Chassis brace?
08-26-2010, 02:47 PM
#1
Chassis brace? We have subframe connectors and strut tower braces, which leave much to be desired. Heck, some people even think one or both of them don't even help! Ford on the other hand made this:
which adds rigidity to a chassis already more solid than ours by 25%. That is pretty darn good. Considering those of us who don't use our back seats for anything besides storage, would something like this help us? It seems quite simple to make, and certainly need not be as pretty as that to appease most of us. Anyone well versed in physics and flexing metals want to take a stab at guessing whether we would see an improvement by incorporating this into our cars? Is there anywhere strong enough to even mount something like this back there? I'm guessing near where the shocks mount would be a great place to start.
which adds rigidity to a chassis already more solid than ours by 25%. That is pretty darn good. Considering those of us who don't use our back seats for anything besides storage, would something like this help us? It seems quite simple to make, and certainly need not be as pretty as that to appease most of us. Anyone well versed in physics and flexing metals want to take a stab at guessing whether we would see an improvement by incorporating this into our cars? Is there anywhere strong enough to even mount something like this back there? I'm guessing near where the shocks mount would be a great place to start.
08-26-2010, 04:45 PM
#2
TECH Senior Member
Do you have any numbers/data/proof that the chassis is "25%" more rigid than ours?
08-26-2010, 05:32 PM
#3
No. I said, or meant to say, that Ford claims a 25% improvement with the brace. I meant to say that even without the brace, Ford's chassis is more rigid than ours. That is a wild guess though from having driven both cars and considering the S195 chassis was first made in 2005 and ours in the early 80s.
