TCP Shock Tower support with monte carlo bar

[Alan_Mac 48]

My 70 mach1 has a 1 piece Shelby shock tower brace and no monte carlo bar. I was thinking of stripping the clear anodize off the TCP full assembly setup and then have it black anodized for a more stock look. Or I could keep my 1 piece shock tower brace and just add the monte carlo bar. Does anyone have any experience wit the TCP setup? Feedback is appreciated http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/download/datasheets/TWRB_DS_WEB.pdf

[Alan_Mac 48]

My 70 mach1 has a 1 piece Shelby shock tower brace and no monte carlo bar. I was thinking of stripping the clear anodize off the TCP full assembly setup and then have it black anodized for a more stock look. Or I could keep my 1 piece shock tower brace and just add the monte carlo bar. Does anyone have any experience wit the TCP setup? Feedback is appreciated http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/download/datasheets/TWRB_DS_WEB.pdf

[j69302 11]

I'm not a fan of TCP's shock tower brace system, or any other companies design that uses adjustable rod ends in the system.

 

Rod ends have spherical bearings that are designed to allow rotation and side to side movement. Why would you introduce multiple flex points to a system that is supposed to be rigid?

 

And I have spent lots and lots of money with TCP's stuff. They do make very nice products. But in this case I am not sold on it.

 

I believe a one piece unit like this would be better. http://www.maierracing.com/pnms2200.html

 

However even with that, I feel that it can flex upward as it uses round tubing everywhere. The factory type export brace is stamped and has all of the ridges in it which will resist movement in every direction.

 

I would keep the factory export brace, and install a one piece monte carlo bar, such as this one instead

http://www.maierracing.com/pnms2204.html

 

I really like how this monte carlo bar is one piece, and bolts to the top of the shock towers instead of just in front of them on the inner fender apron.

 

You should be able to install this monte carlo bar underneath the export brace without any issue. The only downside I see is that it will not be as easily removed if you need to work on your engine.

Edited June 29, 2013 by j69302

[j69302 11]

I'm not a fan of TCP's shock tower brace system, or any other companies design that uses adjustable rod ends in the system.

 

Rod ends have spherical bearings that are designed to allow rotation and side to side movement. Why would you introduce multiple flex points to a system that is supposed to be rigid?

 

And I have spent lots and lots of money with TCP's stuff. They do make very nice products. But in this case I am not sold on it.

 

I believe a one piece unit like this would be better. http://www.maierracing.com/pnms2200.html

 

However even with that, I feel that it can flex upward as it uses round tubing everywhere. The factory type export brace is stamped and has all of the ridges in it which will resist movement in every direction.

 

I would keep the factory export brace, and install a one piece monte carlo bar, such as this one instead

http://www.maierracing.com/pnms2204.html

 

I really like how this monte carlo bar is one piece, and bolts to the top of the shock towers instead of just in front of them on the inner fender apron.

 

You should be able to install this monte carlo bar underneath the export brace without any issue. The only downside I see is that it will not be as easily removed if you need to work on your engine.

Edited June 29, 2013 by j69302

[Alan_Mac 48]

The structural weakness in the ford shock tower design is the shock towers can flex inward. A three point brace design will correct this. The analogy of flexing a shoe box with and without the cover is a good example. Assuming good frame rail, radiator support, torque box, etc... integrity, I disagree that an adjustable end link design will introduce additional flex points.

[Mach 351 10]

I recently just went through an incident where my front left tire came off while driving after a shops vehicle inspection. Apparently not tightening the lug nuts is a more common mistake than I realized before the accident. Anyway, I completely credit my sub-frame connectors and TCP setup for isolating the damage to just a new fender, rotor disc, and cosmetic damage. You can’t beat the testimony of a car skidding down the road on its disc brake and not suffering ANY other damage. The insurance guys were amazed.

 

I also like the fact that I can adjust the position of my Monte Carlo bar (fore/aft) to accommodate my engine components. You have several inches of play to work around your distributor, A/C compressor, etc...

[xplane 10]

I was thinking of stripping the clear anodize off the TCP full assembly setup and then have it black anodized for a more stock look.

 

That is exactly what I did, everything aluminum was anodized black. I applied this treatment to the TCP power steering reservoir. I am going for the low key, no chrome, and no gloss under the hood.

[Alan_Mac 48]

Mach351, wow, that attests to the strength of the TCP braces.

 

xplane, I would love to see a picture of your brace and engine compartment.

[xplane 10]

xplane, I would love to see a picture of your brace and engine compartment.

 

Engine bay isn't complete, but will post pictures as it comes together.

[j69302 11]

I recently just went through an incident where my front left tire came off while driving after a shops vehicle inspection. Apparently not tightening the lug nuts is a more common mistake than I realized before the accident. Anyway, I completely credit my sub-frame connectors and TCP setup for isolating the damage to just a new fender, rotor disc, and cosmetic damage. You can’t beat the testimony of a car skidding down the road on its disc brake and not suffering ANY other damage. The insurance guys were amazed.

 

 

I was out of town and being stupid one day through some mountain roads, rear end came out, I hit the inside of the mountain at about 45 MPH at a 45 degree angle. I have the factory export brace (cheap thin one) and the reproduction monte carlo bar, and Maier subframes. Bent up the fenders and sheet metal in front of the radiator (no part of the frame was bent) including the 2 fenders.

 

After looking at it very carefully and slow test driving it, I ended up driving it home 130 miles at regular high way speeds. Alignment remained perfect, except for the cosmetic damage, no one would ever know what that car just went through.

 

 

The inside of the mountain had was angled which imparted a upward force on my wheel and popped my front end up in the air. It came back down and I continued on the 360 in the road.

 

the inner fender on the LH side was bent in by the fender being pushed inward about a 1/2 inch, right in front of the monte carlo bar.

 

Took it to a frame shop, had them measure it all for straightness and they said it was all in spec. other than the inner fender being cosmetically damaged. They hammered it out straight and rechecked everything.

 

Alan_Mac

The structural weakness in the ford shock tower design is the shock towers can flex inward. A three point brace design will correct this. The analogy of flexing a shoe box with and without the cover is a good example. Assuming good frame rail, radiator support, torque box, etc... integrity, I disagree that an adjustable end link design will introduce additional flex points.

I am in no way saying that the TCP stuff isn't strong. I am just saying it can't be the strongest. If the shock towers only flexed inward/outward, i would agree here, but the shock towers do flex upward and those spherical bearings are going to allow movement in that direction.

 

The shoe box example only demonstrates push pull force of opposite corners. Rod ends are designed for push-pull applications. Take your shoe box and brace the top with heim joints and twist it. Then take a shoebox with its lid, however give its lid and W shaped stamping like the factory export brace and then twist that one. The shoe box lid will be stiffer.

 

Also the TCP monte carlo bar mounts several inches in front of the shock tower where there is just sheet metal of the inner fender. It isn't even structural sheet metal. The original monte carlo bar at least mounted to 3 of the shock tower bolts which also hold the suspension bump stop bracket, which further increases the strength.

 

Check out some more information here. I apologize for linking to another forum as I see many of the same people on here as on there as well.

 

http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/torsional-rigidity-test-67-coupe.723029/

 

 

http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/shock-tower-braces.752940/

Edited July 1, 2013 by j69302

[Alan_Mac 48]

J69, thank you for posting the threads. I agree, the TCP brace only supports only in one plane and it would be much better to attach at the top of the shock tower. The test setup shed allot of light on torsional frame stiffness. I have a very strong export brace, thick metal, with deep ribs and drawn edges. Although the Maier MC bar would be an improvement, I am wondering if it is needed for my Sunday driver use. Does anyone know if the Maier Monte Carlo bar would fit with a 351W Shaker setup? Alan

Edited June 30, 2013 by Alan_Mac

[j69302 11]

Just based on looking at the pictures, I would think that the Maier monte carlo bar would fit. It appears to curve slightly forward and upward for distributor clearance as well.

 

But if you are looking into it, I would email or call them and find out for sure.

 

 

Now I'm going on a tangent here since we are talking about chassis strengthening.. But if you are going to consider any subframe connectors, (Not needed for everyday driving), however, I did notice an improvement in ride, I would also highly recommend Maier sub-frame connectors as well. They are about 3 feet longer than any other companies.

 

Other connectors join in only 2 points at the end of the factory subframes. Maier's connects at 4 points. They connect at the end of the factory frame, as also extend about a foot and a half forward where the frame curves up around the lower control arm, and also extend in the rear past the leaf spring mount and welds to the curve of the frame where it goes over the axle.

 

even though its not a triangle, it does, in a way, form a truss if you will. For example, if the frame wants to flex at the end of the frame rail, the forward mounting point of the Maier frame will resist this force and push back against it.

 

The Maier connectors fit great on my car. You may have to relocate the rubber fuel line at the end of the driver side frame rail. The connector does come close to this. And if I jack up a front wheel under the control arm, it will also lift that side's rear wheel off the ground. I was very impressed.

[Jimjific 23]

Without doing a stress analysis on the export brace it cant be said what exactly it does in the up/down motion. But looking at the design and what/how it attaches to the body, it will do little to prevent the shock towers from movement in the up/down. Testament to this is when you install one, attach the brace to the firewall only and then try to lift the brace upwards at the shock towers. You will find it relatively easy to do this. The reason you can do this is that the brace flattens out at the mounting points and only mounts to a lip on firewall. The moment arm is just too great to for any brace to stop the up/down movement. The only thing that the brace does is triangulate the shock towers to the firewall to help ward off inward flexing. The ridges/contour of the brace stop it from buckling between the mounting points.

 

I made my own straight bar that attaches directly to the shock towers with heim joints. The Maier bar attaches to the shock tower which is good but, it has a slight bend at each end which will result in vectors that don't point at each other which could result in causing the bar to flex. They being said, the Maier bar should work just fine.

 

Jim

[buening 63]

Here is a link to another forum with similar discussion, and my lengthy blabber: http://69.195.124.124/~stangfix/index.php?topic=19562.0

[Alan_Mac 48]

I am also a ME and agree that additional constraint of the shock towers is an improvement. It would be interesting to put a few strain gauges at strategic places and record under different conditions (street ,strip and road course). One thing I do know for sure is a high performance engine will twist the body under hard acceleration. The last go around on my Mach1 body we replaced quarters, inner / outer wheel wells, and the full trunk floor to eliminate rust, stress cracks, and straighten it out. I added TCP sub frame connectors, now when I jack the front up the rear wheel lifts. I am going to add the TCP center link very soon to contain body twist. Alan

[buening 63]

To me that Maier piece looks the best out of all aftermarket options. Even though it has a bend, the angle of the bend is slight and it is near the ends. You'll likely have buckling of the tower plates before the steel tube bends further. I'm not sure what wall thickness the tube has though. Now if the bend were at the middle (like the curved stock monte bars!), it would be pretty weak.

 

With my motor moved back, I can eliminate those bends in my version....which someday I plan on doing. BTW, SE here :) Good to see more engineers on here.

[RPM 1,190]

A relatively easy and cheap early to reduce torsional flex in our creaky unibodies is to add a metal plate to the opening in the area directly behind the rear seat which is open to the trunk. I have a link somewhere where a guy on VMF did a flex analysis testing various common add ons. It reduced twist much more than sf connectors, export brace and others.

 

Bob

[buening 63]

I've seen that on coupes but not fastbacks (since fastbacks have a metal seatback or trapdoor bolted to the body). Interesting thought. Any pics of this done to a fastback?

[RPM 1,190]

No pics on a fb Jeremy. I plan on not using my field down rear seat, when I get to that point. I'll probably use 12 or 14 gauge metal, and use rollers to fit the curved opening. I'll bolt it in place so it's reversible if needed. Two seats is plenty for me and all my friends :)

 

Bob

[Mike65 475]

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1b7a69246601a2161b11c65b99a28101&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.vintage-mustang.com%2Fmod-custom-forum%2F633716-chassis-stiffeneing-tests-great-read.html&v=1&libId=c23ca10d-3b26-4135-b372-82d913b5dd90&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stangnet.com%2Fmustang-forums%2F723029-torsional-rigidity-test-67-coupe.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3Dpartner-pub-7865546952023728%253A6eru0j-4s1u%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dstress%2Banalysis%26siteurl%3Dforums.vintage-mustang.com%252Fvintage-mustang-forum%252Findex9.html%26ref%3Dforums.vintage-mustang.com%252Fvintage-mustang-forum%252Findex8.html%26ss%3D12480j69136128j15%26ad%3Dn9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fforums.vintage-mustang.com%252Fgtsearch.php%253Fcx%253Dpartner-pub-7865546952023728%25253A6eru0j-4s1u%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dstress%252Banalysis%2526siteurl%253Dforums.vintage-mustang.com%25252Fvintage-mustang-forum%25252Findex9.html%2526ref%253Dforums.vintage-mustang.com%25252Fvintage-mustang-forum%25252Findex8.html%2526ss%253D12480j69136128j15&title=Chassis%20stiffeneing%20tests%2C%20great%20read!%20-%20Vintage%20Mustang%20Forums&txt=Torsional%20rigidity%20test%3A%2067%20coupe%20-%20Mustang%20Forums%20at%20StangNet&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_137272924904314

 

RPM is this what you were looking for?.

[RPM 1,190]

RPM is this what you were looking for?.

 

That be the one. Kind of impressive work.

 

Bob