OEM Honda bars mount to the strut tower.
Many aftermarket bars mount directly to the strut itself, using the pillow mount bolts.

What is everyone's opinion on one vs. the other?

I am under the impression that if the bar mounts to the strut tower, it's actually strengthening the CHASIS, as oppsed to the struts ... which is strengthening ...........???? I don't know, nothing? Are these bars just for looks or what?



-a

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Achenar &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OEM Honda bars mount to the strut tower.
Many aftermarket bars mount directly to the strut itself, using the pillow mount bolts.

What is everyone's opinion on one vs. the other?

I am under the impression that if the bar mounts to the strut tower, it's actually strengthening the CHASIS, as oppsed to the struts ... which is strengthening ...........???? I don't know, nothing? Are these bars just for looks or what?



-a</TD></TR></TABLE>

Both styles ARE connected to the strut tower and do the same thing. The difference you should be looking at is a solid bar or a bar with pivoting points. Solid bars are good, pivot point bars are ok but not as good as a solid.

 

not much else to say after that. ^

 

Just call it a day and get the Neuspeed 4 pt. strut bar. They look nice and they are strong.

 

or you could be overkill and mount one at both points:

 

WOW, was that done as a joke?

-a

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Achenar &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OEM Honda bars mount to the strut tower.
Many aftermarket bars mount directly to the strut itself, using the pillow mount bolts.:

-a</TD></TR></TABLE>

no they don't those aren't struts.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

no they don't those aren't struts.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Umn .... yeah.

-a

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Achenar &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Umn .... yeah.

-a</TD></TR></TABLE>

do you know what a strut is?


and do you know what a damper is?


cause they are 2 different things, they are NOT THE SAME

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

do you know what a strut is?


and do you know what a damper is?


cause they are 2 different things, they are NOT THE SAME</TD></TR></TABLE>

Here's an idea. Go start your own thread, and please don't hijack this one.

Yes, a strut is different from a damper.
A strut refers to the damper AND the spring. Which means that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING INCORRECT about calling it a "strut tower," "strut tower bar," or "mounting the bar to the strut."
kthxbye


-a

 

here's my $0.02 on this topic. take it at it's worth.
Through the years I have tried all three types. It's been my opinion since I switched to the neuspeed bar that is the best design out there. It supports the UCA at the inner pivot (on an EG) which is where the load is under cornering forces.
The SI/ITR bar gets the OEM vote because you can remove the bar without messing with a major suspension part. Theoretically, it also gives a little more mechanical advantage due to being mounted higher, but there is metal inbetween the brace and the forces to flex.
the top of the shock idea is 'ok' but lowest on a civic/teg in my opinion. The same additional metal between the bar and source of force as the OEM, they are always made with a pivot point and they mount with two bolts that are not in the best position to hold the force applied to it. The main advantage to them is that they are cheap, for the shop they are easy to make and parts can be used on different applications. NOTE: They do work better on mcpherson strut cars than unequil length A-arm cars like the civic/teg.

 

Both a strut and a shock is a damper. A damper damps motion. A shock (on a Honda) damps motion between the LCA and chassis and does a strut. Lateral wheel loads are transmitted mostly through the a-arms, so load on a shock is mostly axial. A strut essentially acts as the upper control arm, and it takes significant side load through the strut shaft, which puts it in bending. It has nothing to do with springs.

There's no reason to connect a tower bar to the shocks on an independent suspension. Non-strut shocks don't have a strong enough housing or the correct seals to withstand that kind of bending. If you have a double-wishbone and you want a tower bar, then connect the two shock towers.

On a Strut suspension shock loads are transmitted into the tower. So it depends on what kind of mounting you have. If you have a spherical mount then I would mount to the tower, otherwise I would mount to the shock or you will have to incorporate bushing flex into a "rigid" bar.

 

i think either way its the same thing. not even sure why theres a difference in mounting points between EF (top hate studs) and DA (UCA studs) for example, but it accomplishes the same thing by bracing the two sides of the engine bay.

btw, that redundant picture above is just lame, i hope it was a joke.

jimmy, relax on the strut vs damper. youre not even making the correct point.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Achenar &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">WOW, was that done as a joke?

-a</TD></TR></TABLE>

yeah pretty funny huh?