[BlackbeastSS2]

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

It's the BMR model STB020. It's the only one I can see that fits the ZL1.” There’s a lot Z1L that run with these, even if it’s a slight advantage I would still take it over nothing.

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=549467

Apparently it looks like the second pic is the GM factory brace, unless I am mistaken.

[DaddySpeed]

Originally Posted by 2SS Capt

I agree! And it only weighs maybe 2 lbs at most...

What is that plaque on the fuse box, did that come with the car?

[BlackbeastSS2]

Originally Posted by DaddySpeed

What is that plaque on the fuse box, did that come with the car?

Here’s a link with all the info about plaque.

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=567105

[DaddySpeed]

Those look awesome, when I get my car, I'll definitely be ordering one of those. Thanks for the info.

[2SS Capt]

Originally Posted by DaddySpeed

What is that plaque on the fuse box, did that come with the car?

Originally Posted by BlackbeastSS2

Here’s a link with all the info about plaque.

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=567105

Originally Posted by DaddySpeed

Those look awesome, when I get my car, I'll definitely be ordering one of those. Thanks for the info.

They are very cool, Chris does a great job with them and you can customize it any way you'd like... Well worth it, looks great and gets rid of the big blank fuse box cover...

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by BlackbeastSS2

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

It's the BMR model STB020. It's the only one I can see that fits the ZL1.” There’s a lot Z1L that run with these, even if it’s a slight advantage I would still take it over nothing.

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=549467

Apparently it looks like the second pic is the GM factory brace, unless I am mistaken.

Agreed, too many authoritative types saying it does absolutely nothing based on absolutely nothing.

That does look like the factory brace, maybe it's an aftermarket hood, or maybe it actually does fit with some rubbing and this person just went with it idk lol.

I had heard of and seen a picture of a special brace gm made for an i4 SEMA autocross camaro, the i4 supposedly can't fit the regualar brace either. So maybe that zl1 is running a modified gm brace of sorts.

[s346k]

welcome to the car show/1LE forum.

[BlackbeastSS2]

Originally Posted by s346k

welcome to the car show/1LE forum.

We Camaro owners sure don’t like car shows, only private track courses to hide our beautiful cars. sarcasm

[Matos1LE]

Originally Posted by BlackbeastSS2

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

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Agreed, too many authoritative types saying it does absolutely nothing based on absolutely nothing.

Yes, because the CHIEF ENGINEER who produced the car with a multi-million dollar budget and a whole TEAM of highly trained, experienced, and well paid engineers is absolutely nothing. Never mind all the simulations, testing, etc. that they did to be able to tell you that it isn't needed. We'll just ignore all science and evidence by chalking it up to "authoritative types talking nonsense." I take it you don't vaccinate your children either... Just admit that you like how it looks and call it a day, you don't need to justify your choice beyond that! It probably provided a noticeable benefit on some 90s grocery-getter Civic you may have owned back in high school. That does not translate to it magically serving a NOTICEABLE function on a modern Camaro designed for track use.

Don't take my word for it though, you can read the answer from Al O. (Camaro CHIEF ENGINEER) below:

Al's Answer:

The short answer is ‘no, you don’t need the Tower to Tower brace to improve ride, steering, or handling.’

When we designed the 6th Gen Camaro, one of the areas we focused on was going after a significant mass reduction while improving the body structure. The ‘Alpha’ architecture, which was the basis for the Cadillac CTS/ATS, provided this opportunity. Lighter weight materials, like Press-hardened Steel, High Strength-Low Alloy (HSLA), and Aluminum allowed us to have a structure that has 28% more body stiffness than the 5th Gen Camaro, yet weighs between 225 lb. – 390 lb. less than its predecessor (depending on the model). The shock towers, which are made of Aluminum, are 40% lighter than steel, yet 25% stiffer than those in the 5th Gen Camaro.

If you consider the modal analysis of the body structure, the shock towers move from side to side while driving through road input, which can be felt in both the steering wheel and the seat of your pants if the movement is not managed. By providing a stronger structure, especially in the areas where the loads are transferred directly to the customer touch points, we don’t need to add on the additional mass and cost of structural braces, such as the Tower to Tower brace. We did add what we call ‘rearward-facing V-braces’, which are smaller braces tied into the front of dash structure that are very effective, and this helps provide the quick, responsive steering you feel in your Camaro. From the suspension standpoint, the front strut mounts showcase a single path design that optimizes steering response and isolation, also contributing to the conclusion that we don’t need a Tower to Tower brace.

[BlackbeastSS2]

Originally Posted by Matos1LE

Yes, because the CHIEF ENGINEER who produced the car with a multi-million dollar budget and a whole TEAM of highly trained, experienced, and well paid engineers is absolutely nothing. Never mind all the simulations, testing, etc. that they did to be able to tell you that it isn't needed. We'll just ignore all science and evidence by chalking it up to "authoritative types talking nonsense." I take it you don't vaccinate your children either... Just admit that you like how it looks and call it a day, you don't need to justify your choice beyond that! It probably provided a noticeable benefit on some 90s grocery-getter Civic you may have owned back in high school. That does not translate to it magically serving a NOTICEABLE function on a modern Camaro designed for track use.

Don't take my word for it though, you can read the answer from Al O. (Camaro CHIEF ENGINEER) below:

Al's Answer:

The short answer is ‘no, you don’t need the Tower to Tower brace to improve ride, steering, or handling.’

When we designed the 6th Gen Camaro, one of the areas we focused on was going after a significant mass reduction while improving the body structure. The ‘Alpha’ architecture, which was the basis for the Cadillac CTS/ATS, provided this opportunity. Lighter weight materials, like Press-hardened Steel, High Strength-Low Alloy (HSLA), and Aluminum allowed us to have a structure that has 28% more body stiffness than the 5th Gen Camaro, yet weighs between 225 lb. – 390 lb. less than its predecessor (depending on the model). The shock towers, which are made of Aluminum, are 40% lighter than steel, yet 25% stiffer than those in the 5th Gen Camaro.

If you consider the modal analysis of the body structure, the shock towers move from side to side while driving through road input, which can be felt in both the steering wheel and the seat of your pants if the movement is not managed. By providing a stronger structure, especially in the areas where the loads are transferred directly to the customer touch points, we don’t need to add on the additional mass and cost of structural braces, such as the Tower to Tower brace. We did add what we call ‘rearward-facing V-braces’, which are smaller braces tied into the front of dash structure that are very effective, and this helps provide the quick, responsive steering you feel in your Camaro. From the suspension standpoint, the front strut mounts showcase a single path design that optimizes steering response and isolation, also contributing to the conclusion that we don’t need a Tower to Tower brace.

Man U sound butt hurt.

My point was directed at the guy that said a strut tower brace would not fit under the hood of a ZL1. Besides they have all stated a minimum gain and I said I would take that gain no matter how small.

But nice long winded reply.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Agreed, too many authoritative types saying it does absolutely nothing based on absolutely nothing.

Well, it's based on a lot, actually.

Originally Posted by Al

If you consider the modal analysis of the body structure, the shock towers move from side to side while driving through road input, which can be felt in both the steering wheel and the seat of your pants if the movement is not managed.

Just to add to this, that side-to-side movement of the towers he's talking about is due to torsional flex in the chassis. IOW, the two towers move together the same amount in the same direction, but are moving relative to the firewall (and hense relative to the dash and steering wheel). Common sense should tell anyone that tying the two towers together doesn't change this at all, since they can still move in the same direction the same amount. Even if a tower brace were helpful, it would only be helpful if it tied both towers to the firewall.

The Chevy part doesn't do that, so it can't make a difference. And I say that as someone who bought a car with it installed. I left it on because it looks cool, and I need more pieces of flare.



If common sense doesn't tell you that and you have to hear it from an engineer, then in addition to hearing from the chief engineer, I can tell you I've heard it from a lead race engineer who has worked for an Indycar team (back when they were CART), Swift (makers of many winning formula cars), and more recently Honda Performance. He developed the second Honda IndyCar aero package (the one that actually worked), and was lead designer on the Acura DPi car that Penske's running in IMSA. They actually mount frames on test jigs and 7-post rigs and measure this stuff. He has a pedigree.

Anyway, basic rules of logic and research tell us we can't prove a negative. There's no way to prove that something doesn't work. If anyone here thinks these strut tower braces do something, then it's their job to prove that they do. Having owned a 2nd-gen and 3rd-gen F-Body as well as a C4 Corvette, a Fox Mustang, and an SN95 Mustang...if you think the 6th-gen Camaro needs bracing to cure it of chassis flex, then you don't know what chassis flex is! This car feels like it's carved out of a single chunk of billet.

[BlackbeastSS2]

I tend to believe GM’s website and of course I am sure an engineer other then Al had something to do with this write up.

Enhance the road feel of your Camaro and stand out under the hood with this unique black anodized strut tower brace. This lightweight, 6061 T6 aluminum under-hood 6.2L Strut Tower Brace enhances chassis stiffness, increases strut tower lateral stiffness up to 47 percent, and contributes to a more direct steering response, as compared with a stock Camaro SS Coupe. Features a laser-etched Chevrolet Performance logo. It’s a direct bolt-on for 2016 and older Camaro SS models. Base and installation hardware included. The Black Tower Brace is compatible with all 2016 and newer Camaro SS models. Direct replacement for production Camaro SS Convertible models.

BTW it’s a forum for discussion. No need for a twit picture of yourself in your latest post. You look German BTW. Just keep piling your explanation of domination on the post, some of us just see an obvious advantage of having it for looks and what the GM web site explains. For some reason you want to make people feel small. Good look to you out side the warrior keyboard mentality world.

“It’s called enhance and enjoy your Camaro.”

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by BlackbeastSS2

I tend to believe GM’s website and of course I am sure an engineer other then Al had something to do with this write up.

I bet they didn't. Or put another way, somewhere someone had to justify this bling with a number, so maybe they asked some hapless engineer about "lateral stiffness." But if you understand how that's being measured, you'll understand that it has absolutely no importance to lap times or feel. What kind of "lateral forces" do you think actually get fed into the upper strut mounts to deflect the towers? Let's say the absolute worst-case cornering scenario is taking place: 1g cornering with 2000lbs loading the front tires (trail braking) and with 100% lateral load transfer such that the outside tire is generating 2000lbs of lateral force. This would not happen in real life, but let's just say it did. That force enters the suspension through the knuckle and from there into the frame through the lower ball joint and upper strut mount. But on the line between the ball joint and upper mount, the spindle is roughly 10% up from the ball joint...meaning the ball joint is taking 90% of the lateral force and the upper strut mount is reacting maybe 10%. 200lbs. That's it. And that's not a realistic scenario. You can put 200lbs of force on one strut tower without a brace and you won't be able to measure any movement. These things are incredibly stiff - this is not your father's 1982 Camaro (and even that flimsy noodle didn't benefit from strut tower braces). Go ask a body shop how much force their rams have to apply to get any movement when straightening this stuff after a wreck.

So, this unsuspecting engineer would have answered the question with "47%." But they won't have asked him if it matters. Because if they did, he would say that it won't make a bit of difference in performance or feel.

[Boost Creep]