924Board.org

[badlad69er]

Where can i find these iv searched everywhere for them but nothing the porscheshop.co.uk has a section for them but dont have and in there?? so and websites or if anyone has any spare for sale would be great thanks!
_________________
1982 - 924 Lux
Next Mods - Carrera GT Kit, 944 Turbo Wheels, 5 Lug Conversion.
Engine Mod to be Done - Install a Nissan 200SX Engine (last job not for anthoer year or two)

[Rasta Monsta]

There are no rear struts. As for the front, this item should be last on your list of suspension upgrades.
_________________
Toofah King Bad

• WeiBe (1987 924S 2.5t) - 931 S3

[badlad69er]

thanks for that.. with the rear would i be able to make one or isnt it worth it???
_________________
1982 - 924 Lux
Next Mods - Carrera GT Kit, 944 Turbo Wheels, 5 Lug Conversion.
Engine Mod to be Done - Install a Nissan 200SX Engine (last job not for anthoer year or two)

[moone924]

The rear isn't a strut based suspension. The rear suspension is much the same as a 1302 or 1303 VW Beetle. Torsion bar and trailing arm
_________________
Ryan Moone

Always shopping for a nice s2 931 to baby.
New philosophy : one car project at a time.

[thirdgenbird]

i'm converting to rear coilovers so mine will be...

i know there is not a rear strut brace for these cars, but would a "Brey Krause style" harness bar that bolts to the b pillars and the lap belt mounts stiffin the car?

i dont intend on mounting harnesses to it due to safety on thee street, just to stiffen the car
_________________
17in caymans, koni yellow coilovers, hypercoil springs, kla solid upper mounts, 968 sway bars, kla drop links, kla strut brace, fidanza flywheel, dansk catback, wilwood front calipers, ss brake lines, e-codes, 944 duckbill, manual rack,momo steering wheel

[Chrenan]

Nope, harness bar won't stiffen the car. Glad you aren't running harnesses off one either, cause they are crap for that as well. The only thing that will stiffen the body is a welded in roll cage with the proper pickup points. That and seam welding, there is a nice recent post on the board about that. Basically you strip the body down to bare metal and reinforce every seam with additional welds. Nice and simple, doable in a weekend.

Even a front strut bar won't do anything until you take all other rubber out of your front suspension. You need solid bushings and solid upper mounts, then maybe a strut bar.
_________________
1987 951 - M193 Version for Japan

[thirdgenbird]

thanks for speaking up Chrenan. i was going to message you, to prevent a complete hijack. it sounds like you went through the same cage/bar/harness/seat debate i am going through

anyway. i fully intend to remove the rubber from my front end (solid mounts are on the way)
_________________
17in caymans, koni yellow coilovers, hypercoil springs, kla solid upper mounts, 968 sway bars, kla drop links, kla strut brace, fidanza flywheel, dansk catback, wilwood front calipers, ss brake lines, e-codes, 944 duckbill, manual rack,momo steering wheel

[fiat22turbo]

No offense to all who chimed in, but I still would like to hear evidence to the contrary that front and rear braces do not do anything on these cars. So far it has all been a repetition, verbatim, of previous statements.

Seems like that big open area in the back is just begging for some proper bracing. On other hatchback cars I've built, a rear brace made a difference.

As for the front, while it may not make as large a difference on a car with rubber upper mounts, what happens when the mounts fully compress? No one has answered that successfully. When the rubber compresses, the load begins to move the strut towers.

I've taken my stock upper mounts apart to modify them for my new adjustable struts and there isn't much rubber in them compared to some other cars I've worked with. On those other cars, the strut brace made a noticeable difference in the steering response and the vibrations in the cabin.

I guess since everyone just repeats what they've read without backing it up with evidence (even anecdotal) I'll have to build some myself and do back to back tests to prove it once and for all. Not sure how I'll test their effectiveness empirically on the cheap. Maybe just a piece of string, strung between the towers that I'll record with a video camera.

With all of that said, would I jump up and down to ensure I had braces on my car? No, I do agree that there are better places to spend money first. If you feel like adapting a set of braces from another vehicle or building them yourself, I won't say boo though.

I'm not picking on anyone directly, but I've seen some really great innovations and interesting engineering here and I've also seen some of the worst "rubber ducky" style folks that refuse to do any research on their own or think outside of the box and just go along with the flow.

"Think, its not illegal yet."
_________________
Stefan
1979 924 Carrera GTS (clone-ish)
1988 944 Turbo S (Silver Rose)

[flosho]

What if you hacked up the inside of the hatch and custom built some upper shock mounts and tied them into the body. Then you could get a rear strut brace to stiffen the rear even more.
_________________
[This Space For Rent]

[Chrenan]

[Rasta Monsta]

[bass gt]

Gents,

The fitting of a strut brace will slightly improve the handling, it wont stiffen the car. The problem with the 924 shell is it's appaling torsional rigidity. Try this. Jack up the car by a rear wheel with the hatch open and the door on that side. With the car nicely jacked, try closing either the door or hatch. This demonstrates what the problem is.
Now fittting a strut brace just moves the problem. It wont stop the loaded strut tower from deforming under cornering, but will also cause deflection of the opposite tower. So you effectively end up twisting the entire front end. This is espcially bad if stiff or sold bushings are used, as the OE items are desiigned to offef road comfort and vibration isolation.
As for braces in the rear, if you look at the rear suspension layout, it will be very difficult/impossible to install a bar between tha B pillars which will prevent this flexing. The only way to really strengthen these shells is a cage with proper triangulation, and weld in. My old bolt in cage still allowed sufficient flex that the gear selection linkage would fail/jam when in an aggresive corner.
Also, if you ever see a stripped late 944/968 shell you'll see where Porsche strengthened and gusseted. Which is also why those shells weigh some 150kgs more, JUST for the bare shell.
And for empirical eveidence, have a look at the "birth of a legend" thread. This shell is undergoing full motorsport prep, but the guys doing it are testing the torsional twist of the shell. And to say it was bad was an understatement!! She has had a significant amount of welding and strengthening done to bring here up to scratch. The biggest area of deformation is the area between the front bulkhead and the rear suspension mounts. The metal pressings are very weak torsionally, which allows massive deformation of the rear. The front shock towers are like paper, to the point where mine have had to be double skinned AND seam welded.
So whilst a bolt on trinket looks great, believe me, it's about as much use as a chocholate teapot.
But this flex is also why the car handles so well, is so forgiving and compliant. The shell flexes very benignly in stock trim, which reall aids it's handling, without creating a snap oversteer widowmaker.
So rather than strut braces, money would be better spent replacing ALL the suspension bushes, with either stock or firmer aftermarket items.
Then look to refersh the suspension, with the Koni kit if possible. Of course, all the time ensuring good tyres and geometry settings. And lean to drift the car. They really are a hoot as they are so predicatable, and better performance can be had by becoming a bettwer driver.
Steve
_________________
Front Wheel Drive is the Devil's work.

[924RACR]

Added info on the idea of a rear cross-brace... the top of the rear shock mounting points already has a body rail connecting the two points. It's the front edge of the trunk floor. You could reinforce this, but there's no significant loads laterally in that area - the shocks act through rod ends or bushings, which allow for no torsional loads.

IMO if you did a full build and ran heavy or 100% coilover in the rear, then what would make sense would be to tie those points into a properly built cage - these points would become the rear diagonal braces.

+1 to bassgt's comments on the car, though I'll also point out that the flexing gets worse the longer the cars are campaigned (without heavy reinforcement). That's fatigue.
_________________
Vaughan Scott
Webmeister
'79 924 #77 SCCA H Prod racecar
'82 931 Plat. Silver
#25 Hidari Firefly P2 sports prototype

[ic932]

Wow, 150kg more! Thanks Steve, great info.

[thirdgenbird]

bassgt, its obvious you know your stuff, so i dont want to argue. i just want to ask questions for learning sake.

does my 924s have the same bracing a 944 has? i have not tried your exact experiment, but last weekend i had my car jacked up by the front. it was high enough for me to check the clutch hole and i noticed two things:

the rear wheel in the same side came off the ground.

the doors operated with ease.


question two, are you saying solid upper mounts are a bad idea?
_________________
17in caymans, koni yellow coilovers, hypercoil springs, kla solid upper mounts, 968 sway bars, kla drop links, kla strut brace, fidanza flywheel, dansk catback, wilwood front calipers, ss brake lines, e-codes, 944 duckbill, manual rack,momo steering wheel