Diver944
Active member
Porscheshop sell it for £195 + the usual
http://www.porscheshop.co.uk/acatalog/Brey_Krause_Safety_&_Hardware.html
http://www.porscheshop.co.uk/acatalog/Brey_Krause_Safety_&_Hardware.html
Strut brace
- Thread starter random hero
- Start date
So; as I have to get my suspension checked again (after chasing Tony over a cattle grid in Scotland) should I get a lower brace first?
I'm a bit concerned that Belinda may not sanction it though as 2000 miles 2º negative at the rear, running motorway speeds and well loaded, have meant the rear tyres are totally shot on the inside edges. [
][] Beaky did corner like he was on rails though. []
I don't think I will have enough ground clearance were I to fit the lower cross brace (and it must upset the air flow under the car) and it ads weight (even if it is nice and low down) so perhaps I will give it a miss - just trying to convince myself really. [8|]
I'm a bit concerned that Belinda may not sanction it though as 2000 miles 2º negative at the rear, running motorway speeds and well loaded, have meant the rear tyres are totally shot on the inside edges. [
][] Beaky did corner like he was on rails though. [] I don't think I will have enough ground clearance were I to fit the lower cross brace (and it must upset the air flow under the car) and it ads weight (even if it is nice and low down) so perhaps I will give it a miss - just trying to convince myself really. [8|]
I didn't much like my rear tyres, but like a bill for £260 to replace them even less. [
] Not to mention the cost of realigning again. I think I will be a little more prudent with my rear set up this time [8|]You may well be right about the lower brace not fitting a Turbo. I imagine that many would have done it previously otherwise.
Tam Lin
New member
+1 I've got one, but unless you change top mounts to solid, stiffen up the front suspension considerably, I'd be amazed if anyone could tell in a blind test if one was fitted.. Stiffer ARBs make a much bigger difference & were fitted by Porsche..ORIGINAL: edh
Can't see it being significant on a road car - I'd sooner spend the money on 2 tanks of fuel [
There's always the placebo effect of any mod to consider though, so it might make you feel better about the car.
TTM
Well-known member
I fitted one but that was after I had the shock absorbers and springs replaced an yes it made a significant difference in steering response, especially at higher speeds.
Not sure what suspension you have now but if it's the intolerably bad original Sachs black shocks then I would upgrade this first and fit stiffer springs. Top mounts can stay if in good condition.
Not sure what suspension you have now but if it's the intolerably bad original Sachs black shocks then I would upgrade this first and fit stiffer springs. Top mounts can stay if in good condition.
Peter Empson
PCGB Member
If you drive enthusiastically then I'd say yes, it tightens the front ends response up and makes it more predictable/reliable. Having seen how flexible the front of these cars are when lifting the car with the engine removed I can see why they work, in fact this reminds me I really must get a lower brace sorted sometime.
Peter Empson
PCGB Member
Yep, and then you can practically wiggle one front corner in isolation, it's quite an eye opener that the shell itself has so little rigidity to the front end without it.
sawood12
New member
Yes but front end stiffness relies on the engine being in place - it all doesn't come from the shell. You remove the engine out of any car and the shell stiffness will be massively compromised. Cars are designed this way to avoid having to double the weight of the shell to achieve the required stiffness.
For a track car then yes, but for road I think you'd need to be driving in a very silly fashion to notice one on the road.
For a track car then yes, but for road I think you'd need to be driving in a very silly fashion to notice one on the road.
Surely the 944 engine does little for the overall stiffness - it just sits on jelly bags on the crossmember, its the crossmember that does th stiffening.
Mike
Mike
Lower brace? theres not much below the crossmember!
I've not tried wiggeling a shell without a crossmember, but if it is as flexible as Peter says then any cross stiffening should be worthwhile.
Mike
I've not tried wiggeling a shell without a crossmember, but if it is as flexible as Peter says then any cross stiffening should be worthwhile.
Mike
See, I know lower cross braces were used on Mk I Golfs to very good effect - the factory fitted them on cabriolets I believe; but the front of the wishbones on those were carried on "arms" waving about in mid air... This is far from the case of the 944.
Porsche obviously looked at the cross member, and I'm sure they didn't replace a cheap, light steel cross member with a heavy, expensive, aluminium casting without good reason. What would they be looking at? Production costs, weight, ease of assembly, performance... and a few others - supply chain issues that kind of thing... I'll bet they looked carefully at the pay off of increased weight vs. improved handling resultant from improved rigidity... and my guess is if there were improvements to be had from simply bolting on an extra piece of metal, they'd have found them. To make gains against what porsche have developed, one must surely be talking about either shifting the performance from one area to another (i.e., a lighter crossmember - a lighter car at the expense of handling, or vica-versa) or blowing the budget or utilising technology and materials not available at the time.
Since the OP was to do with any gains from fitting a strut brace, I guess we're not looking at the reduction in weight at the expense of handling (i.e., good for drag racing and not a lot else)... on that basis, what are the racers using? Anything? And more to the point, what are the racers that are winning using, rather than the "all the gear, no idea" crowd?
Porsche obviously looked at the cross member, and I'm sure they didn't replace a cheap, light steel cross member with a heavy, expensive, aluminium casting without good reason. What would they be looking at? Production costs, weight, ease of assembly, performance... and a few others - supply chain issues that kind of thing... I'll bet they looked carefully at the pay off of increased weight vs. improved handling resultant from improved rigidity... and my guess is if there were improvements to be had from simply bolting on an extra piece of metal, they'd have found them. To make gains against what porsche have developed, one must surely be talking about either shifting the performance from one area to another (i.e., a lighter crossmember - a lighter car at the expense of handling, or vica-versa) or blowing the budget or utilising technology and materials not available at the time.
Since the OP was to do with any gains from fitting a strut brace, I guess we're not looking at the reduction in weight at the expense of handling (i.e., good for drag racing and not a lot else)... on that basis, what are the racers using? Anything? And more to the point, what are the racers that are winning using, rather than the "all the gear, no idea" crowd?
Yes -I'm sure the expensive alloy member was all Porsche thought necessary for road use in the '80s with '80s rubber, however relating to OP, would 2010 rubber put more stresses into the shell and if so would a top strut help?
The "sporting " drivers say not on the road - so I'll go with that, but I know from track days that they are a common fitment.
But learnt something -Shell flexy without crossmember - be careful with it off! and the 924s have steel ones.
Cheers
Mike
The "sporting " drivers say not on the road - so I'll go with that, but I know from track days that they are a common fitment.
But learnt something -Shell flexy without crossmember - be careful with it off! and the 924s have steel ones.
Cheers
Mike
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
