rear strut tower bar functionality (does it really make a difference?)

[kenchan]

Originally Posted by solbrothers

i wish the rear swaybar were thicker so it would create MORE OVERSTEER!!!!!. also, i want more camber in the front.

i think a lot of the understeer comes from the front tires being straight up, while the rear tires have some camber, resulting in better cornering grip in the rear.

in that cause it'll be easier to add more neg camber to the front, no?

[solbrothers]

yes it would. when i get my coilovers, i'll be getting a camber kit for the front. i want more negative camber.

[revd34]

thanks for the pics of the rear strut tower bar.

[radareclipse]

Your welcome. I believe the Cusco bar was around $160 plus freight. I can't think who I bought it from right now but I would recognize the name if I heard it. Seems like somebody in Illinois/Michigan with a warehouse in California.
It's a gorgeous piece. The bracketing is really diesel even thou it doesn't attach to the strut housing/panel.

[solbrothers]

yeah, the cusco looks good. would be even better if it attached to teh strut as well. IMO

[kenchan]

cusco's in IL. you can get them through bulletproofautomotive.com.

for those in IL, that's one day delivery via ground.

[mahout]

[quote=kenchan;315765]i suppose if you are running upper pillow mounts, which i think wat
you mean.

I have no idea what a pillow mount is. My shock piston rods are located laterally by clamping a nut in the seat at the top of the shock tower. There are 2 elastic 'washers' to protect the shock upper mount in the event of a sudden jounce or rebound. The suspension action depends on the location of the shock centerline being fixed in relation to the wheel. The usual use of a strut bar is to locate the shock tower so it doesn't deform when the body and chassis twist under cornering loads. Up until maybe 5 to 10 years ago that that serious business and all competition cars had strut bars. Nowdays chassis engineering is so good, thanks to advanced computers, that strut bars are virtually unnecessary for vehicles under 250 hp as there just isn't enough torque to even come close to twisting a chassis. But as always if a strut bar is desired, locating the top of the shock piston rod is more accurate than locating the shock tower. There can still be distortion between the tower and the shock piston rod.
But like I said, a Fit doesn't need one.

[Fitting]

It look like you could actually run dual rear stb from the way the Cusco is mounted. Something like the Aspec rear stb with the mounting brackets that raise up oever the struts might fit over the Cusco. Would be interesting to see and how it would affect the car.

[kenchan]

pillow mounts are metal mounts with a bearing which eliminates the
use of rubber mounts.


and the rest of the chassis thing. i agree to a certain amount, but
you can't just put a hp number to distinguish if a car needs a stb or
not. "needed" or not, it is more of a feed back preference thing for me.
and the front was a night/day differnce when running the DF210's.

i haven't taken it off since the endura-techs so dont know how much
of a difference it makes at the moment. the e-tech's are pretty soft.

Originally Posted by mahout

I have no idea what a pillow mount is. My shock piston rods are located laterally by clamping a nut in the seat at the top of the shock tower. There are 2 elastic 'washers' to protect the shock upper mount in the event of a sudden jounce or rebound. The suspension action depends on the location of the shock centerline being fixed in relation to the wheel. The usual use of a strut bar is to locate the shock tower so it doesn't deform when the body and chassis twist under cornering loads. Up until maybe 5 to 10 years ago that that serious business and all competition cars had strut bars. Nowdays chassis engineering is so good, thanks to advanced computers, that strut bars are virtually unnecessary for vehicles under 250 hp as there just isn't enough torque to even come close to twisting a chassis. But as always if a strut bar is desired, locating the top of the shock piston rod is more accurate than locating the shock tower. There can still be distortion between the tower and the shock piston rod.
But like I said, a Fit doesn't need one.

[Sugarphreak]

Rear strut tower bar looks sweet R.E., thumbs up for that

I have the BE rear C-Pillar strut which I do feel does stiffens up the rear around long high speed corners. Other than that I can't feel any difference for that bar.

I also run the J's racing front strut in combination with the BE front sway. These really perform!! I got good results trying it out on the track, car does tend to want to under steer but it easily holds through the corners. It does feel a bit more twitchy than before though.

Right now I feel way more limited by the tires than the suspension when I push the car.

[radareclipse]

Yep, here's the Cusco from Bulletproof. That's where I got it.
Bulletproof Automotive
I also have the J's front strut under the hood, the T1R lower bar in the front chassis, the Progress rear sway bar and I have the J's bar for the rear roof but I'm too lazy/afraid I'll mess up my expensive headliner.

[revd34]

Originally Posted by radareclipse

Yep, here's the Cusco from Bulletproof. That's where I got it.
Bulletproof Automotive
I also have the J's front strut under the hood, the T1R lower bar in the front chassis, the Progress rear sway bar and I have the J's bar for the rear roof but I'm too lazy/afraid I'll mess up my expensive headliner.

are you talking about the J's racing crossbar? people on the forum told it won't fit the usdm honda fit cause the seat belt for the middle passanger back seat gets in the way. i really interested though if you can actually mount it or not. let me know how it goes