Strut tower brace or power brace

[erlrich]

Since we only get to use one or the other (at least that's how I understand it), which is considered more effective? It seems to me there is more potential for flex at the top of the strut towers, but there must have been a good reason Nissan Motorsports went to the trouble to develop the lower brace.

Thanks guys

------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process

[Tristan Smith]

Well, it's an easy choice. The lower brace that says legal for "IT, Solo, and Production" is not legal. I spoke with the Nissan Motorsports guys asking for the documentation that makes it a legal upgrade, and they said they had no idea if it was or not. Evidently they had a person handling the suspension stuff (he no longer works there) who made those claims, but didn't provided or leave any documentaion to back it up. Unless it came on a stock 240sx (it didn't), I don't know how we could justify putting it on. Not that I wouldn't want to.

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

[ITA240]

Earl, Tristan
Do you mean the brace that Courtesy sells? What would be illegal about it? Just that it actually replaces the lower mounts instead of just tieing them together?

If they make that lower brace by taking a right and a left mount for front lower trailing arms, and weld a round tube between them, I would think that it would be legal as long as you removed the upper brace. You obviously couldn't run both of them though.

Or am I missing something about the construction of this? If i remember correctly, it replaces the frame mount for the trailing link and has a single tube connecting both sides of the car. If it doesn't use actual lower mounts, couldn't you make your own, between the existing mounts?

jim

[Tristan Smith]

Jim, I guess you may be right....it does say that you can brace one or the other. My thinking was that since it was all welded together that you are essentially making a new piece. But your comment made me rethink what I wrote earlier. I still want both braces.

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

[This message has been edited by Tristan Smith (edited October 31, 2003).]

[erlrich]

I guess it comes down to your interpretation of the GCR. It says we can add one front stayrod in one of three areas - one of which is "between lower suspension mounting points". Since the tension rod brackets' only apparent purpose in life is to mount the front end of the t/c rods, I would think it within the rules to install a brace between them. The NM brace looks for all the world to be just a pair of stock brackets with a rod permanently attached between them, so IMHO it should be legal. Even if that particular piece were considered an "aftermarket" part, there is at least one other company out there that makes just the brace to bolt between the existing brackets, which I would think should have no problem passing muster.

Which brings us back to the original question - which brace would be more beneficial? I guess the only way to know for sure would be to try both...or just ask ourselves "what would Bob do?"

------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process

[handfulz28]

Forgive for me being late to the party, but you mention "stay rod". Not having the GCR close by, are we talking/including the "engine stay rod"? Because that's seperate from the upper or lower suspension mounting point connector (i.e. strut tower brace).
You can have an engine stay rod AND either an upper OR lower brace.
I have seen an upper strut tower brace, with an "engine stay rod" welded from the valve cover to the brace; no complaints from competitors or tech.
Michael

[Tristan Smith]

I would think that you would have more movement in the top of the shock tower than you would down at the TC Rod mounting point, but that that is just intuition, nothing to back it up. Bob Stretch is the one who welded the valve cover to the strut tower......I personally think that puts a lot of strain on the valve cover and valve cover bolts. But I don't think he has had any problem with it so far. Since I have a strut tower bar in the car, I'll stick with it.

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

[erlrich]

Michael - I was referencing the suspension section of the GCR; it didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it that the term stayrod is used to describe both the engine and suspension braces. You bring up an interesting point, though - are most of the 240SX guys out there using an engine brace? I just figured with these puny 4-bangers that was overkill, but hell if Bob Stretch is doing it....

Off topic, but did anyone happen to see the article in GRM about the 240SX?

------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process