jangy

You bought the one you like but to sit there and say that there are no compromises is naive.

chromoly stronger than aluminium anyday
welds stronger than bolts anyday

As you say, chromoly is 3 times denser. How can you think that a half inch thick aluminum piece is anywhere near as stiff? BTW, that heavy chromoly brace is all of 5lbs....

Strut bars are nothing new. Their application to the W204 is. Look up ANY highly reputable bar and you will see the difference. Also, look up the towers that are for sale that emphasize looks and ease of use and you will know which style you want.

jangy

Not meaningless. Just compromising. Big difference.

CrAZyVeGAsBoY

Not to start an arguement but I believe in this case aluminium will perform the same duties as the chromoly. I dont believe you need anything as strong as chromoly or aluminum to accomplish the reduction of strut tower flex in this vehicle. Again thats my two cents but to each his own.

jangy

Agreed not to start a pissing match. If you add traction up front (i.e. wider wheels, lower stance, etc.) you will notice a major difference in using aluminum vs chromoly and welds vs bolts. Again, I mentioned to keep our assumptions out of it ince that is all we can do (is assume). ike I said, do your research. See what the top brands do and what the enthusisasts demand.
Yu like yours. Great. But again. Don't go off assuming that what fits your needs is the same as everyone elses.

CrAZyVeGAsBoY

Agreed not to start a pissing match here so this will be my final post on the subject. Anyways, their are many reputable brands utilizing aluminum in their construction of their braces including Dinan, AC Schnitzer, ProLexPerformance (well known in the lexus scene), Cusco (who used a tubular aluminum construction), etc. If their were "major" performace differences, these companies would utilize chromoly, including SMERC.

Sincity

I think everyone is looking at the brace too critically. We could all agree that the strut towers and how they tie in with the cowl and lower rails on the w204 is quite stiff from the factory. Since they are relatively stiff to begin with, I don't really think we need anything stiffer to reduce flex. Notice that the w204 strut towers are quite close to the cowl forming a stronger box. Some may even argue that the strut brace is overkill. This is a far cry from earlier unibody vehicles that I am familiar with such as the old first gen VW Rabbits and Sciroccos where the towers are "floating" out there.

c32AMG-DTM

+1

My first ride, an '84 VW Jetta I, had the flex you mention. A Neuspeed upper strut tie bar helped firm things up nicely - although it was always a bit of a bear in low-speed situations, due to no power steering (or power anything, for that matter... ). The w203 is quite an improvement from that 25 yr old vee-dub chassis, even without a bar. Everything I've heard/read about the w204s is that they're even better in this regard. As such, unless you're quite literally race-prepping your vehicle, a "no compromises" upper tie bar is likely overkill by a wide margin. Might as well go with a custom one-piece welded Ti upper strut bar if racing's the name of the game, IMHO.

jangy

Agreed that the new chassis is advanced, especially with respect to any VW . At the same time, I would hope that a product's intended use is spelled out up front. I drive my cars hard. I pay for performance and NOT for looks.

The long term tell all will be plain and simple. All you need to do is look at the joints at the firewall and chassis near the strut towers. As you add wider, lower profile, stickier tires; shocks, springs, brakes, etc. you will notice CRACKS appearing from the flex in the body. This comes with miles and leaves the chassis "soft" over time. A proper strut brace will minimize that metal fatigue up front and even help alleviate some symptoms after the fact.

Sincity

I said that the front end is quite stiff to begin with and don't need an overly stiff bar. It seems most on here are concerned with it not being stiff enough. One could also argue that if you have one area stiffened too much, you could introduce stress in another. I can only venture that the design of the bar is to minimize flex as it's intended use. I made the last comment about "overkill" so you won't think I am endorsing this product.

My opinion is that the front end is quite stiff from the factory (especially on driver tower with the add'l triangulation brace to cowl) and the added bar helps in reduction of flex. Simple as that. Is it the best or stiffest, I don't know. If you want a stiffer bar, fine. If I mislead anyone here, I apologize.

220S

I'm confused as to the descriptions of what you expect the strut brace to be actually doing and the debate over materials, etc..

Strut towers are used to help keep the camber from changing during hard cornering.

Shock towers actually move outward under stress, i.e., they spread apart. A small amount of camber shift comes from that and the rest is at the shock mount itself. The strut just needs to limit that movement outward and at the rubber mounts.

Since it's really the towers spreading out that's at issue, stiffness of material is not a huge concern since there's no twisting going on. Nor are the towers moving inward.

In fact some struts are made to be adjustable since no same make of car is identical and so that way you can set the pre-stress amount (and make it wider or narrower to hold the towers in.)

Somebody please help me here if I'm missing something. Also this comes from setting up my Porsche (with the help of Weltmeister and Rennsport.) Maybe you guys are talking about something else with the C63(?)

Sincity

I don't know why the debate. Maybe someone is out to produce a better bar in mind? I think there may be another new bar floating around because there was another thread of someone looking for a C63 to fit a bar over at an HMS meet in SoCal.

EDIT: Found it! Jangy started a thread looking for a C63 to fit.https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...-tomorrow.html

jangy

Yes, I never knew about SMERC and have only recently become interested in the C63. I am a hardcore performance lover. The E55 gives me power and I probably am missing some of my old M3 "feel", so suspension, braking, etc. is a huge deal for me on the C and even E. I have been searching far and wide for everything from brake rotors to swaw bars for the benzes and landed on the strut tower. I watched its development and tested it out on my wife's C350. Now, after the "debate" I see that the two are for completely different people. I wouldn't say one is better but definitely different and why not offer whatever people want.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I'm not at the stage in my car enthusiast life where I want to be dictated to about what is "needed". we can debate their effectiveness and various design styles and even the pros and cons of each. That is good fodor for chatters, but there is no one answer. We are all a little different.

Sincity

So when can we see yours? I think yours would make it the 4th bar on the market. The more products out there, the more the enthusiast will benefit.

jangy

I don't discredit your experience or the reputation of the companies, but I also don't discredit what a lifetime of street builds has shown me. This is not a new "topic". I can understand us discussing nuances, but to have a thread where we are going back and forth about the basics is kind of counter intuitive. I am no expert by any means, but I do know the rules of the game...

jangy

Oddly enough, it isn't mine and I am in no way affiliated with them.. I know you don't know me, but I have been in the E55 room for years and have honestly been hunting for awesome parts. Are there really 4? I will assume the one I am talking about is one you know about so there is likely 3. Who are the players?

How do you think the 3 differentiate and how does yours separate itself? I could see 2 styles (one more for looks / convenience and one for raw performance) but why 3 in such a small market?

I have been around here long enough to know I can't name names since my source is not a source. We met on myMB (where i used to be heavily vested) and then at a few meets. I wanted E55 parts and then got the C350 so i became interested in the platform (I love the chassis). Now, the E55 is aging and I am considering a C63 to trick out. That is my story, just so we don't have any conspiracy theories.

220S

It's not my assumption that the towers move outwards. It's described by Porsche. And Weltmeister (who is a manufacturer for drivers in NASA and ALMS, SCCA) built a machine that tracks the movement of the tower. It's commonly thought that they move in and twist, etc.. But they actually move out. They describe it this way:

"The design people at Weltmeister built a testing device to record shock tower movement under load. Their tests revealed a surprise, shock towers do not collapse inward. Rather, they spread apart under hard cornering. The cornering force from the tire’s contact with the road, up through the strut, acts like a lever pulling the top of the struts apart. Only 15% of the camber change could be attributed to shock tower movement. The other 85% took place in the rubber mounts on the top of the shock absorber."

Here's Porsche describing it: "Under tension the coil tower tops are being pulled away from each other. The struts tend to diverge under heavy cornering forces leading to poor directional stability."

Here's Paragon's description: "Have you ever wondered why, during hard cornering, your car handles differently? Well, racers have discovered that this is due to the shock towers spreading apart. When this occurs, positive camber is induced into your suspension causing the car to handle poorly. To reduce this positive camber, racers have put a strut brace between the shock towers to maintain the proper camber.

Yes, it's an old topic. fwiw, the good ones for Porsche are made of aluminum. And to answer the question of adjustment, it's moving in and out because of the distance between the struts and how much you want it to pull outwards.

Like I said, maybe it's just a Porsche thing(?) Afterall, the brace goes in the trunk up front where there's no motor. With the C63 the motor mounts and the flex of the motor itself maybe create additional issues. My car's been corner balanced and camber set for the handling I want and the strut helps keep it there.

I know you have a lot of personal experience Jangy. But this is equally valid at least in respect to why camber changes as it does when the tire is subjected to such forces (eg understeer) and that energy needs to go somewhere.

CrAZyVeGAsBoY

+1 dont think you could of stated it any better

Sincity

I have only seen pics of the MB Arts one. Never seen Renntech.

1) Renntech
2) MB Arts
3) SMERC
4) The one you "know" of.

Couldn't tell where the "4th bar" is sourced based on your post. So, when can we all see it?

jangy

You are missing my point. I agree that the spread of the towers is a major aspect. I don't discredit that. What I am saying is that there are also OTHER areas where strength is needed. As you said, this may be a P-Car thing. Much like rear strut tower braces that can be straight, there are not the same issues as with ones with bends.

jangy

Like I said, you have likely seen it and it appears you have . Wait until you see the W211 stuff!!

220S

Just a failure to communicate

Point being that the issue here is camber change. And that comes from the towers diverging with hard cornering. So, keep the towers from spreading under force and camber stays put. That's easy.

The rest of it all is whether the chassis is so poorly built that there seems to be flex and therefore you need to tighten it up. Other than camber issues do we really need strut braces? That's somewhat debatable, imho. Unless the car twists and bends so much due to substandard materials and design.

ps., a lot of the fear that the thing is twisting so much is what gets people to think about and buy strut braces (a profitable product if you consider material and build costs)

imho, in the end, you'll get a lot more bang for your buck if you simply put on a decent tower brace to help maintain the camber (that you spent time and/or money on setting up correctly) and then replacing suspension parts, esp all your bushings (with Delrin, e.g.) Adjustable sway bars, too (don't want to get stuck with too stiff.) Hey, even a roll cage will be more helpful.

Here's an interesting read: http://www.bmwccn.no/rogaland/strutbar_eng.html

jangy

I will agree on camber, but not that itis just camber out that matters. If you have a truly balanced car, both front wheels will be digging in a turn. When that happens, yes you are right that the outside one will have the heaviest load on it, but it also has the most support. In contrast, the inside strut tower gets pulled INWARD. Granted, the inside tire won't have the same load, but instead the strut towers are less braced flexing inward.

I dunno if that makes sense. I get your point and have seen plenty of even CF braces do well, when being incorporated into the chassis design. It will not change my desire to have a 1 piece STIFF bar.

GLK4MATIC

Strut braces have been out for quite some time now...since April actually.

CrAZyVeGAsBoY

anyone get one yet? if so was wondering what your thoughts are.

MRAMG1

I have said this before, on this board, NO stock AMG will EVER see any benefit from a strut tower brace on the track or street, other than looks

The stock spring rates are simply too low to cause ANY amount of twisting to the towers.

I don't care if you were to put Michael Scumacher, sp, in the car and let him turn laps. Then mount the brace, there would be NO DIFFERENCE in lap times.

And yes, I will take ANY bets on this with a stock car.

IF, you change your springs, AND run R type tires, then there is a SLIGHT chance that a porperly designed bar would make a difference. AKA stiffer mounts, chrom tubing, etc, etc.

Stock tires and springs, NO WAY IN