[SFV1LE]

I've read many times here that the ZL1 doesn't benefit in any way from an additional strut tower brace, which is reason why Chevy didn't include one. Members here are adamant about this, saying there is zero reason to add a $300 brace for track use.

If that's true why did GM put additional strut tower bracing in the state of the art Alpha 2 (evolved Alpha) chassis for the new track focused CT4/CT5-V Blackwings?

You could safely assume the Alpha 2 is an improved version of the great Camaro Alpha chassis in the ZL1.

Per the pictures below, the CT5-V BW has a stout looking standard strut brace and the CT4-V BW has more complex trick looking race car bracing connecting firewall-to-tower-to-frontmost chassis points.

Based on this, seems like the Alpha chassis does benefit from additional strut tower bracing.

[Firecaptain]

@SFV1LE you realize you have caused MANY heads to explode.....lol

[Blackdevil77]

Cadillac engineers must have seen an improvement in their testing.

[Vigilante375]

I believe GM engineers themselves said that during testing for the Camaro that they saw very marginal improvement in stability with a strut.

Here's Al O's answer:

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=517935

Maybe someone should ask the head of Cadillac why they needed a strut brace when the Camaro didn't.

[Blackdevil77]

Originally Posted by Vigilante375

I believe GM engineers themselves said that during testing for the Camaro that they saw very marginal improvement in stability with a strut.

Here's Al O's answer:

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=517935

Maybe someone should ask the head of Cadillac why they needed a strut brace when the Camaro didn't.

I'm no engineer, but if I had to guess maybe the longer wheel base on the cadillac created more area for improvement with a strut.

[SJFGTO]

Originally Posted by Vigilante375

I believe GM engineers themselves said that during testing for the Camaro that they saw very marginal improvement in stability with a strut.

Here's Al O's answer:

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=517935

Maybe someone should ask the head of Cadillac why they needed a strut brace when the Camaro didn't.

^^^Yep^^^

[MatthewAMEL]

The premise of this post is false. The question always has been does Camaro benefit from an additional strut tower brace. All Camaro's already have front bracing installed.


Blackwing isn't a Camaro. If in the course of tuning the new chassis and MRC4 they discovered a strut tower brace helped the Blackwing, that doesn't have anything to do with Camaro.

[Vigilante375]

Originally Posted by Blackdevil77

I'm no engineer, but if I had to guess maybe the longer wheel base on the cadillac created more area for improvement with a strut.

I was going to say that we're comparing a 2 door car to a 4 door car but you do see 2 door cars with some sort of strut bracing but some without. Like a BMW 235i doesn't have strut bracing but an M2 does.

And both of those have shorter wheel bases than the Blackwing. Well, maybe not the CT4 but the CT5 for sure.

It comes down to it you want it, get one. Buy the only way we would know if it improves anything is by letting one of the track rats try it out and if it improves any lap time or corner stability.

Which Al O said the Camaro platform is good in the way they designed it to handle.

Plus, if GM really wanted to add a strut brace then why didn't they add one in the 1LE package? Because the platform design is that good without it.

[laynlo15]

I didn't realize we had added Cadillac to the Camaro Menu. Must have missed that.

[Checkmate1]

With the ZL1/1LE, engineers did test a strut brace and found little to a marginal benefit to handling at the cost of adding mass at the front. Essentially - the unanimous answer was it was unnecessary.

Keep in mind - the ZL1/1LE is only at 3863lbs (6 speed) vs CT5V Blackwing at 4,123 lbs (6 speed)

[wakespeak]

Did anyone ever try the CT5-V Blackwing brace on the ZL1?

[AZ_1LE]

Originally Posted by Checkmate1

With the ZL1/1LE, engineers did test a strut brace and found little to a marginal benefit to handling at the cost of adding mass at the front. Essentially - the unanimous answer was it was unnecessary.

Keep in mind - the ZL1/1LE is only at 3863lbs (6 speed) vs CT5V Blackwing at 4,123 lbs (6 speed)

I think the weight difference is a big factor. More weight is going to result in more chassis flex.

[Mark R]

Why add a front strut tower brace, when the rear control arms are so flexy? There is more stiffness available by upgrading them first. They are the low hanging fruit.

However, GM provided a channel in the hood of the Camaro to accommodate a strut tower brace for a reason: Either to sell an aftermarket accessory, or improve the chassis stiffness.

[Wuiquen]

Originally Posted by Mark R

Why add a front strut tower brace, when the rear control arms are so flexy? There is more stiffness available by upgrading them first. They are the low hanging fruit.

However, GM provided a channel in the hood of the Camaro to accommodate a strut tower brace for a reason: Either to sell an aftermarket accessory, or improve the chassis stiffness.

I really need to get after the suspension upgrades for my ZL1. I sold my ZL1 1LE and got the ZL1. Since then, I have only been driving the ZL1 in the mountains and canyons. The ZL1 needs additional love to make it more stable and firm. I know I can't compare but my 2010 Corvette GS seems more stable in high speed cornering thou probably cuz the car is like 5in from the road.