Shock tower Braces

-
Here is the one for E-bodies from XV Motorsports, I beleive it is gold plated because it is $664:
EngineBrace(1)%20-%20Web%20Large%20Photo.jpg
 
Because the major suspension loads on an A body Mopar are not taken at the shock absorber mounting points (like most Fords and some Chevrolets), and there are NO actual shock towers, bracing the shock absorber mounting points is redundant. Front suspension loads in an A body are taken at what is essentially the center of the chassis through the torsion bar crossmember and ultimately the passenger compartment floor.

After the addition of frame connectors and torque boxes, what IS important is bracing the engine box to keep it rigid, preventing the K frame and front subframe longitudinals from moving around and thereby keeping the front suspension pickup points in alignment with the main chassis.
 
I would think the lower radiator support brace, like what XV sells for $89 or make one like Blue Missile did, would be the ticket on our cars. Of course, not as subtle as a shock tower brace.
 
Yes just to clarify what it is I am building for manufacture will be bracing from the fire wall to the Shock towers BEHIND the fender. I do plan to make a setup for over the engine but that is not in my imediate design plans.
Ill most likely start a thread regarding these parts I am designing. Ill keep you all posted for those that are interested.
 
twofosho said:
Because the major suspension loads on an A body Mopar are not taken at the shock absorber mounting points (like most Fords and some Chevrolets), and there are NO actual shock towers, bracing the shock absorber mounting points is redundant. Front suspension loads in an A body are taken at what is essentially the center of the chassis through the torsion bar crossmember and ultimately the passenger compartment floor.

After the addition of frame connectors and torque boxes, what IS important is bracing the engine box to keep it rigid, preventing the K frame and front subframe longitudinals from moving around and thereby keeping the front suspension pickup points in alignment with the main chassis.
Click to expand...

So, do you think these inner fender braces are useful?

http://www.xvmotorsports.com/products/detail/index.cfm?nPID=298&cid=40&cdesc=A-Body Products
 
Should be called "Rumblestitch welding" cause looked like dude was trying to weld during an earthquake.
 
Robbie2734 said:
The trianglulated bars are the stock 74 a body bars and the cross bar is 1 1/4 tubular bent to clear the aircleaner. I used 1 1/4 x 4 by 1/4" flat stock. I drilled 2 mounting holes through the inner fenders. It does make a difference. I'm sorting out the power steering next (a little slack in the box). I have KYB's on the front and 892/893 TBs. I'm building this on the GM design..light springs and big sway bars. I'm not sure if I won't step up on the bars though. Lots of winding roads here and it's fun to drive. I'm having trouble loading Pic's.
Click to expand...

this is not a GM design... suspensions are designed a certain way... each part has a purpose... excluding t bar cars (front end springs act differently under cornering) the springs, front or rear are only to keep the car at ride height and to keep the car from bottoming out on a bump

a sway bar is designed to keep the body level thru a corner... therfore you need the correct spring rate for the vehical and the correct sway bar for the weight and handling desire of the vehicle...

now where t bars can act a little different is that they will slightly act as a sway bar, thats why the solo racing bars are 1.04+ in diameter...
 
autoxcuda said:
The cross bar he has is 1 1/4" tube. The factory cross bars are much smaller.
Click to expand...

Just sold a pair of the factory ones about a year ago. They are about 5/8" dia.
But.... they are pretty heavy duty. Evenn so, I dont think it will do much more than cut vibration.
However, as discussed in another thread about the strength of pieces like this, it will surprise most people when even light gage material is used correctly.

I have designed several indutrial enclosures and we rarely use anything heavier than 14ga. Its very common to use lighter ga. materials and apply the correct engineering to it rather than go for the "if a little works good, a lot works better" method.


As for the design I am working on, I cant say much as someone may snatch up the idea and have it knocked out before I can finish and test fit.

I am fortunate enough to have a job right now and only get a random opportunity to work on my side projects such as this. But I am currently working on these.
Again, mine are designed to go under the fender, and tie the firewall to the shock tower.
This is not to stregthen the shock tower, but to triangulate the engine compartment "box" to one of the stronger parts of our A bodies, the firewall.

I expect as of now, Ill be able to offer the full set at around 125.00 and will try to do a flat rate shipping (may be able to include in the 125.00 even):toothy7:

It will of course require welding, and paint after install.


I hope to have prototypes completed, and installed by late September.

Ill be sure to keep you all posted.
 
805moparkid said:
this is not a GM design... suspensions are designed a certain way... each part has a purpose... excluding t bar cars (front end springs act differently under cornering) the springs, front or rear are only to keep the car at ride height and to keep the car from bottoming out on a bump

a sway bar is designed to keep the body level thru a corner... therfore you need the correct spring rate for the vehical and the correct sway bar for the weight and handling desire of the vehicle...

now where t bars can act a little different is that they will slightly act as a sway bar, thats why the solo racing bars are 1.04+ in diameter...
Click to expand...

Not to be contradictory, but I believe when he said "GM Design", he was referring to GM's tendency to use lighter springs and larger sway bars to improve ride quality and gain better handling.

As for the rest of your statements regarding suspension and handling theory, I believe you may have mistated a few points or maybe I am not reading it right.

Of paticular interest is your comment on torsion bars. Could you elaborate as to how a higher rate torsion bar would be any different from a coil spring of a higher static rate but similar installed height or wheel rate?

For More Understeer* For More Oversteer**
Chassis Feature Adjust As Indicated Adjust As Indicated
Front Tire Pressure Lower Higher
Rear Tire Pressure Higher Lower
Front Tire Section Smaller Larger
Rear Tire Section Larger Smaller
Front Wheel Camber More Positive More Negative
Rear Wheel Camber More Negative More Positive
Front Springs Stiffer Softer
Rear Springs Softer Stiffer
Front Anti-Roll Bar Thicker Thinner
Rear Anti-Roll Bar Thinner Thicker
Front Roll Center Higher Lower
Rear Roll Center Lower Higher
Weight Distribution More Forward More Rearward

Kind of a mucked up chart. But you can see how spring rates and sway bar rates work in conjunction with each other. Also, all springs act the same. It's the design of the suspension that determines how that energy is used.
 
I saw the first part of this thread and thought of these
110164-1-k-300.jpg
and then thought about my inner fenders that were wasted from a fenderwell header setup. I took the entire things out and now have a floating shock mount. These "hoops" would take care of the shock mount, but do nothing for the bracing the inners afforded, even though they were made of lightweight sheetmetal. They sure did pop when I broke the last spotweld. Ill look forward to those exoskeleton looking under the fender braces, make 'em for a 65 too, eh?

I think the firewall to frame bars are called "J bars" in cage building lingo, EZ to put a tab/triangle on them for the shocks.
 
pishta said:
I saw the first part of this thread and thought of these
110164-1-k-300.jpg
and then thought about my inner fenders that were wasted from a fenderwell header setup. I took the entire things out and now have a floating shock mount. These "hoops" would take care of the shock mount, but do nothing for the bracing the inners afforded, even though they were made of lightweight sheetmetal. They sure did pop when I broke the last spotweld. Ill look forward to those exoskeleton looking under the fender braces, make 'em for a 65 too, eh?

I think the firewall to frame bars are called "J bars" in cage building lingo, EZ to put a tab/triangle on them for the shocks.
Click to expand...

I wish I could find the pics right off the bat, but the late sixty early seventies Mopar Stockcars used a hoop similar to that with dual shock mounts. The top of the hoop tied into the "J" bar that went from the frame to the front of the longitudinal.
 
the shock towers on my 74 duster flexed enough to buckle up the inner fenders and break loose the spot welds. i did find one weld on the shock tower to frame rail that didnt penetrate into the frame rail, so that would have had a lot to do with it, but to say the shock toweres dont flex or not worth bracing isnt exactly true. i was going to copy the uscartool design between the price and shipping it would just be crazy to buy a set, but when i took a really good look at clearances, my front tires would be hitting the braces before the bump stops with my tire size so i plated the sides of the shock towers to stiffen them up welded a plate to attach the tube too across the shock tower, a plate on the firewall/cowl, right over the seam, and a piece of straight tube.
DSCF1514.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top