Count me in! Um....is red going to be the standard color with a higher price for black?

Just kidding, but I do wonder about the finish? Hmmmmm , powder?

He has a powdercoater, but it will be black like OEM. Paint if you wish.

Black is good. Do you have an ETA, even something generic like this fall?

Did you read my original post?

what about the battery???

What about WHAT about the battery?

Mine is red, and usually has 12 Volts. What about yours?

Mine'* Green (Interstate)-it matches the car better.

Your absolutely correct, the force is horizontal. But the means that you are trying to reduce this horizontal "flex" is not very efficient. Adding extra bars in the wrong place is only going to produce eye candy.

You need to consentrate on the strut towers. How to keep the towers from flexing inward.

Adding a couple of tiny bars will not produce the results that your after. Especially in the spots you want to place them! Your asking the thin quarter panels to absorb the force of a hard turn!?!

You need to remember that essentually all you NEED to accomplish is BRACING the strut towers to keep them from flexing inward.

Fancy "triangulated shapes" do nothing for the purpous that your after.

And yes I know that your refering to my beliefes as "wrong", but I strongly suggest that you reconcider your triple trouble idea and reserch the I-beam theory.

And BTW, rear strut braces are just as important as fronts! If you think the rear deck provides enough support, then why doesn't the front firewall?!?!?


I myself do not believe in modifications to a 4 door heavy family car, but it takes all kinds. And on a car this heavy, you need more than just a couple extra thin square tubes to reduce strut tower flex....I-beams are the way to go.

FatCat, if you don't like your car any other way other than stock, keep it that way, but don't come off on those that modify by saying "it takes all kinds". If you'd like to try to find a way to add a rear strut bar, go ahead. You've obviously looked into it in depth. You go first on that one.

I personally have spent alot of time on my suspension, and have inarguably the best handling car on the West Coast for us. I want it firmer on the front end, and this is the way I know how to do it, since, quite frankly, I know how my STB flexes, and you don't. In fact, there'* no way the rest of your supporting suspension would even allow your strut bar to flex like mine, so you would have NFC.

I know nothing of your background, but at the same time, I've seen nothing that would lend me to believe you have the background in mechanical design that myself and others here do.

Don't make light of ideas you have NFC about. Stay out of topics you think are ridiculous. Learn to have a little more respect.

But why stop here?

(Concentrate....spelling )
My bar flexes UP in the middle. That design, if you look at it, strengthens the middle of the bar and ties it to the front corners for extra stability.


Who said anything about 'tiny bars'? What the hell makes you think I'm using tiny anything? The main bar is quite strong. 1" square thickwall tubing. I plan on using the same. For a stock car, the stock bar is sufficient. With my handling upgrades, I need more stiffening. Especially in the thin quarter panels? There'* a reinforcing channel in the inner fender subframe at that point. That'* the strongest part of the inner fender/engine bay rim that can be used. Have you even looked at your car?

ESSENTIALLY. Spelling, cat. Spelling.
You're repeating yourself. My bar flexes upward in the middle. Read above.

Purpose.....SPELLING!
I beg to differ. Look around your world as you drive to work tomorrow. Triangulated shapes are keeping your building from falling on your noggin. Since I know EXACTLY what forces are flexing my bar in the EXACT direction, I think I have a pretty good idea of where to support it. Come over, go for a drive, and I'll show you.


"Reconsider" "Beliefs" (spelling). I-beam? Now I know you don't have any mechanical design experience. I-beams are for carrying vertical loads.

The rear deck already is heavily reinforced with regards to bracing the strut towers, and precludes adding anything else, in at least a one-piece arrangement with no bends. My handling problem isn't on the back end anyway. As far as your firewall comment is concerned, the 2000+ firewall was moved forward to prevent the need for a STB. Guess what? The GXP came out with a strut bar, and a few 2000+ SSEi'* have converted to it with a noticable improvement in handling. I guess they're all wrong too? Let'* take that BACK a generation to the 87-91 which had virtually the same chassis as the 92-99, including the exact same strut bolt pattern and spacing of the strut towers. Guess what? No strut bar. Wasn't needed, right? So many of our members have upgraded to one with a profound improvement in handling. But maybe they shouldn't have 'modified a big fat ugly slow 4-door' right?

If you don't believe in modifications to a 4 door heavy family car, please stay out of performance topics from now on. You only **** people off. Stick to the mechanical forums, and learn to treat people with respect. Yes, you're right, I do need more than a couple extra thin square tubes. That'* why I have the thickest FE2 suspension components ever measured here, the best struts money can buy, high quality replacment bushings in my suspension, and damn good tires. Ever drive a Bonneville with FE2?

I didn't think so. And have fun with your I-beams. Check your spelling to give yourself more of an educated appearance, and ...


CAN WE GET THIS BACK ON TOPIC :?:

um ok. calm down man.