KvnChu

iTrader: (5)

Has anyone seen this before? does anyone know if it improves anything? thanks!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/LEXUS...ht_1838wt_1194

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

It improves the seller's cashflow. That's about it. It also puts a shiny thing under your hood that impresses people who like shiny things. It doesn't measurably improve the car's mechanical performance.

DaKi3241

iTrader: (3)

hey please be careful! It won't do anything.

Please correct me if I am wrong but here it goes.

We have RWD. Front struts won't do much. With that fact... these ebay ones.... bleh.... nothing will happen. Also, it will end up you having the engine cover gone.

If you realllly want to get a front strut... all i know there is as I can remember is the Jun-tw front strut, gt-spec front strut.

I have seen a jun-tw front strut work with the engine cover on. They are priced for 230ish, but you might be able to find some deals here which might be aiming for around 160ish. I PMed someone, I can't remember and he sent me a quote for 160. GL finding! (still... even with good front struts, its hard to tell a difference )

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

Given the 2IS doesn't -have- struts, adding a strut tower bar is unlikely to accomplish anything but lightening your wallet.

Tommyboy72

You are definitely wrong. The shocks in the front help keep the tire on the road, pretty important if you want to turn or steer.

As for the effectiveness of this STB, I cannot say but probably not much since its just a single bar (not triangulated with the firewall). There are better ways to spend your money like a performance driving school, tires, etc.

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

Shocks control the motion of the springs.

Struts, which the 2IS doesn't have, besides dampening spring motion, are actually a structural part of the suspension.

You can remove a shock and have a complete suspension, just no spring dampening.

You can not remove a strut and have a complete suspension.

Tommyboy72

Which the point of controlling the spring is to do what? I just simplified it.

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

To allow a softer spring to be used in the car. But you could still drive fine without shocks if you had stiff enough springs. (it just wouldn't be real comfortable)

You can't drive fine without a strut, since your suspension would be missing a necessary part of its geometry.

That's why a strut tower bar on a car with struts is rather more useful than it is on a car that doesn't have them (to get this back on topic for the thread)

Tommyboy72

The shock, while it doesnt change the geometry does provide the spring perch in the case of the IS...since you are being nit picky, thats about the same level of thinking.


So you are saying the added stiffness on the towers is of more benefit on a strut car? Interesting, I don't think I've heard that before but that will just take us further off topic...

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

macpherson strut designs inherently create a fair bit of force at the top of the strut under cornering.. the strut brace will help counter this force.

On a double-wishbone suspension like ours that force isn't similarly being created, so all the bar would do is add a very tiny bit of stiffening to the body, at the cost of adding dead weight above your center of gravity.

It's possible that if you were on slicks, on a prepared surface, and had already done every -other- possible handling mod (sway bars, lighter wheels, coilovers, and any possible bracing _under_ the car) then at that point a good strut tower brace, triangulated to the firewall, would offer a minor performance benefit.

But on street tires, on street surfaces, without having done all the rest, using a cheap ebay bar that just connects the two points in the engine bay? waste-o-money.

Tommyboy72

First, lets agree its a waste of $.

But the forces are the same but there should be a bit less lateral but thats a generalization because it depends on the angle of the shocks and struts to compare. The shocks can take the same force as the strut - just the angles and motion ratios, which the struts tend to be closer to 1:1. I just think your statement assumed too much...

blk250

iTrader: (3)

dont buy it, save 21 bucks for some drinks...

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

How do you figure the forces are the same?

On a double-wishbone setup the wheel assembly is independent of the shock assembly... when the wheel assembly turns, the shock assembly is stationary.

On a Macpherson setup the wheel is located below the spring and shock assembly. The spring and shock assembly sits on a ball joint of a single lower arm connected by a tie rod. The single lower arm is usually an "A" arm. The top piston rod is used as a swivel axis. This is necessary, because with a Macpherson suspension, when the wheel is turned, the whole suspension system turns with the wheel.

Tommyboy72

In the end they both support the weight of the car and the forces from the wheel/tire are transmitted into them both. Primary difference between them is the ratios of the suspension. I see you point but I think you are exaggerating how much. Structurally both shock and strut towers on the chassis are built equally.