currently have an original style aftermarket export brace and monte carlo bar, and you switch to a rod end version, you will notice the car loosens up quite a bit. I mean to the point that you would probably switch it back. Vertical articulation of the shock towers is not favorable unibody movement.
 
#29
mdjay said:
These rod end versions simply do not hold the vertical plane. If you currently have an original style aftermarket export brace and monte carlo bar, and you switch to a rod end version, you will notice the car loosens up quite a bit. I mean to the point that you would probably switch it back. Vertical articulation of the shock towers is not favorable unibody movement.
Click to expand...

I put them on 2 years ago pushing the shock towers from the firewall and they were still as tight as prom night when they came off when my car went in for a frame off resto. They did not give anything up in the time they were on there.

BTW, I just ordered a billet grill from you yesterday for my 69. I hope it looks as good up close and personal as it does on my screen.
 
#30
Jerry S. gets the concept here. It's not the resistance to bending of a solid member that keeps everything in place, it's the tension or preload put on the rods that go to the firewall and the MC on either side. Kind of like a bicycle spoke in reverse.

If you are saying that TCP's engine compartment stiffening kit doesn't help much, even when those two members leading to the shock tower are extended until they are under tension, and since those member angle down rather than being flat, you are basically saying that you expect the MC bar to give at the attachment points, or the firewall mount, or both. I'm betting that it does some good ito increase the preload on those bars - I'll try it tomorrow and give a seat-of-the-pants review.
 
#31
70vert said:
Jerry S. gets the concept here. It's not the resistance to bending of a solid member that keeps everything in place, it's the tension or preload put on the rods that go to the firewall and the MC on either side. Kind of like a bicycle spoke in reverse.
Click to expand...

There was a thread in the vintage-mustang forum about rod ends on export braces and MC bars. A guy who was a structural engineer weighed in. He explained how he designed trusses on bridges and opined from his perspective as an engineer. He stated that an export brace with rod ends might lose a few percentage points of stiffness compared to a one-piece unit but that it any loss was negligible.

http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/showtopic.php?tid/1491051/

here is what the poster wrote:
I design trusses for a living. The model and assumptions used for their design differs considerably from the real-world properties. Trusses are normally modeled as a collection of simple members that come together in pinned joints, when in fact the members are continuous and rigidly connected. However, testing has proven the analysis to be close enough to work. There is no significant advantage to analyzing trusses with continuous members rigidly connected to each other.

An export brace is a form of truss. Using rod-ended bars instead of a single stamped piece will cost you little if anything in performance.

Adding a MC bar is not futile. It strengthens the truss. It changes the load path in certain conditions. And, a curved MC bar, though technically not as effective as a straigth one, is far from useless. It's still alot better than no bar at all.
Click to expand...
 
#32
jerry S said:
He stated that an export brace with rod ends might lose a few percentage points of stiffness compared to a one-piece unit but that it any loss was negligible.
Click to expand...

BTW Thank you!

Structural engineering on buildings and bridges is still different then suspensions systems. While I imagine he's very knowledgable and correct in many of his assertions.

I'm also not knocking the rod end versions outright. Something there is better then nothing. They sure are pretty:) However I'm working from personal experience and physically testing the differences. You can actually feel the difference!

Also, not to sound hypocritical, but I currently have the rod end version on Sinister because nothing else worked with the Paxton unit. That is changing very soon. We're designing one to work with Paxton's SC system within a couple of weeks.
 
#35
What is the difference between the two Maier braces ($240 vs $140)? I am guessing tube thickness but what is right for a street-driven car?
Please more info (price, address) on the mdjay set up. Looks great.
Hipobuzz
 
#37
So I tried putting the TCP export brace kit's members under a little more preload/ pushing tension. They had very little to begin with, if any. I lengthened each support member to roughly the same hand-cranked tension and snugged them back down again. The rod ends are now noticeably harder to rock back and forth. The MC Bar now has a very slight curve from the tension. Cowl shake is a little less noticeable, and the front end is stiffer. I think it's worth a try if you have the TCP kit.

I'm not sure what I'll go with when the engine is done - probably something Maier-like that will fit around my intake, but for now while it's under rolling construction, I think I just made a big improvement.
 
#38
I'll throw in with Jay on this one, and add one more point. I've seen two different versions of the "original" export brace offered. One is a cheasy thin stamped steel version with shallow draws. The other is a much thicker piece with deep draws. Without adding undue weight or bulk, the latter one can not be beat.
It seems the general consensus is that the major advantage of an "export brace" is only in the horizontal plane, but that is a just part of the overall effectiveness. It's when one side of the frame tries to twist "UP" that the original export brace really shows it's superior engineering. That "twisting" motion is very noticable, and not controlled with a Heim joint style brace.
 
#39
But what about a heim joint brace pointed downward under tension?

66Runt said:
It's when one side of the frame tries to twist "UP" that the original export brace really shows it's superior engineering. That "twisting" motion is very noticable, and not controlled with a Heim joint style brace.
Click to expand...

By saying "not controlled witha Heim joint style brace" I assume you also mean a heim joint style brace that is under tension? (extension preload, rather than compression) If the TCP heim joint style export brace is set up under extension, and it's pointed downward rather than level or slightly upward, you are basically saying that you expect the firewall or the Monte Carlo bar it is attached to to flex rearward (firewall) or forward (monte carlo bar)

I'd like some clarification if this is what you're getting at. Otherwise, check out my explanation of how the adjustable heim-jointed export brace might keep the shock tower from moving vertically if the member are pointed downward form the firewall and tensed in extension.
 
#40
By putting it in tension all you do is deflect the upward motion into upward and outward, drawing the opposite side down and in. Put it in a CAD program and you can watch it happen. Unfortunately I don't have a way to show this on the net, sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Suspension troubleshooting - where to begin
Replies
14
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Warhorse Racing
W
limp
Electrical Question about shock towers 86 up..
Replies
6
Views
738
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
limp
limp
Mhalc1
Suspension Foxbody ride height change after installing new control arms
Replies
35
Views
3K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Noobz347
Noobz347
65-Fstbk
Build Update
Replies
1
Views
790
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
2Blue2
2Blue2
M
1984 Mustang Rear Shocks
Replies
44
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Noobz347
Noobz347
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu