Strut Tower brace part numbers
b.benz at charter.net
Thu Feb 24 18:48:11 EST 2005
As a point of interest, do price out the total cost of the S4 tower brace.
From: SuffolkD at aol.com
Noted. Although I'd suspect there is a reason the factory did this to newer
(more refined) models. While your brace is seemingly intreguing, I'm not
sure how it would address chasis flex where a tear in the 200 webbing seems
to come from.
The "chassis flex" to which you refer is more specifically the rolling
deflection of the tower relative to its major chassis stiffener, the sheet
metal attachments to the firewall, caused by the fact that the transverse
cornering forces are not being applied on axis with this stiffening system.
In correction, you can beef up the weekest link in this stock stiffening
system by welding a gusset at the fracture point and/or by adding an
additional stiffening system forward of the transverse cornering force
application point, that being the S4/6 type tower brace system. The other
alternative is to reduce the applied transverse cornering force applied to
the tower by 50% by dividing it equally between the two towers. This
requires a very stiff strut brace on axis with the applied force.
While the Audi S4 tower brace would be better than nothing (or that highly
touted Jamex junk) on the 44 chassis cars, in that it is pretty well
anchored to the tower by the spring perch mounting bolts, it is only
marginally stiff enough because of the deep draw of this bracket
(http://members.aol.com/c1j1miller/strut-web.html ) to raise the bar over
other engine components. Maybe it is stiff enough to prevent further web
fracture but, IMO not stiff enough to add appreciably to camber stability,
as does a good strut brace.
The good strut brace not only divides the lateral cornering forces equally
between the two towers, resulting in half the tower deflection but further,
it effectively stiffens the strut isolator by a factor of 2+ without
compromising its purpose. Both are significant factors in camber stability
under cornering forces.
Maybe a "brace bar" adapter to the strut insert tops would please both
-Scott by BOSTON
In a message dated 2/24/2005 12:01:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
b.benz at charter.net writes:
Note the change in subject title: This is not a strut brace, rather it is a
strut tower bracing system.
Add up the total parts cost to see how many times more it is than is that of
a real strut brace, not even considering its relative ineffectiveness in
camber control and load distribution under tranverse loading.
More information about the 200q20v