[Trak-Toy]

So the advertisement put out by GM that it "increased shock tower lateral stiffness up to 47%" is completely bogus? Where did that 47% figure come from then? Did someone in advertising simply go, "F it. 47% sounds good today. Let's go with that"

I'm not saying that it NEEDS to be 47% stiffer. I'm not even sure what difference it would make if that statement is true honestly, but to say it does 'nothing' seems obtuse.

[Boost Creep]

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by Trak-Toy

So the advertisement put out by GM that it "increased shock tower lateral stiffness up to 47%" is completely bogus? Where did that 47% figure come from then? Did someone in advertising simply go, "F it. 47% sounds good today. Let's go with that"

I'm not saying that it NEEDS to be 47% stiffer. I'm not even sure what difference it would make if that statement is true honestly, but to say it does 'nothing' seems obtuse.

I already addressed that in post #27.

If you put the car in a giant trash compactor (think Star Wars) that was only pushing on the tops of the strut towers, then I'm sure this STB would make a bit of difference in how easily it could crush the towers in toward each other. But since the car is never going to see more around 200lbs of force up there, it's completely irrelevent. The forces on the strut towers are almost completely vertical and torsional, and this bar does nothing to stiffen them in either of those modes. The mode in which this brace might help just doesn't matter.

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by Msquared

The kind of rigidity that convertibles lose is torsional rigidity.

And bending stiffness! Losing the top definitely compromises bending stiffness.
But relevant to this discussion, I wouldn't expect the strut tower brace to impact bending stiffness.

FYI: Here's the summary of different bracing added for each model: https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=523012

[BlackbeastSS2]

Originally Posted by Msquared

I already addressed that in post #27.

[Mountain]

I've spoken to someone else "in the know" on this subject a while back and what Al says should be considered correct.

-Does the lateral strut brace do anything? Yes, it does.
-Does the lateral strut brace do anything significant? No, it does not (unless the car is a convertible). Read closely in Al's response on why the brace was not added - benefit vs. cost and weight.

The one thing I do question about Al's answer is that he says the brace does not fit the ZL1, yet the CTS-V does have this brace. The Caddy got the brace as a "refinement" in ride because it's a Cadillac, but the performance improvement is extremely minor. Does the engine sit lower in the CTS-V? Shorter engine mounts? Taller towers?
CTS-V

ZL1

[Matos1LE]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Does the engine sit lower in the CTS-V? Shorter engine mounts? Taller towers?
CTS-V

ZL1

The towers look taller and smaller in diameter in the CTSV.

[Trak-Toy]

Originally Posted by BlackbeastSS2

Attachment 1030639

My bad.. I missed that entire page where this point was made already. Back to my basement I go....

[Paintslinger16]

Well just put my shock tower calibration tester to work and came up with 43.321 but when you correlate that with the panty dropper equation which went up a DA corrected 9% when I popped the hood. That’s right at 47.219% so the math works

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by Paintslinger16

Well just put my shock tower calibration tester to work and came up with 43.321 but when you correlate that with the panty dropper equation which went up a DA corrected 9% when I popped the hood. That’s right at 47.219% so the math works

In other news, the GT4.R runs no extra bracing for the strut towers, but it does have all suspension bushings replaced with metal/sphericals:

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by vtirocz

And bending stiffness! Losing the top definitely compromises bending stiffness.
But relevant to this discussion, I wouldn't expect the strut tower brace to impact bending stiffness.

This is true. I debated on on including that because it might clutter up the discussion. But right, the STB cannot change the stiffness in vertical or lateral bending at all.

FYI: Here's the summary of different bracing added for each model: https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=523012

Well...I'm glad you linked us to that thread and the chart it contains. It pointed something out that I had not previously realized: there are already diagonal braces between the strut towers and the firewall on our cars! That chart calls them "front motor compartment V-braces." You can see where they are placed by the yellow arrows in the Caddy pic below:


That's a pretty important piece of info I was missing. And so, to the delight of several folks, I'm sure...I have to eat crow and acknowledge that the GM strut tower brace will, in fact, add torsional rigidity to any Camaro that is also equipped with the front V-braces. Based on that chart, the only 6th-gen Camaro not equipped with the V-braces in front is the LT coupe. Hopefully, owners of LT coupes have the holes and mounting points available for the V-braces so they can add those, too. So f' me, I was wrong.



FWIW, in terms of total measured torsional rigidity I would think the underbody X and Y braces would help more, but the STB brace might be more noticeable in terms of feel since it ties to the firewall and we get so much tactile feedback through the steering wheel. I'm also quite sure it won't make a bit of difference in actual performance (i.e., what you can measure on a stopwatch). But I won't tell you it won't make a difference in how the car feels...anymore. And then there's that empirically tested 9% panty-dropper factor. So now you can't have mine!

[EWard]

For clarification the 2019 LT has the "front motor compartment V-braces". Have no idea which model year they added them.

[BlackbeastSS2]

Originally Posted by Msquared

This is true. I debated on on including that because it might clutter up the discussion. But right, the STB cannot change the stiffness in vertical or lateral bending at all.


Well...I'm glad you linked us to that thread and the chart it contains. It pointed something out that I had not previously realized: there are already diagonal braces between the strut towers and the firewall on our cars! That chart calls them "front motor compartment V-braces." You can see where they are placed by the yellow arrows in the Caddy pic below:
Attachment 1030720

That's a pretty important piece of info I was missing. And so, to the delight of several folks, I'm sure...I have to eat crow and acknowledge that the GM strut tower brace will, in fact, add torsional rigidity to any Camaro that is also equipped with the front V-braces. Based on that chart, the only 6th-gen Camaro not equipped with the V-braces in front is the LT coupe. Hopefully, owners of LT coupes have the holes and mounting points available for the V-braces so they can add those, too. So f' me, I was wrong.

Attachment 1030722

FWIW, in terms of total measured torsional rigidity I would think the underbody X and Y braces would help more, but the STB brace might be more noticeable in terms of feel since it ties to the firewall and we get so much tactile feedback through the steering wheel. I'm also quite sure it won't make a bit of difference in actual performance (i.e., what you can measure on a stopwatch). But I won't tell you it won't make a difference in how the car feels...anymore. And then there's that empirically tested 9% panty-dropper factor. So now you can't have mine!

Well like I said before in an earlier post.

“Some people just say shit for no reason and think they are right”

But the truth Matt it’s really the way you say things even if your right or wrong.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by BlackbeastSS2

Well like I said before in an earlier post.

“Some people just say shit for no reason and think they are right”

Well, supposedly you didn't write that about anyone claiming the brace doesn't help.

It wasn't for no reason. It was for a lot of very good reasons that I wrote out specifically because you and someone else both said there were no reasons. Every single thing I wrote was correct, too, except this from my first post: "The Chevy part doesn't do that [triangulate the towers to the firewall]." I mean technically that is true, but I just didn't realize there were braces there already doing that.

Of course, you didn't know that either, and you still wouldn't know it if I didn't figure it out myself and sack up and say so. Hell, RobbyBeefcake87 even wrote: "I'm not saying it does anything for the torsional rigidity losses." So he actually agreed with me! So although I could have left this alone, I thought it was more important to put the facts out there even though it made us wrong on that one point.

OTOH, the brace is clearly of no functional value for a coupe. It may technically improve torsional stiffness, but that doesn't mean that is a useful improvement. Again, the lead engineer told us that. And the fact that the GT4.R races professionally without them is probably all we need to know. But at least we understand why they included the STB (along with a bunch of other braces) on the convertibles.

But the truth Matt it’s really the way you say things even if your right or wrong.

That's some serious pot-calling-kettle-black content right there!