XV Motorsports core support brace questions

-
B

Brad54

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
101
Reaction score
1
Yet another question from me about beefing the unibody...

I've looked at the XV Motorsports core support brace. I like their box-tubing design over USCarTool's round tube design.

The USCarTool website says their brace must be used in conjunction with a cross-flow radiator, or the lower tank hits.

Anybody have experience with the XV Motorsports box-tube unit?

And, is a core support brace worth the effort?

-Brad
 
Brad54 said:
Yet another question from me about beefing the unibody...

I've looked at the XV Motorsports core support brace. I like their box-tubing design over USCarTool's round tube design.

The USCarTool website says their brace must be used in conjunction with a cross-flow radiator, or the lower tank hits.

Anybody have experience with the XV Motorsports box-tube unit?

And, is a core support brace worth the effort?

-Brad
Click to expand...

Just my opinion but I say no way....... Think about it, the k frame is right there. I dont beleive there is going to be any twisting going on there and if your a road racer do you really think your car is going to handle better because of it? I dont but that's just me......
 
It's supposed to stiffen the body. Does it? I don't know. Gmachinedartgt (pete) just installed one with I believe a stock style rad. There a thread around here somewhere with pictures
 
the few people I have talked to say it helps. I was planning on doing it to my cars, but since I am cheap I was going to build my own.
 
you either add the little stubs to it to bring it down below the factory rad or you install it without the stubs and use a shorter rad. i think its a bunch of BS.
 
I did an install at home and posted pictures. Ours is a mandrel bent box tube piece which is very nice. Can you make your own, yes. Can you find someone to mandrel bend box tube, probably not.

Even though I personally did not shell out the bucks for surface plate testing of our unibodies, XV did. I really find it amazing how 4 years later people forget. Nobody ever thought of/cared about this until it was done and advertised. Our unibodies, although better than the B/E becuase of the smaller size are amittedly better than our Ford/Chevy competition of the era. However, compared to todays cars, its no comparison. Our cars are a wet noodle compared to any modern car. If you think the sheetmetal K, or the flimsy original rad support do anything significant to tie the front rails together, you're sadly mistaken. While some of the products XV makes may be controversal, the chassis stiffening is EXTREMELY effective, period.

I mentioned this earlier, as we have just finished the Duster/A Body Cuda 108" wheelbase subframe connectors and are looking for a 111 wheelbase car to use for templating. My car is not a candidate due to old frame connectors already welded into the car years ago. The 108" connectors are in stock now.

I feel personally, that chassis stiffening is super important, and a great investment any way you slice it.
 
I think you would definately feel a difference after it was installed in a relatively stock application....
 
GMachineDartGT said:
I did an install at home and posted pictures. Ours is a mandrel bent box tube piece which is very nice. Can you make your own, yes. Can you find someone to mandrel bend box tube, probably not.

Even though I personally did not shell out the bucks for surface plate testing of our unibodies, XV did. I really find it amazing how 4 years later people forget. Nobody ever thought of/cared about this until it was done and advertised. Our unibodies, although better than the B/E becuase of the smaller size are amittedly better than our Ford/Chevy competition of the era. However, compared to todays cars, its no comparison. Our cars are a wet noodle compared to any modern car. If you think the sheetmetal K, or the flimsy original rad support do anything significant to tie the front rails together, you're sadly mistaken. While some of the products XV makes may be controversal, the chassis stiffening is EXTREMELY effective, period.

I mentioned this earlier, as we have just finished the Duster/A Body Cuda 108" wheelbase subframe connectors and are looking for a 111 wheelbase car to use for templating. My car is not a candidate due to old frame connectors already welded into the car years ago. The 108" connectors are in stock now.

I feel personally, that chassis stiffening is super important, and a great investment any way you slice it.
Click to expand...


Gmachine, we're having this discussion over on dippy.org right now with one of the members wanting to do this on his 416 stroker Dip cop car. We have another member saying it's a waste of time because the K-frame is right there (which is even worse on the M-body, as the K-frame is isoluted away from the car, even with the aluminum biscuits). He's not getting the practical purposes of this. Got any info that's non-propietary on why this works?
 
seeing the video with masking tape criss crossed across an e-body engine bay without, and then with with the brace was enough to convince me that they're effective. i'm going to make my own. if my work isnt too hackey looking i'll post pics. i'm going to have the tubing bent so it follows the contour of the lower brace on c-line, then trim some of the existing brace tin back towards the front and then weld it all together, hopefully leaving enough room for stock size radiator and not intruding into the engine bay. i'm hoping it won't be so obvious visual from the front of the car.
 
I can't comment about cars I don't have experience with. However, I don't thing there is any muscle era and beyond car that doesn't benefit from chassis stiffness. Even some of the crappiest new cars don't rattle or squeek even with tons of mileage on them. Makes you think.
 
i still have my doubts. i think if the car is going to benefit from that simple tube welded to the bottom of thin guage frame rails, i think there is a durability issue. i do not doubt these cars flex up front. there are plenty out there with cracked rails at the k frame attaching points.
 
pauly v.100 said:
seeing the video with masking tape criss crossed across an e-body engine bay without, and then with with the brace was enough to convince me that they're effective. i'm going to make my own. if my work isnt too hackey looking i'll post pics. i'm going to have the tubing bent so it follows the contour of the lower brace on c-line, then trim some of the existing brace tin back towards the front and then weld it all together, hopefully leaving enough room for stock size radiator and not intruding into the engine bay. i'm hoping it won't be so obvious visual from the front of the car.
Click to expand...


Got a link for this vid?
 
OK Guys,
lets think about the Physics here. You have a motor thats developing enough torsional force to twist the frame in opposite directions along the axis of the car. The K member is attached with 4 bolts. The front pair is past the mid-point on the forward frame arms. And the only major attachment point that can resist that movement is at the firewall. The K member will still rotate along the axis deflecting the sheet metal that is at its attachment points.
Think of an over loaded wheel barrow, you pic it up and it twists rather freely along its axis. Same thing here. On top of that the frame rails are actually two pieces of sheetmetal bent 90* spot welded to each other. That construction style allows for even more flexibility.
Its the same kind of movement we are trying to counteract with a sway-bar.
They work by transferring load from one side to the other.
After looking at the rad/frame attachment point, a simple vertical triangular gusset plate would do wonders if the radiator sheet metal was thicker.
But its to thin below the rails, to sufficiently resist the twisting moment to make any difference.
Ive seen the video and it makes perfect sense. I have also seen all the products up for grabs, and in all cases something is better than nothing.
One of the things I have learned through the process of building my car is that practical solutions can in the end limit your choices afterward. Think carefully
I will be making my own piece.
Andrew
 
blue missile said:
OK Guys,
lets think about the Physics here. You have a motor thats developing enough torsional force to twist the frame in opposite directions along the axis of the car. The K member is attached with 4 bolts. The front pair is past the mid-point on the forward frame arms. And the only major attachment point that can resist that movement is at the firewall. The K member will still rotate along the axis deflecting the sheet metal that is at its attachment points.
Think of an over loaded wheel barrow, you pic it up and it twists rather freely along its axis. Same thing here. On top of that the frame rails are actually two pieces of sheetmetal bent 90* spot welded to each other. That construction style allows for even more flexibility.
Its the same kind of movement we are trying to counteract with a sway-bar.
They work by transferring load from one side to the other.
After looking at the rad/frame attachment point, a simple vertical triangular gusset plate would do wonders if the radiator sheet metal was thicker.
But its to thin below the rails, to sufficiently resist the twisting moment to make any difference.
Ive seen the video and it makes perfect sense. I have also seen all the products up for grabs, and in all cases something is better than nothing.
One of the things I have learned through the process of building my car is that practical solutions can in the end limit your choices afterward. Think carefully
I will be making my own piece.
Andrew
Click to expand...

This is actually the point I've been trying to make over on dippy.org. The guy who's arguing against it doesn't get this. Hence the reason I asked for vids and/or more evidence.
 
pauly v.100 said:
credit another forum for post.
keep in mind that this was a combination of xv's products, as listed, not just the radiator support brace.

http://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=9548
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link. I would expect that system would work better as a whole. The member over at dippy already has frame connectors in and the debate is whether or not he should think about the core support brace.

Andrew has it right, though. The twist is going to occur throughout. By limiting the twist at the very end (rad support) in conjunction with the frame connectors, and the crossbraces, you're going to be able to plant the front end in cornering and put the power to the drive wheel where it needs to be.

Of course, then you have to be able to take a look at suspension then put everything into play, but just like in everything else, it's a system, not just a component. The chassis gives you the platform to build the suspension, just as the block gives you the platform to build an engine.
 
ramenth said:
Of course, then you have to be able to take a look at suspension then put everything into play, but just like in everything else, it's a system, not just a component. The chassis gives you the platform to build the suspension, just as the block gives you the platform to build an engine.
Click to expand...


Exactly, you can't just add it and expect the car to handle like an F1 car, but it will help and as part of a well thought out system it will make a difference.
 
res1vw21 said:
Exactly, you can't just add it and expect the car to handle like an F1 car, but it will help and as part of a well thought out system it will make a difference.
Click to expand...


Hey, Ross, what do you think. The guy over on dippy.org is thinking the inner fender braces aren't needed since the UCAs are "remote" on the F,M,Js, but I'm thinking the twist from engine torque would still be present if you're pulling hard out of a turn. Or am I over-thinking on the F's and M's?
 
Two questions for all,
1.based on having installed the core reinforcement, and an Alterkation which does not use the upper shock mounts at all, is there any need to do the inner fender reinforcing?
2.Based on all of the above is there anything to be gained in the diagonal braces you see in some engine compartments?
Andrew
 
blue missile said:
Two questions for all,
1.based on having installed the core reinforcement, and an Alterkation which does not use the upper shock mounts at all, is there any need to do the inner fender reinforcing?
2.Based on all of the above is there anything to be gained in the diagonal braces you see in some engine compartments?
Andrew
Click to expand...


The XV level II suspension doesn't use the upper mounts, correct? Wouldn't the inner fender bracing give an upper support to the what the core support bracing is doing lower?

Wouldn't therefore using the engine compartment braces be like tie-ing both sides together?
 
ramenth said:
Hey, Ross, what do you think. The guy over on dippy.org is thinking the inner fender braces aren't needed since the UCAs are "remote" on the F,M,Js, but I'm thinking the twist from engine torque would still be present if you're pulling hard out of a turn. Or am I over-thinking on the F's and M's?
Click to expand...

I think they are needed, like I said it's all part of a system and every bit helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top