Nice!!!! Looks great, now let us know when u do some spirited driving.

 

Dave, I know what a strut brace does. Thanks. Not really though...

 

 

I'm just posing some questions here.

The way this bar mounts is nothing that I've quite seen before. It mounts with two small bolts (12mm?) on either side of the tower; however, the supposed strength is coming from the bar simply wedging itself between the towers. The bolts go into fairly flimsy pieces of sheet metal and their only real purpose appears to keep the bar from popping out. Most strut tower braces mount directly to the top of strut tower, usually sharing the same bolts associated with the strut/shock.

Coupe


Sedan


In the linked thread, the RareJDM guys say the bar increasing rigidity and traction. They also go on to say that you shouldn't apply too much preload because you could run the risk of damaging and denting the strut tower sheet metal. While I don't think that's really possible, it does the raise the question of their intended design since they've choosen to brace the side of the tower instead of the top. First off, I'm not a structural engineer, but I am an engineer therefore I am always curious as to how and why designs are the way they are. Now I think the reason RJDM went with this design is because locking the towers at the top simply isn't feasible due to clearance problems. However this design appears to be incorrect because it doesn't take into consideration the twisting of the chassis. Under load the chassis/structure twists. Rarely do the tower bend inwards at the same time which about all this bar appears to address. In order to limit chassis twist, the towers must rigidly connected (ie welded). The Z has it's towers rigidly joined with a fairly robust boxed brace. The G coupe/sedan, have similiar rear bracing, but it doesn't entirely include the tower as part of the equation. The bracing comes from the rear seat panel and the rear parcel shelf. Another thing to remember is that the G/Z use a very robust suspension/drivetrain subframe which houses nearly all the suspension components. Most RWD cars, especially in this price range, don't remotely as beefy design and it's clear where Nissan focused their development costs when designing these first gen cars. The point I'm making is that if you're having traction, sway, or handling problems, most of the problem will lie in this subframe.

After reading through the RJDM "teaser" thread, I couldn't find any information about testing done to confirm that this bar is working. By testing, I mean handling tests like skidpad, slalom, auto-x, etc or more technical tests like chassis load (highly doubtful they have the equipment for this).

With all this said, the quality and execution appears to be top notch. While IMO, I doubt this bar would help much, I sure it will sell quite well even at the rather steep price of $350. If the modification makes you think you're a better driver or instills confidence, then it's a good modification.

 

I'm not really feeling the location of the bar. I do like the finish of it and it looks like a quality piece.

In my experience, both rear and front strut bars do little for chassis stiffness. I do have an adjustable panhard bar on my other car and it has helped to center the rear after lowering and maintain the center at all times.

 

F-Body?

 

I like the idea and I reserve comment until I test one BUT I agree with Dave here. The mounting points using 8-10mm screws is done for install convenience vs making the mounting points as sturdy as they could be. Perhaps if they created a mount that resisted motion of the bracket in all axis (up/down/in/out), the screws wouldn't be so critical.

But Dave, I had Matt's bar in the back of my 3-gen. But it was mounted on top of the strut towers like the front FSTB: I could feel a small difference.

 

Yes.

Also, I don't see how bracing in the trunk of the car would help. I'd think that a better location would be in the subframe.

 

Maybe the reason I didn't feel much of anything in my Maxima was because the 4th gen had a bit stiffer structure than the 3rd gen? I removed the bar after a couple years use then added welded in subframe connectors. Wow! Now that made a huge difference in handling and chassis rigidity.

 

While this is a great looking piece, I don't personally see how its going to add much rigidity to the chassis in that configuration. The strut towers are more likely to flex like a shoe box with an open top being twisted at the ends than compressing along the center section. I haven't stripped down my car yet as I've only had it a month or so, but the location of the "thru bolts" in the tower look like they are attaching to sheet metal, which is not a stress carrying material for the most part. If attachment to this piece is the best option we have, I'd consider looking into an angled X-brace to reduce torsion. Just my 2 cents....

 

I'd consider just take a piece of 1" thick walled steel tubing and weld it to the shock tower. $20 bar and 1 hr of weld labor ($100). When it comes to selling the car and returning to "stock", sawsall the bar and reinstall the truck covering. No one would know.

 

Of course everyone on here is welcome to express their opinion, but until you have actually tried a product first hand, it's just that, an opinion. Just fyi, we have tested this piece on numerous autocross courses, and on road courses (Autoclub Speedway, Willow Springs, and Buttonwillow), and it definitely makes the rear of the car more predictable and stable.

Another interesting thing to note, before the bars release we sent the final version to our contact at Nissan Japan, one of the original engineers for the suspension on the G35. After completing his testing on and off track, he is still running the bar on his sedan with nothing but positive feedback.

While on the street I think the effects of this bar are less dramatic... on the track where you are constantly switching between corners very aggressively, the bar keeps flex between the shock towers at a minimum. As we've said before, welding in a bar with no rod ends is definitely the best option. However, there are not too many people that are willing to lose the trunk interior panels and have a bar welded in place, so we needed a solution.

The purpose of this bar is to stiffen up the rear end, make it easy enough to bolt on for the average person, and have the ability to replace all trunk panels after install. As mentioned above, the 2 smaller bolts are only there to aid in install and prevent the brackets from any slight rotation under load. Once the bar is installed and preloaded, the bar and brackets will not move. We are confident that our bar actually does what it's intended to do, and is not just a cosmetic piece.

We attend many track events (schedule is on the rarejdm site) and welcome anyone to come over and check out the bars in person. We usually bring out 1 sedan and 1 coupe demo bar, and are willing to install it in your car and let you try it on the track for a run or 2, that way you can judge the part yourself.

 

very nice mike, looks like a high qulaity piece and I like your personal touch to it.

 

IMHO, the only issue that most people have is the bracket mount. Which could be welded in. If used with the adjustable rod end in your picture shouldn't take up more room if the bar is removed and the mounts are left.

Secondary issue would be the adjust mount itself but I never commented on it. A wider mount would be nicer IMHO.

 

Definitely, the mounts are steel and could be easily welded in by the end user. By offering it as bolt in though, the part becomes an option for a much larger group.

As for the width of the mount, we went through a few revisions of the bar and mounts before settling on the final design. We tested different sized brackets, and honestly anything larger than what we currently have didn't do anything but add weight. With the current configuration, the brackets effectively distribute the load throughout the width of the shock towers.