GReddy strut tower bar installed
 

I just got the front and rear strut bars from greddy here are some pics i no i no the engine is dirty and there is 16 inchs of snow on the ground. and i have one more set if someone wants them send me a pm i got them for 190.00 each not to bad i thought

nice looking. indeed, clean that car dude~!! i haven't been able to wash my car in almost 2 weeks. it pisses me off...i hate snow

Forgive me in advance. . .
What is the benefit of replacing the stock bar with your new one?
Is it a "look" or is there some significant enhancement as a result?
Thanks,
Dave

Where did you procure these from?

I like it. I might be asking too much, but does the engine cover fit back on? I guess I could hack away at the cover. Any pics of the rear bar?

no pics of the back bar yet to much snow out side way to cold and not to sure how to install the rear as i cant read the dir. the cover fits back on shows where to cut a small part out but it fit just fine. i got it from trust. when the turbo goes on as soon as the mgt info comes so i can do my taxes the cover will be replaced with the greddy cover neway

wow just took a look at the pics again dame that is dirty i am so ashamed :(

yeah, what vendor did you buy them from?

It looks like a clown exploded in your engine bay... :) Do you plan on color coding eventually?

Good looking strut bar!

BTW, nice intake..........

The stock bar does next to nothing...it is more of an aesthetic piece...it's a flimsy piece of aluminum...anything is better than the stock bar...

What do you base your opinions on? Why do you think the stock bar does nothing? Do you understand what the function of and loads on the front strut bar are? Also, actually, I beleive stock is steel not aluminium, and the stock one isn't very aesthetic IMO, I believe that it was not one of it's designer's goals.

I think people buy new bars for asthetics. If all they cared about was stiffness they would probably take a better look at the lower underbraces which should make a much bigger difference in stiffness.

Actually I'd say that the stock bar is the better design from a stiffness standpoint.
A lot of strutbars (including that Greddy) have joints, which reduces the stiffness of any strut. I'd consider this a design flaw. Just imagine a baseball bat with a joint, would you buy it or do you think you could hit any harder?

no vedndor has them yet i went to jap to get them. not litlerly but i sent for them. ya engine is dirty i no. covers were my paint exp. until carbon fiber comes out or greddy makes something.

Show us the rear bar please!! I really wonder how it looks... a friend told me it doesn't use up trunk space. Photos please...

Front looks nice but it doesn't have the brake cylinder support the MS has...

^^what he said...i woudl love to see the rear one:D

I would like to buy the rear bar.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1.../rearstrut.jpg
from https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...ghlight=greedy

Carbon fiber covers have been out for a long time now, check this site for pics of mine...
[url]

WOW that rear strut is amazing. he was right!!
Notears316 where can I get cf covers like yours?
thanks:)

www.hookupshop.com

are they over lays or replacement covers

You and XeRo are both not understanding how a strut bar is loaded. Try reading this http://www.e30m3performance.com/myth...bar_theory.htm

It is a little technical but you'll get the picture. Bottom line, unless the bar bends thereby shortening its length from compression loads, or breaks from the pulling load (highly unlikely), the bar will work.

"What a strut bar does is tie the two strut towers together so that they share the load applied at the outer tower. This gives you twice as much [chassis] material to deal with the same cornering force and helps reduce fatigue stress in this [the strut tower] area. "

So what's your point? I just said that a joint will reduce the stiffness of the strut bar, I didn't say it won't work.

My point is: Don't make a joint where it's not required. The strut bar does not move like a suspension arm. The joint just adds complexity, weight and reduces stiffness. A good design is always as simple as possible.

Not trying to be confrontational, but the "point is" - I believe almost everything you have said about strut bars is incorrect. For me it was a bit to get a good understanding of the geometry required here, but I think what I'm telling you is correct. I want to understand this myself, just because their are so many different looking and different designed strut bars out there. So which are good, and which are inferior or cosmetic upgrade only? Explaining it helps us all understand it better, at least that what the forum should be about.

**That's the point of this discussion** not to flame you! :)

Most of understanding problem is semantics and understanding the difference between construction of the 'strut bar" and how it must function. The generic term "strut bar" by nature of it's design really consists of two pieces... the tower connection, and the bar. This is the case unless you could physically put holes in a straight bar and attach it to the tower area direectly. Unfortunately, usually you can't do this.

- the joint does not reduce the functional 'stiffness' of the strut bar. The 'joint' area connection with the 'bar' is not part of the 'stiffness' equation affecting loads and handling. The bar material is the only 'stiffness' that matters, given that the strut tower connection is sufficiently strong as a joining point.

- only the stiffness of the bar in pulling and compression loads is important. So if the bar bends (not the joint area which is screwed tight to the strut tower) that is bad. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. Having a 'joint' does not in and of itself reduce or contribute to the bars stiffness in compression and in pulling, but the material and shape of the bar does.

- the connection between the bar and the tower connector can be welded solid or be a joint. It doesn't effect the strut bar function given they are engineered to the forces they must withstand. Many bars are jointed - look at the MazdaSpeed one, for example, why would MazdaSpeed (and may other reputable companies) create a worse than stiock bar - they wouldn't.

- your saying the joint is more complex. It depends I guess, welding, setting up an accurate jig, that's pretty complex. Simple assemble is well, pretty un-complex. In any case, the joint does have advantages. 1st, you can assemble it easily. 2nd, assembly allows making the bar itself of a completely different material than the tower connector... like steel or aluminum at the tower, and aluminum or carbon fiber for the bar, etc. It is difficult/impossible to weld these materials obviously. This can result in weight savings, not gain. 3rd, you can un-connect the bar and lift it up for easiler engine access, if needed, rather than disassembling the bar from the tower. These are some really nice advantages!

- just considering the joint itself, why would a screw and a nut be more weighty than welding. It's likey a tossup at worst.
- agreed a good design should be as simple as possible, but if a better design is a little more complex, then that is as simple as the better design can be.

If this makes sense to you - Great! Otherwise, feel free to blow holes in it. Thanks.