Strut Tower rip

Ken Keith auditude at
Thu Jan 27 13:02:38 EST 2005

Peter Schulz <pcschulz at> wrote:
> ...and won't do much other than that to prevent the strut tower movement -
> if the towers themselves are marginally supported, they need to be re
> -enforced - Audi saw fit to do so on the V8 and later S cars with
> additional reinforcements to the tower and firewall
> My opinion is to that you should first ensure that the strut tower is
> properly tied into the chassis FIRST, then decide if adding a strut tie bar
> is the right thing for you.
> -Peter

I was thinking that I wouldn't mind having *both* a reinforcement on
the strut towers, and a Bernie Brace to tie the struts themselves
together.  Aside from the added weight, I don't see what it would
hurt.  I am not as concerned about light wallets as Bernie is, since
enjoying my car hobby is one of the reasons why I fill my wallet in
the first place (and because perceived/aesthetic/subjective value is
actual value, to me), so that wouldn't be a reason not to for me
either.  I'm sure it's overkill, but then lots of things I like are
that way. =)

What I was recently wondering is if 2Bennett would have an opinion
about a Bernie Brace being used in conjunction with their Revolution
camber/caster plates.  If both are used, do the plates see more stress
than if they are used alone?  I would guess less because it's more
evenly split between the two sides, so the max stress any side would
see would be lessened.  Maybe 2B doesn't care because there's no
warranty to void anyway? 8^)

That spurs another thought.  If the 2B camber/caster plates fix the
strut rods pretty solidly to the towers, since they incorporate a
spherical bearing instead of a rubber isolator, then wouldn't a (beefy
enough) *tower brace* be about as effective as a Bernie Brace used
with the original rubber top mounts?  Let's assume the 2B plates are
in place for alignment purposes, would the Bernie Brace be any more
effective or efficient than a brace acting on the sheet metal of the

It seems like what I've read indicates that the towers can dance
around all they want and what really counts is the strut alignment. 
This makes me wonder if the overall chassis dynamics would be improved
by a stiffening of the towers themselves.  Say, if the chassis/body is
twisting.  The Bernie Brace might make the front tires themselves be
in the right position, but would a strut tower brace reduce some of
the overall chassis flex (trying to describe something different than
a tire alignment issue), such as when you jack up the corner of the
car and the doors become hard (and/or a bad idea) to open?

After all, for example if King Kong was twisting the car at the
bumpers, the body would first have to transmit that movements through
the subframe bushings and then control arm bushings before they would
even begin to affect the struts.  Then if a Bernie Brace is in place
in a typical installation (without 2B camber plates), it would only be
able to prevent the struts themselves from moving inboard.  The strut
towers themselves would still be all flexy until the rubber top mounts
ran out of travel and then at that point tried to move the strut.

It just seems like there would be a benefit to stiffening the sheet
metal itself, as a separate but related goal to proper wheel
alignment.  Saying that a particular strut tower brace is ineffective
by being too small or something like that is a different issue that
I'm not exactly asking about.



More information about the 200q20v mailing list