Springs, braces or swaybars? Which is best?

[jmrtsus]

So you think a torsion beam is high performance? Lol good night.

Considering it it light as a feather, inexpensive and does a fantastic job stock then yes ours is a high performance beam. It is the Colin Chapman (Lotus) theory of going fast........"add lightness". He actually paid his engineers for each kilo they could remove without sacrificing strength or rigidity. That is the high performance aspect of it. Light, cheap and works well. More $$ and weight will do better. The greatest attribute to the FiST's performance IS the "added lightness".

 

[dailybean]

I have gone over this subject many times, but the weight of the vehicle is supported at the spring perches at all 4 corners. On the rear, the springs are mounted on perches at the frame rail under the hatch floor. The rear of the vehicle exerts force on the spring and the spring pushes forces back into the perch. It equally applies force on the rear suspension, which has the opposite perch. The springs sit vertically and the forces are vertical. Under cornering, a small horizontal force is induced into the spring as the rear beam rotates around the rear roll center. Given the short height of the springs, this horizontal moment is pretty small. Any horizontal force is transmitted into the spring perch and the frame rail. That force is distributed into the unibody. The minimal horizontal force puts the hatch floor into compression. The geometry of the rear floor includes a number of surfaces that affect the MOI, increasing the stiffness. Ok, so that covers the rear springs. There are no braces for the rear spring perches.

Oh wait, there are braces for the rear shocks. Ok, lets break down the rear shock area. The shocks are mounted to the twist beam and to the chassis inside a box section that is welded to the hatch floor and the inner quarter panel. The shocks are mounted vertically. The compression force in the shock exerts an equal and opposite force on the shock mount. The force direction is vertical. There is a bushing of some compliant material at both ends of the shock. This allows for some articulation as the suspension rolls. The bushing acts like a compression spring. When the vehicle is in a roll state, the vertical forces receive a horizontal component. The bushing allows the shock to deflect and provides a spring force on the shock. The horizontal force exerted on the chassis at the shock mount is transmitted into the box section of the mount and into the unibody. In order to deflect the box section of the rear shock mount, the inner quarter panel must also deflect, which is welded to the entire unibody, meaning the horizontal shock force needs to be great enough to a large portion of the unibody in order to require bracing to prevent deflection. But wait, none of the vehicle load is passed through the shock! It is passed through the spring. The spring carries the load and shock dampens the spring forces. But there is a horizontal spring force during roll! Yes, but given the low vertical force of the shock compared to the spring, the horizontal component is pretty much nothing. Any deflection caused by the horizontal component is taken up by the compliant bushings. In order for the rear trunk brace to counteract any horizontal forces caused by the shock, the shock's horizontal component must be great enough to fully compress the bushing creating a direct load transfer to the shock mount (the one on the shock assembly) and then transferred to the chassis shock mount along with applying a shear load on the fasteners. Now, if you have ever taken the rear shocks off a Fiesta, you will see how incredibly small the upper shock screws are. Meaning they aren't designed for a great deal of load. Since shear is a weak strength condition for a bolt, if the engineers saw a high shear load, they would need to increase the fastener size. Bolts and screws do much better in compression and tension loading. The small fasteners is a clear indication the loads at the chassis mount are vertical, placing the fasteners into a compression and tension load condition, where they are much happier. Take a look at the shock mount at the twist beam, it is way bigger! Why, well, the shock puts the bolt into shear, so a bigger fastener is needed.

For the rear trunk brace to do anything in a roll condition, there needs to be enough horizontal load exerted into the chassis to deflect a large section of the unibody. Given the HSLA steel that was used in the construction of the Fiesta (if you know your Fiesta history, you will know that Ford had to design new blades for the jaws of life in order to cut through the unibody since it had a far higher grade of steel than what was being used at the time for car construction), the small size of the upper shock fasteners, the minimal horizontal force exerted on the chassis from the shocks, and the fact that the vehicle load is transmitted through the spring perch under the frame rail, it is highly unlikely a trunk brace offers any significant strength in the chassis due to cornering forces. Wait, how are cornering forces generated? Tires. A typical summer tire won't produce enough traction to create enough cornering force to deflect the unibody construction. The cornering force must be transmitted through the tire, which has some absorption into the tire carcass, then into the wheel, which deflects and absorbs some of the force, into the wheel bearings, into the twist beam, then through the soft rubber bushings, and then finally into the chassis. But racecars uses braces. Yes, they also use tires that produce far more cornering force and use solid bushings that transmit forces much greater than soft rubber. They are also designed for a greater level of chassis rigidity to take advantage of the stiffer suspension, bushings, cornering forces, increased safety due to the far higher speeds and forces exerted in a crash, and are driven by drivers who can actually feel the difference in suspension and chassis tuning.

But deflection is bad! Yes, chassis deflection is bad. Since none of the rear suspension pick-up points are located in the trunk, the forces aren't transmitted through the trunk area in order to cause enough deflection to alter the suspension geometry. There is far more bushing deflection that alters the suspension geometry. The stiffness of the rubber bushing is far less than a steel section with lots of geometry to create a higher MOI.

So, tell me how a trunk brace is going to decrease the deflection on the unibody when it requires a high amount of horizontal forces exerted on it to place it in compression or tension (because that is where a single beam is the strongest), the forces are transmitted into the frame rail under the hatch floor, and there are 6 rubber bushings with a high degree of compliance deflecting under load?

As for my paper on the wall, I am sure you don't listen to doctors since they have a paper on their wall. You don't think pilots should fly you around the sky with their paper on the wall. Let a lawyer defend you in court with their paper on the wall. You don't know the amount of work I had to put into that fucking piece of paper, so don't tell me it means nothing.

Great explanation. This is my first experience with a solid rear axle in a car (I’ve spent plenty of time building truck rears but for a much different purpose). From this point I think we can ignore Alex. Is there anything that would cause the torsion bar or traction bar not to do anything? There is a huge difference in how the front end behaves in my car now for the better with traction and wheels hop. The idea behind it sounds pretty sound but like I said, I’m in chemistry not automotive engineering. I would be really surprised that bracing the lower control arms does nothing given the very noticeable difference. Also, thoughts on the torsion bar? I did the trunk brace at the same time as the torsion bar after hearing several people’s positive feedback but maybe only the torsion bar is doing the work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRGT350]

Great explanation. This is my first experience with a solid rear axle in a car (I’ve spent plenty of time building truck rears but for a much different purpose). From this point I think we can ignore Alex. Is there anything that would cause the torsion bar or traction bar not to do anything? There is a huge difference in how the front end behaves in my car now for the better with traction and wheels hop. The idea behind it sounds pretty sound but like I said, I’m in chemistry not automotive engineering. I would be really surprised that bracing the lower control arms does nothing given the very noticeable difference. Also, thoughts on the torsion bar? I did the trunk brace at the same time as the torsion bar after hearing several people’s positive feedback but maybe only the torsion bar is doing the work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assume the torsion bar is the one that gets added to the rear twist beam to increase the stiffness? If so, then yes, that will make a big difference as it increases the rear beam stiffness. It increases the wheel rate, much like increasing spring rate and tire pressure, except it only acts in roll. Making the twist beam stiffer will make the car more prone to oversteer and will rotate easier.

As for the front, the brace that connects around the subframe probably works well. The reason is that it uses the factory pick-up points and just increases the cross sectional area of the subframe. With a high amount of forces being transmitted through the subframe, I can completely agree that it works. Bushing deflection is still your biggest problem. As the bushing deflects under load, it changes the position of the suspension. If you went with stiffer bushings and the front chassis brace, the improvements would be very noticeable. Wheel hop is a function of torque and bushings. The bushings are springs, so they compress and extend under load. A big part of the wheel hop equation is the torque creating a load on the bushing until it is compressed and when traction is lost, the bushing quickly loses it's compressive force and extends very quickly. It then oscillates between compression and extension and that gets amplified to make the wheel hop. What is odd about wheel hop is that you can spin the tires, meaning there is no traction, but there isn't any wheel hop. I think that is due to the rapid loss of traction creating the bushing to oscillate. The RMM greatly reduces wheel hop, and I am sure stiffer control arm bushings will make a difference. Given the cornering, braking, and acceleration forces up front, the brace that attaches to the subframe has to work. It is also triangulated, so another good reason to consider it.

Bushings are something that most people overlook. They play a far bigger role in the suspension that most people think. I spent a few years doing nothing but bushing studies and learned a great deal. I know that doesn't count for anything here since real world testing and experience don't matter.

Even being a chemical engineer, you understand the scientific approach to problem solving. You understanding generating a hypothesis, modeling, testing, and evaluation. It is the same process in mechanical engineering. For the braces, I considered the hypothesis that they do work as advertised. I then break down the forces applied. I evaluate the forces using a Free Body Diagram (even though I don't have the actual forces, I can still look at force directions). I check the results against the hypothesis. I check that against experience I have had with other suspension products and look around the car for clues. Then I make a final determination. Of course, being a theory, I am always open to evidence to support or counter my hypothesis. I don't rule out there is something I missed on the trunk brace. I just haven't seen anything that confirms or counters it. The rear-end-o-meter does suggest I am wrong, but it takes much more than that to provide a good counter. Lap times, strain readings, FBD, FEA, suspension deflection values, lateral-g measurements, or white papers would be good counter-arguments. The best would be to use a skidpad and a bi-directional strain gauge mounted in a number of points on the rear chassis, and then run with and without the brace in place. The strain gauge will indicate if the unibody deflection is changed with the brace. I would still argue that the amount the rear suspension deflects is still greater than the unibody deflection due to the bushing compliance. And even if the unibody deflects, it is the deflection of the suspension pick-up points that really matters. Competition Fiesta's use a steel bushing at the pick-up points rather than rubber or urethane. This is the only way to really eliminate unwanted suspension deflection. The end goal is keep the suspension in the correct alignment under load. To do that, you must remove the bushing deflection.

I have huge respect for chemical engineers! Chemistry wasn't one of my strong suits.

 

[alexrex20]

I know that doesn't count for anything here since real world testing and experience don't matter.

Well actually you are right this time because you have zero real-world experience with a Fiesta with braces. Lol

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[alexrex20]

Great explanation. This is my first experience with a solid rear axle in a car


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's actually not a solid axle. It's still a spring, just not the typical coil spring most people are used to. It's not much unlike a torsion bar on the front of many pickup trucks in the way it supports loads, except that it is connected to both tires instead of just one on like a truck. It can also be compared to the transverse leaf springs on Corvettes. But it certainly is not a solid axle. The two rear tires can move independent of one another.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[BRGT350]

Provides explanation as requested, get's no counter argument. Case closed.

 

[dailybean]

I assume the torsion bar is the one that gets added to the rear twist beam to increase the stiffness? If so, then yes, that will make a big difference as it increases the rear beam stiffness. It increases the wheel rate, much like increasing spring rate and tire pressure, except it only acts in roll. Making the twist beam stiffer will make the car more prone to oversteer and will rotate easier.

As for the front, the brace that connects around the subframe probably works well. The reason is that it uses the factory pick-up points and just increases the cross sectional area of the subframe. With a high amount of forces being transmitted through the subframe, I can completely agree that it works. Bushing deflection is still your biggest problem. As the bushing deflects under load, it changes the position of the suspension. If you went with stiffer bushings and the front chassis brace, the improvements would be very noticeable. Wheel hop is a function of torque and bushings. The bushings are springs, so they compress and extend under load. A big part of the wheel hop equation is the torque creating a load on the bushing until it is compressed and when traction is lost, the bushing quickly loses it's compressive force and extends very quickly. It then oscillates between compression and extension and that gets amplified to make the wheel hop. What is odd about wheel hop is that you can spin the tires, meaning there is no traction, but there isn't any wheel hop. I think that is due to the rapid loss of traction creating the bushing to oscillate. The RMM greatly reduces wheel hop, and I am sure stiffer control arm bushings will make a difference. Given the cornering, braking, and acceleration forces up front, the brace that attaches to the subframe has to work. It is also triangulated, so another good reason to consider it.

Bushings are something that most people overlook. They play a far bigger role in the suspension that most people think. I spent a few years doing nothing but bushing studies and learned a great deal. I know that doesn't count for anything here since real world testing and experience don't matter.

Even being a chemical engineer, you understand the scientific approach to problem solving. You understanding generating a hypothesis, modeling, testing, and evaluation. It is the same process in mechanical engineering. For the braces, I considered the hypothesis that they do work as advertised. I then break down the forces applied. I evaluate the forces using a Free Body Diagram (even though I don't have the actual forces, I can still look at force directions). I check the results against the hypothesis. I check that against experience I have had with other suspension products and look around the car for clues. Then I make a final determination. Of course, being a theory, I am always open to evidence to support or counter my hypothesis. I don't rule out there is something I missed on the trunk brace. I just haven't seen anything that confirms or counters it. The rear-end-o-meter does suggest I am wrong, but it takes much more than that to provide a good counter. Lap times, strain readings, FBD, FEA, suspension deflection values, lateral-g measurements, or white papers would be good counter-arguments. The best would be to use a skidpad and a bi-directional strain gauge mounted in a number of points on the rear chassis, and then run with and without the brace in place. The strain gauge will indicate if the unibody deflection is changed with the brace. I would still argue that the amount the rear suspension deflects is still greater than the unibody deflection due to the bushing compliance. And even if the unibody deflects, it is the deflection of the suspension pick-up points that really matters. Competition Fiesta's use a steel bushing at the pick-up points rather than rubber or urethane. This is the only way to really eliminate unwanted suspension deflection. The end goal is keep the suspension in the correct alignment under load. To do that, you must remove the bushing deflection.

I have huge respect for chemical engineers! Chemistry wasn't one of my strong suits.

Awesome thanks. Since I added the rear bracing I have enjoyed the added rotation as I enjoy oversteer in FWD platforms just for the fun factor. That combined with the higher spring rates have made this car even more of a blast to drive. As for the front end, I have no problems with wheel hop since the traction bar and CPE RMM have gone in. The only time I do is when it’s raining out it seems to happen only under very hard acceleration in 1st as it normally would. But on dry pavement either the wheels hook immediately or spin just a bit then grab, no hop. Is it because of the excessive loss of traction on wet roads that cause it to hop again? I’m curious to why I can’t get the wheels to jump even the slightest bit when I lose traction on a dry road. Maybe when I start adding power it will be a different story?

It's actually not a solid axle. It's still a spring, just not the typical coil spring most people are used to. It's not much unlike a torsion bar on the front of many pickup trucks in the way it supports loads, except that it is connected to both tires instead of just one on like a truck. It can also be compared to the transverse leaf springs on Corvettes. But it certainly is not a solid axle. The two rear tires can move independent of one another.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Forgive my wording. I understand the difference between them I just meant that the rear is not an independent setup. I didn’t mean it in terms of comparing it to a live or dead axle.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRGT350]

I don't have a great explanation on the wheel hop in the dry versus wet. I see the exact same thing with different FWD cars, different tires, and different modifications. I haven't tried a FWD car with stiffer control arm bushings to see if that changes it. On a RWD live axle platform, wheel hop was eliminated with urethane and solid steel bushings, however I haven't tested that in the wet. There is more to wheel hop than I have background on.

Think of the rear suspension on the Fiesta as a big sway bar with wheels stuck on the ends.

If you really want to get the car to rotate, dial in more left-foot braking in the trail braking area when the front wheels have already started the turn. The weight transfer unloads the rear and makes it rotate very easily. Best to try this on wet blacktop or snow to get the timing right. Try to stay on the gas while braking to prevent a load transfer back to the rear. You only have a few seconds of time to do this before the throttle cuts from the brake-throttle overlap programing.

 

[dailybean]

I don't have a great explanation on the wheel hop in the dry versus wet. I see the exact same thing with different FWD cars, different tires, and different modifications. I haven't tried a FWD car with stiffer control arm bushings to see if that changes it. On a RWD live axle platform, wheel hop was eliminated with urethane and solid steel bushings, however I haven't tested that in the wet. There is more to wheel hop than I have background on.

Think of the rear suspension on the Fiesta as a big sway bar with wheels stuck on the ends.

If you really want to get the car to rotate, dial in more left-foot braking in the trail braking area when the front wheels have already started the turn. The weight transfer unloads the rear and makes it rotate very easily. Best to try this on wet blacktop or snow to get the timing right. Try to stay on the gas while braking to prevent a load transfer back to the rear. You only have a few seconds of time to do this before the throttle cuts from the brake-throttle overlap programing.

Yea I used a lot of two footing in the Mazda to rotate it very easily. I got lucky that 2010 I believe was the only year they did not have the throttle cut programming while on the brake. 2011-2013 guys were complaining that they couldn’t brake boost the car from the factory like I could and driving with two feet in corners proved more difficult. That’s why I fell in love with my MS3, it was a very raw car and I don’t enjoy refinement because it doesn’t suit my personality. The fiesta isn’t about track performance although it has and will be run on tracks. It’s behavior is almost where I want it. Stage 2 power is next and I’m stopping there (for now).

Bushings are something I won’t be touching in the FiST, but are something I paid a lot of attention to while building my prerunner when I was learning how to build a high speed off road capable vehicle. I learned that they were overlooked a great deal from the amount of people that learned the hard way. With the help of a guy who engineered parts for my platform I built a very capable machine. Both my project trucks are gone now (the prerunner and my street-built truck) due to my family growing. The Fiesta was the perfect answer for a practical fun daily driver. I have ideas for another project truck but that’s far down the road and will only be used in a straight line


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[anticon]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I feel this thread has turned into a really good discussion of suspension components and how they are designed and work together and I appreciate all the information presented. I feel like this should be the type of information contained in the The-Official-Fiesta-ST-Suspension-Thread. It would be be really nice to have a thread that summarizes the various components of the suspension that connects the FiST to the road and how they interact together (e.g. Tires, wheels, springs, shocks, struts, bushings, front and rear suspension layout, connection points, bracing, uni-body, etc.). Diagrams would be really helpful too. This would give those considering suspension modifications an informative base to begin the mods. Any volunteers?...

I feel like a lot of times people get hung up on making more power as a first mod and it is easy to ignore the suspension because its just not flashy. Personally, I find the power to be enough for the roads I drive on and my driving style. I want the car to be as light and as responsive as possible and I think the suspension is probably the first place to start.

 

[Ford ST]

I use to watch a lot of Wheeler Dealers before they messed it up. A lot of the cars that were having handling issues, turned out to be worn out bushings.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

 

[ThaiFiesta]

For the braces, I considered the hypothesis that they do work as advertised. I then break down the forces applied. I evaluate the forces using a Free Body Diagram (even though I don't have the actual forces, I can still look at force directions). I check the results against the hypothesis. I check that against experience I have had with other suspension products and look around the car for clues. Then I make a final determination. Of course, being a theory, I am always open to evidence to support or counter my hypothesis. I don't rule out there is something I missed on the trunk brace. I just haven't seen anything that confirms or counters it. The rear-end-o-meter does suggest I am wrong, but it takes much more than that to provide a good counter. Lap times, strain readings, FBD, FEA, suspension deflection values, lateral-g measurements, or white papers would be good counter-arguments. The best would be to use a skidpad and a bi-directional strain gauge mounted in a number of points on the rear chassis, and then run with and without the brace in place. The strain gauge will indicate if the unibody deflection is changed with the brace.

Mishimoto did this when developing their trunk brace. The write is either on here or on their website, I forget which. They admitted there is very little deflection.

 

[BRGT350]

Mishimoto did this when developing their trunk brace. The write is either on here or on their website, I forget which. They admitted there is very little deflection.

I found the article and the brace removed 0.008 inches of material deflection. I would buy that given that there is a horizontal force component. Is $240 worth 0.008 inches of deflection decrease of a surface that doesn't locate the suspension pivots? Is $240 worth 0.008" deflection decrease when there is probably 0.25" of total deflection in all of the pivot bushings? For me, it is not. If you can feel the difference from 0.008" of less rear deflection, mad props to you, since I know I couldn't. For reference, the amount of deflection reduced is about the diameter of a human hair.

To a certain extent, I will accept I was wrong by saying the trunk brace does nothing, however, is 0.008" of unibody displacement really significant when looking at the entire system? I don't think so. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more movement from thermal expansion of the vehicle.

Thanks for suggesting the article and it was nice to read some actual data. I do find the resolution on their graphs to be funny. If you adjust the scaling, you can really make a small delta look huge! I am not going to lie and say I haven't done the same thing when trying to prove a point. Mishimoto did do testing and posted the results, I do appreciate their effort.

 

[dailybean]

Mishimoto did this when developing their trunk brace. The write is either on here or on their website, I forget which. They admitted there is very little deflection.

Awesome I never saw that before. The trunk brace was free (it’s a pierce I think they’re like 90-100 dollars) from a friend or recently turned his leased FiST in so since it’s not hurting anything I’ll leave it in. Two of my coworkers/friends have had them and both took my car out and were surprised at the difference from their stock suspension. We have a really good test road around the corner with some fun corners. I can say with confidence that you don’t need to push the fiesta very hard at all to notice a big difference with the traction bar on. The torsion bar take a little more effort to feel the change but it’s definitely noticeable even on the street. The traction and torsion bars I bought myself were from Daniel at TB Performance which is right up the with Ron from Whoosh as being one of the best companies I’ve dealt with. If you are planning on buying a trunk brace, with the data and information given I would say skip that and put the money towards something else then. Does anyone have any actual data or input about the front rower brace? I have no plans for one but I’ve heard it does practically nothing on this platform and that has me curious...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRGT350]

The strut tower brace may have some benefit as the towers do support the vehicle load and are angled inwards, meaning there is both a horizontal and vertical component to the forces. Since it isn't triangulated back to the firewall and the close proximity of the towers to the firewall, the impact of the brace will be minimal. From a design standpoint, it stand to reason that it would work. If it was me, I would put that money in other places. Grippier tires, higher quality dampers, higher stiffness bushings, driver schools, and lightweight wheels is where I would put my money. That is if I was going to really make a big impact on the track. For the street, tires and dampers.

 

[jeff]

Wow lots of egos here.
[MENTION=9582]dailybean[/MENTION], you are a true gentleman and an example to us all.

I’ve said this elsewhere but I’ll repeat briefly, as someone who will be honest and has/had all these mods in question. The lower front brace will make a very significant difference, the more mounting points the better. The lower rear torsion beam makes a slight improvement. The upper strut bar is imho a waste unless you track the car. You really have to drive dangerously on the street to feel it working and that’s a bad idea. That’s why I sold mine. As for the trunk brace, again zero difference you can feel. I would have sold mine but I got it used for $50 and it’s not worth it to remove it and pay shipping, so it sits in my car still installed, doing nothing. Well maybe + 0.008!!!

 

[alexrex20]

Forgive my wording. I understand the difference between them I just meant that the rear is not an independent setup. I didn’t mean it in terms of comparing it to a live or dead axle.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is still 100% an independent rear suspension. The torsion beam acts as more of a sway bar than anything else.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[alexrex20]

I’ve said this elsewhere but I’ll repeat briefly, as someone who will be honest and has/had all these mods in question. The lower front brace will make a very significant difference, the more mounting points the better. The lower rear torsion beam makes a slight improvement. The upper strut bar is imho a waste unless you track the car. You really have to drive dangerously on the street to feel it working and that’s a bad idea. That’s why I sold mine. As for the trunk brace, again zero difference you can feel. I would have sold mine but I got it used for $50 and it’s not worth it to remove it and pay shipping, so it sits in my car still installed, doing nothing. Well maybe + 0.008!!!

That's impossible. Certain self proclaimed suspension experts have proven that the Fiesta does not benefit from bracing. Case closed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[BRGT350]

That's impossible. Certain self proclaimed suspension experts have proven that the Fiesta does not benefit from bracing. Case closed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Dude, have you read anything? I claimed one brace did nothing significant, and that is supported by research and testimonials. I said the other braces do have functional purpose. Increasing the stiffness of the twist beam would induce more oversteer, which helps the car rotate. The traction brace would reduce the subframe deflection. The upper strut tower brace may have some, but limited benefit. I never said what you are claiming. You have been nothing but combative.

As for being an expert, Ford did list me as a Fiesta Expert on the Virtual Launch Team. So, that does give me some accreditation.

 

[dailybean]

It is still 100% an independent rear suspension. The torsion beam acts as more of a sway bar than anything else.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

To be an “independent” rear, the wheels would have to not be “dependent” on each other’s position. Since they are linked by a solid structure and are not independently adjustable and both are affected when force is applied to either of them it would not be “100% an independent” rear.

Wow lots of egos here.
[MENTION=9582]dailybean[/MENTION], you are a true gentleman and an example to us all.

I’ve said this elsewhere but I’ll repeat briefly, as someone who will be honest and has/had all these mods in question. The lower front brace will make a very significant difference, the more mounting points the better. The lower rear torsion beam makes a slight improvement. The upper strut bar is imho a waste unless you track the car. You really have to drive dangerously on the street to feel it working and that’s a bad idea. That’s why I sold mine. As for the trunk brace, again zero difference you can feel. I would have sold mine but I got it used for $50 and it’s not worth it to remove it and pay shipping, so it sits in my car still installed, doing nothing. Well maybe + 0.008!!!

Thanks man. That’s the kind of feedback we need here. After looking up videos from [MENTION=1313]BRGT350[/MENTION] I can say that I am really impressed with his knowledge and background. As a newcomer to the platform, others will have far more information and experience with this particular vehicle, but sharing general knowledge as a whole is what makes for good, informative discussions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk