Chassis braces ?????

[heeltoe]

Originally Posted by Constantin As per their website seems like it is a yes:

oh i am getting all tingly thinking about it

[TRex]

Originally Posted by Constantin Thx guys for explanation! So, the "Front Lower Tie Brace" (pic.) will be beneficial, since it will reinforce the "bottom" when the stock bracket reinforces the "top", right?

yes the front lower will be beneficial

[Constantin]

Originally Posted by TRex yes...yes it is as long as you have the stock brackets that is

So, I looked at my engine bay today to take a closer look at those brackets. I took some pictures. Is that what you are talking about?

In my situation, only one bolt is attached, to (what seems to be) plastic. Which, I don't see how it can help more then front strut tower.

I didn't find anything going to the firewall... Please point me in the right direction. Because I'm ether looking in the wrong place, or I just don't have those brackets.

[TRex]

Originally Posted by Constantin So, I looked at my engine bay today to take a closer look at those brackets. I took some pictures. Is that what you are talking about? In my situation, only one bolt is attached, to (what seems to be) plastic. Which, I don't see how it can help more then front strut tower. I didn't find anything going to the firewall... Please point me in the right direction. Because I'm ether looking in the wrong place, or I just don't have those brackets.

that is indeed the right location

did you touch it? put your hand on the under side of the bracket and follow it, there are 2 bolts, and they are bolting into a metal ledge

if you continue to follow that ledge as it curves downward you will see that it is a continuous piece and is in fact the fire wall

[Constantin]

Originally Posted by TRex that is indeed the right location did you touch it? put your hand on the under side of the bracket and follow it, there are 2 bolts, and they are bolting into a metal ledge if you continue to follow that ledge as it curves downward you will see that it is a continuous piece and is in fact the fire wall

What surprises me is that bracket provides more rigidity that the strut brace... For example, on an EVO you can clearly see this big stock strut brace which also connects to the firewall.

Learned something new today

[TRex]

like this?


yea that is certainly a great way to do it

what i dont like about this setup though is that the bar going from the strut tower to firewall is very long, so that provides a huge moment arm for lateral forces to act through

that is probably why the used a tie between the strut towers to increase rigidity, because the way the firewall bracing was done was not sufficient alone

our setup uses very very short arms (as you can see) and is much much more rigid than this evo's firewall bracing alone

EDIT: after looking at this some more, the moment arm is really no longer than ours as the lateral loads will be acting on a moment arm that extends the fore/aft direction

you can see here http://i.imgur.com/iP8U0.jpg the green is the ours and the blue is evo ....the evo has a nice triangle that is very very very rigid....it is indeed more rigid than our setup due to the strut tie, when viewed from the top, indeed this shape is ideal, but there is another direction, when viewed straight on you can see that the strut tie is slightly raised, that means there is a moment arm and forces are not being imparted directly in line with the bar, that means that bar is subject to bending, the firewall connection is also subject to bending, but the shape of the firewall is much more resistant to bending

so is the evo's setup better? yes, because race car

will adding a strut tie to the top make your setup up stiffer? yes (but the cost vs. value is very high imo and not worth it)

will you notice the difference? doubtful....but if someone has hard evidence of increased lap times or lateral g holding i would love to see it

will removing the stock brackets and replacing it with a strut tie be a better setup? no, absolutely not, you have greatly reduced the rigidity by taking the stock connections out

should i buy a top strut tie? imo, no....but if you are swimming in disposable income, have bought every other mod on the planet for this car, and want some engine flair....then maybe....sort of...if you want to

should i buy lower ties? i would, see this picture http://i.imgur.com/IY0hh.jpg basically what the lower braces are doing is creating a rigid box that doesnt exist with the factor setup

arguable exhaust tunnel bracing would be beneficial as well, but i personally cant quite grasp the loads occurring there as easily as i can at the suspension, but again on those, if you got the money...go for it

[Constantin]

TRex thank you for even more detailed explanation! Personally, I would not buy the front strut tower brace by itself, but if it come in the kit that Heltech is working on, I'll install it anyway. Unless some by buys it from me for like $100

Now, speaking about testing. Is there a way to test the different loads? I offered to test the trunk cage, but to no avail so far.

[TRex]

well, without getting crazy about it with like strain gauges all over body

the only real way to test would be lap times on a course (which is tough because there are so many variables)

or a skid pad test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidpad)...because essentially chassis flex reduces traction....so if you were able to travel faster and achieve higher g's without going outside the radius of the pad then your braces are helping you....but even that is a hard test to replicate for a common person because of the instrumentation needed

unfortunately without some financial backing it really comes down to whether or not you have felt a deference.....and some of these improvements will let you tell a major difference

the rear sway bar for example, is a major change and very easily noticed, the tie bars i think would come next on the feel scale, and the rest would have less of a noticeable feel

[heeltoe]

if you were to take a car and do some hot lap and take it on the skid pad then use a thermal gun couldn't you find the flex points on the car that needs to be reinforced? wouldn't the twisting and turning of the car flex the metal then cause heat to be generated on weak points of the car?

[mrmonk7663]

I imagine the heat would dissipate rather quickly due to the surface area of air surrounding the stress points, and due to the thin material being measured.

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by heeltoe if you were to take a car and do some hot lap and take it on the skid pad then use a thermal gun couldn't you find the flex points on the car that needs to be reinforced? wouldn't the twisting and turning of the car flex the metal then cause heat to be generated on weak points of the car?

The amount of flex is in the millimeter range at most. As far as I know you need to mount a chassis in a jig and use strain gauges to measure torsion rigidity changes. From what I've read the GenPu chassis is marginally stiffer than the Gen1. Finite Element Analysis can do most of this work on a computer anyway.

[Tomas]

Originally Posted by Constantin Tomas, from seeing your post here and there, it seems like you have a vast suspension experience. Will be nice to hear from you about the entire subject.

Sorry. I have very limited experience with chassis engineering. Have read a lot about it but can't provide any personal experience except for the usual ricer front and rear tower brace on other cars.

This is a great thread and I have two questions:

1. It appears many who autox like to either not use a stiffer front sway bar or remove the stock one altogether or use stiffer springs in the front. Now why would you want to stiffen the chassis in the front if you use a stock sway bar or even no sway bar? Sort of seems counter intuitive to me. How do you compare a stiffer FSB against engine cradle bracing? I mean... why would you want a stiffer structure in the front if the vehicle is till going to roll/lean in the front in a corner?

2. When are these fucking china braces being installed by Haltech?

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by Tomas Sorry. I have very limited experience with chassis engineering. Have read a lot about it but can't provide any personal experience except for the usual ricer front and rear tower brace on other cars. This is a great thread and I have two questions: 1. It appears many who autox like to either not use a stiffer front sway bar or remove the stock one altogether or use stiffer springs in the front. Now why would you want to stiffen chassis in the front if you use a stock sway bar or even no sway bar? Sort of seems counter intuitive to me. How do you compare a stiffer FSB against engine craddle bracing? I mean... why would you want a stiffer structure in the front if the vehicle is till going to roll/lean in the front in a corner? 2. When are these fucking china braces being installed by Haltech?

A stiffer front bar in and of itself tends to increase understeer which is obviously detrimental in an AutoX where the ability to induce rotation (especially on a FWD vehicle) is crucial to fast course times.

However this lack of roll resistance in the front also leads to camber loss under bump which contributes to a reduction in cornering ability and overall stability. I'm not going to say no front swaybar is a AutoX only type of thing but it is much more prevalent in that type of motorsport especially with the relatively low cornering speeds encountered in AutoX. Now jump onto a road course and in most cases the lack of a front swaybar is a quick way to spin the first time you enter a really high speed sweeper. The car is "harder" to drive as it can become twitchy and less predictable in a corner. Typically you have the big bars, softer springs approach and the small bars, heavy springs approach to suspension setup. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages and is entirely dependent on the chassis and driver preference. Neither is "better" than the other, just different. Personally I prefer the big bars, softer springs approach on a MacPherson strut car and small bars, heavy springs approach on a SLA (double wishbone) car but my experience is relatively limited compared to some of the other guys on this board.

A stiffer structure is better no matter what, but a stiffer chassis simply allows your suspension to do more of its job instead of losing its ability to dampen due to flex and minute geometry changes. For at least Gen2 MS3's I think your money is better spent on betters dampers and bushings before you worry about increasing chassis stiffness. Also a little tidbit on these different approaches, Japanese motorsport chassis engineers traditionally favor a chassis with some flex in it believing it is essential to maintaining grip on irregular surfaces. You can see this in their relatively minimal cage designs. American chassis engineers like the stiffest chassis possible and let the suspension handle the damping. Compare the cage designs in your typical Japanese built time attack or D1 car versus the American designed car and you can see this philosophy.

I am interested in hearing others opinions.

[heeltoe]

i have to agree with todd88 the front strut might not be need if ur only going to be maxing out 2nd gear all the time. but on high speed turns u can feel the car flexing and when it flex it turns funny and you have to take a different line then you would like.

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by heeltoe i have to agree with todd88 the front strut might not be need if ur only going to be maxing out 2nd gear all the time. but on high speed turns u can feel the car flexing and when it flex it turns funny and you have to take a different line then you would like.

You guys can really feel something like this? Really, I doubt it.

Camaro Chassis Flex Demonstration - YouTube

Camaro Chassis Flex Demonstration - YouTube

The bar I'd be most interested in is the front lower tie bar. http://www.corksport.com/corksport-m...arm-brace.html The front mount for the control arm is cantilevered out away from the subframe with nothing to add to its rigidity. The lower tie bar would probably be fairly helpful in minimizing geometry changes.

[specvspeedfreak]

Tie brace is cheap enough and would offer marginally enough rigity to buy... I don't understand why more are not talking about the ladder and rear subframe brace. These 2 braces actually connect the subframe to the chassis. This to me would offer the greatest improvement.

[heeltoe]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE You guys can really feel something like this? Really, I doubt it. Camaro Chassis Flex Demonstration - YouTube The bar I'd be most interested in is the front lower tie bar. Mazdaspeed 3 Lower Control Arm by CorkSport The front mount for the control arm is cantilevered out away from the subframe with nothing to add to its rigidity. The lower tie bar would probably be fairly helpful in minimizing geometry changes.

i would like to see a demonstration done on a hatch instead of a coupe, the rigidity of the coupe is much stronger then the hatch and preferably a car similar to the ms3 or a ms3 lol.

[dot584]

Does the ms6 have those stock firewall braces? Because I had a front tower bar when I got the car and I don't want to be compromising anything.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[Nliiitend1]

I highly doubt it, as the MS6 has a double-wishbone front suspension. The front damper/spring assembly is not a locating member with regard to the suspension geometry, and doesn't see near the same kinds of forces that the top of a MacPherson strut damper/spring assembly sees.

[Tomas]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE A stiffer front bar in and of itself tends to increase understeer which is obviously detrimental in an AutoX where the ability to induce rotation (especially on a FWD vehicle) is crucial to fast course times. However this lack of roll resistance in the front also leads to camber loss under bump which contributes to a reduction in cornering ability and overall stability. I'm not going to say no front swaybar is a AutoX only type of thing but it is much more prevalent in that type of motorsport especially with the relatively low cornering speeds encountered in AutoX. Now jump onto a road course and in most cases the lack of a front swaybar is a quick way to spin the first time you enter a really high speed sweeper. The car is "harder" to drive as it can become twitchy and less predictable in a corner. Typically you have the big bars, softer springs approach and the small bars, heavy springs approach to suspension setup. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages and is entirely dependent on the chassis and driver preference. Neither is "better" than the other, just different. Personally I prefer the big bars, softer springs approach on a MacPherson strut car and small bars, heavy springs approach on a SLA (double wishbone) car but my experience is relatively limited compared to some of the other guys on this board. A stiffer structure is better no matter what, but a stiffer chassis simply allows your suspension to do more of its job instead of losing its ability to dampen due to flex and minute geometry changes. For at least Gen2 MS3's I think your money is better spent on betters dampers and bushings before you worry about increasing chassis stiffness. Also a little tidbit on these different approaches, Japanese motorsport chassis engineers traditionally favor a chassis with some flex in it believing it is essential to maintaining grip on irregular surfaces. You can see this in their relatively minimal cage designs. American chassis engineers like the stiffest chassis possible and let the suspension handle the damping. Compare the cage designs in your typical Japanese built time attack or D1 car versus the American designed car and you can see this philosophy. I am interested in hearing others opinions.

Let me see if I get what you are saying.

With the same set up in the rear, a stiffer front sway bar increases roll stiffness --> more understeer. Ok agreed. This same increase in roll stiffness leads to reduced negative camber on the outer front tire under bump. OK also agreed. But then you are saying that this reduction in negative camber under bump reduces cornering ability / stability. Well... yes and no. You will loose a few decimals of negative camber since the car won't lean so much. But does that mean that the added roll stiffness is not worth the trouble since the inability of the vehicle to load the front tires with more negative camber will sort of negate the benefit of the added roll stiffness? I'd have to argue against that statement. I was of the impression that the autoxer crowd liked small, or no sway bars in the front so they could rotate the rear better in tighter turns when breaking into them. I.e. brake in oversteer. Not to improve cornering stability.

Put in a different way: would you say that added chassis stiffness in the front will increase or decrease outer front tire camber under bump in a turn?

I have also heard the big bar soft spring on macpherson and small bar stiff springs on double A arms theory. To a degree it makes sense since the camber curve for A arms is much better than Mcpherson. But I have also heard most nascar teams are actually steering away from that set up and using more bar now a days and less spring. The decision which way to go will depend a lot on road condition of course, but the overall trend seems to be in that direction.

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by Tomas Let me see if I get what you are saying. With the same set up in the rear, a stiffer front sway bar increases roll stiffness --> more understeer. Ok agreed. This same increase in roll stiffness leads to reduced negative camber on the outer front tire under bump. OK also agreed. But then you are saying that this reduction in negative camber under bump reduces cornering stability / stability. Well... yes. you will loose a few decimals of negative camber since the car won't lean so much. But does that mean that the added roll stiffness is not worth the trouble since the inability of the vehicle to load the front tires with more negative camber will sort of negate the benefit of the added roll stiffness? I'd have to argue against that statement. Let me ask this in a different way. Would you say that added chassis stiffness in the front will increase or decrease outer front tire camber under bump in a turn? I have also heard the big bar soft spring on macpherson and small bar stiff springs on double A arms theory. To a degree it makes sense since the camber curve for A arms is much better than Mcpherson. But I have also heard most nascar teams are actually steering away from that set up and using more bar now a days and less spring. The decision which way to go will depend a lot on road condition of course, but the overall trend seems to be in that direction.

I think you may have read it wrong. A larger front bar increases roll stiffness and preserves camber in a turn. No front bar results in a loss of camber under bump. Picture what happens to the lower control arm in a turn when you allow it to move more in its path of travel (i.e. no front bar), as the lower control arm moves up the tire loses more and more camber as it progresses through its camber curve. Now when you limit that control arm movement via a larger swaybar you preserve the camber curve.

Now here is the tradeoff, larger bars increase weight transfer to the outside wheel in a turn meaning the outside tire has to do more work than the inside tire. The trick is to find the sweetspot in preserving the largest contact patch via camber preservation while not overloading the outside tire. Hopefully I explained that better.

Introducing the relationship between roll couple and camber curve into this thread would further clarify things but I probably dont know enough about it to explain it correctly.

Anyone interested in a very detailed look into suspension design and theory should read all the parts in this article. Mr. Kojima is a genius especially when talking about suspension and I think he does a good job in translating the complex engineering into terms and ideas that can be understood by anybody.

The Ultimate Guide to Suspension & Handling

[Tomas]

Well, the camber curve on a mcpherson strut gains camber as the control arm moves upward up to the point where it is perpendicular to a horizontal line crossing the middle of the vehicle. Only after that does the wheel start losing camber.

Regardless, I just want to understand why someone would want to stiffen the chassis in the front without first using a stiffer FSB. May be I am missing something but stiffening up the chassis in the front should only be considered after reducing roll IMO. Be it via stiffer springs or sway bars. I just don't see the benefit of the front bracing without reducing front roll first. I look at it the same as the rear. Why would you want to tie down the whole rear subframe with braces without first using a stiffer RSB?

[Haltech]

Originally Posted by Tomas Well, the camber curve on a mcpherson strut gains camber as the control arm moves upward up to the point where it is perpendicular to a horizontal line crossing the middle of the vehicle. Only after that does the wheel start losing camber. Regardless, I just want to understand why someone would want to stiffen the chassis in the front without first using a stiffer FSB. May be I am missing something but stiffening up the chassis in the front should only be considered after reducing roll IMO. Be it via stiffer springs or sway bars. I just don't see the benefit of the front bracing without reducing front roll first. I look at it the same as the rear. Why would you want to tie down the whole rear subframe with braces without first using a stiffer RSB?

It's an autoxr thing. The theory surrounds them getting better turn in on the corners. To reduce understeer/increase oversteer, you stiffen the rear suspension on short wheelbase cars. This is a very common practice with honda people. What it comes down to is, cheating. Im not sure this glitch in the rulebook has been updated or not, but it's been taken advantage of. Removing the stock front sway doesn't change your class. Then comes the different tire pressures and toe in settings like 0.

Us road racers use the sways for entry/exit entry stability due to our higher speed, braking, throttle, etc. Personally, i would run a larger front sway bar and a rear adjustable. The only way to get better in autox or road racing, is... being thrown in with tougher competitors anyways.

[Constantin]

I have started to participate in local AutoX's. Have been only in 3, so have very little experience.

However, since FWD = "point and shoot"; i.e. exiting the corner is very important. I am finding out that entering the corner at lower speed, and good positioning for the exit yields better times.

So, would it be beneficial to have a tighter front (with FSB) for better corner exit?

[TRex]

look, at the end of the day more front bar means more understeer

period, no way around it

if you are ok with that, and also like the benefits of a heavy front bar (snappier steering response, a stiffened feel), then by all means use it

it is just a different way to do things

[Cpt_Rum-bo]

Originally Posted by Constantin I have started to participate in local AutoX's. Have been only in 3, so have very little experience. However, since FWD = "point and shoot"; i.e. exiting the corner is very important. I am finding out that entering the corner at lower speed, and good positioning for the exit yields better times. So, would it be beneficial to have a tighter front (with FSB) for better corner exit?

From my experience with autox, entry and mid-corner speed are what yields the fastest times. Larger FSB goes against that rule.

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by TRex look, at the end of the day more front bar means more understeer period, no way around it if you are ok with that, and also like the benefits of a heavy front bar (snappier steering response, a stiffened feel), then by all means use it it is just a different way to do things

That is a generalization that isn't exactly true in every case. Each chassis responds differently depending on a million different factors. The best practice is to choose the style of motorsport that you want to set your car up for and start experimenting to find the combination that works best for the car and your particular driving style.

[vrspeed10]

Todd98SE heeltoe Tomas


Hey guys i have been trying to read up on some but looking for some input. I am looking to mod my suspension. Its my daily driver with the ocational 1/4mile and would like to do some road course classes. This is my list so far. tripoint eng rsb & adj end links, corksport adj camber arm, gtspec ladder, trunk, rear subframe and front lower tie braces, whiteline anti lift kit and rear bump steer bushings.

Now here is where i need help. I have eibach pro kit but want to go a little lower. So this is what i was thinking. Sonic tuning CO but i think its to much and not really needed?? or swapping out the eibachs for swift springs that lower it a bit more but will be able to run stock shocks. Now for my case would stock shocks be good??

For the cost of springs and aftermarket shock i should just by coilovers right? than i would be able to adj my ride height if i please. I am also woried that CO for a DD would be to harsh.

Thanks guys for your input..

[heeltoe]

Originally Posted by vrspeed10 Todd98SE heeltoe Tomas Hey guys i have been trying to read up on some but looking for some input. I am looking to mod my suspension. Its my daily driver with the ocational 1/4mile and would like to do some road course classes. This is my list so far. tripoint eng rsb & adj end links, corksport adj camber arm, gtspec ladder, trunk, rear subframe and front lower tie braces, whiteline anti lift kit and rear bump steer bushings. Now here is where i need help. I have eibach pro kit but want to go a little lower. So this is what i was thinking. Sonic tuning CO but i think its to much and not really needed?? or swapping out the eibachs for swift springs that lower it a bit more but will be able to run stock shocks. Now for my case would stock shocks be good?? For the cost of springs and aftermarket shock i should just by coilovers right? than i would be able to adj my ride height if i please. I am also woried that CO for a DD would be to harsh. Thanks guys for your input..

i dont know if you want to go any lower if its ur DD and you have under braces. but if the gap is what concerns you then how about thicker side walls on the tire? and get rid of those stock shocks if your using aftermarket springs.

[Todd98SE]

You don't want to go lower, you should go to stock height or just below with some decent coilovers like H&R or KW. Lower just equals a shittier camber curve, shittier roll center, and worse handling.

Swift springs with some Bilsteins would be good if you don't want coilovers.

[vrspeed10]

Originally Posted by heeltoe i dont know if you want to go any lower if its ur DD and you have under braces. but if the gap is what concerns you then how about thicker side walls on the tire? and get rid of those stock shocks if your using aftermarket springs.

well the eibachs only lower it .75" the swift will lower it to 1.2" and can be used with stock shocks without blowing them.

[heeltoe]

Originally Posted by vrspeed10 well the eibachs only lower it .75" the swift will lower it to 1.2" and can be used with stock shocks without blowing them.

true it might now blow the shocks but its not going to handle as good as it can be. and i would assume you like the handling since you got the under brace. if you plan on having people in ur car you prob don't want it too low unless u got coilovers with stiff springs.
Haltech

you going order yourself a set of these braces for Christmas ? lol

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE You don't want to go lower, you should go to stock height or just below with some decent coilovers like H&R or KW. Lower just equals a shittier camber curve, shittier roll center, and worse handling. Swift springs with some Bilsteins would be good if you don't want coilovers.

^Truth.

[vrspeed10]

Originally Posted by heeltoe true it might now blow the shocks but its not going to handle as good as it can be. and i would assume you like the handling since you got the under brace. if you plan on having people in ur car you prob don't want it too low unless u got coilovers with stiff springs. Haltech you going order yourself a set of these braces for Christmas ? lol

christmas and tax return .. So with so many opions out there whats your opions Coilovers or shocks and spring?? they will both be about the same price in the end

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by Tomas Well, the camber curve on a mcpherson strut gains camber as the control arm moves upward up to the point where it is perpendicular to a horizontal line crossing the middle of the vehicle. Only after that does the wheel start losing camber. Regardless, I just want to understand why someone would want to stiffen the chassis in the front without first using a stiffer FSB. May be I am missing something but stiffening up the chassis in the front should only be considered after reducing roll IMO. Be it via stiffer springs or sway bars. I just don't see the benefit of the front bracing without reducing front roll first. I look at it the same as the rear. Why would you want to tie down the whole rear subframe with braces without first using a stiffer RSB?

Tomas, wanted to address the first question because everyone missed it. At stock height the MS3 lower control arm is parallel with the ground or slightly higher than the horizontal centerline. Basically our camber curve only has a "lose camber" portion of the curve, we never gain camber. Only way to correct that is with roll center adjustable ball joints that nobody makes......yet.

[dot584]

The speed 6 does gain camber in turns in case anyone's wondering. As in it gets more negative. Not sure about the 3.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[Todd98SE]

Originally Posted by dot584 The speed 6 does gain camber in turns in case anyone's wondering. As in it gets more negative. Not sure about the 3. Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

Yep the Speed6 has an double A-arm or SLA front suspension much like an older Honda. Unfortunately the Speed3 is stuck with a much less desirable mac strut setup.

[Tomas]

Originally Posted by Todd98SE Tomas, wanted to address the first question because everyone missed it. At stock height the MS3 lower control arm is parallel with the ground or slightly higher than the horizontal centerline. Basically our camber curve only has a "loose camber" portion of the curve, we never gain camber. Only way to correct that is with roll center adjustable ball joints that nobody makes......yet.

Hmmmm. If the LCAs on the MS3 were parallel to the ground at stock ride height that should mean that any lowering of the vehicle would result in a loss of camber. That's not the case. I don't know at what point the camber curve changes from gaining more negative camber to losing it but on the MS3 1.5" lower in the front will give more negative camber. Something like 0.4 degrees. Would be interesting to measure the exact camber gain / loss on the MS3. Easy enough to do. Just through in the shocks without springs and measure at a few points from fully decompressed to bump.

[IE.SD.Manny]

I'm loving all this info.
Subbed.

Here is a hatch view of a Grand Am Gen2 Speed3.
Might help determine what needs to be done to stiffen up a street driven MS3 with braces or may start another argument.

picplz_upload | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

picplz_upload | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[TRex]

^no it only shows the best way to do it as Nliiitend1 said....you can see where they welded it into the floor

i still think it stands that the trunk BOLT in bracing is meh