Dear All,
going to have the alignment and cambers checked/adjusted soon, and thought I’d invest in a front shock tower brace at the same time.
Straw poll of members: which front shock tower brace have you got and why did you go for that particular one? I’m assuming after-market!
Thnx
PS its the Harvard, so its 1997 1.8 RHD
If it’s for the bling, pick the one you like the look of. I’m not convinced that they make any difference to '5. The concept goes back to the old days of the Ford McPherson strutt, a different thing to an MX5 front suspension setup. I had one on my '5 for 5 years, removed it when I fitted a supercharger and never noticed the difference. Others may/will disagree
I have a second hand one of these no sure of teh make. I installed it during an autosolo demo day.it cost me £20.
The difference was small, so small it may even have been psychosomatic, it does make for a handy thing to lean on when working in the engine bay.
I think the mx5 benefits more from bracing underneath, chassis rails seem to be well thought of.
I have one on my mk1 not noticed any difference at all [but it looks ok ] ,in conversation with Paul at Roddisons his opinion was that they are not needed but if it appeals fit it, a complete geo set up and tyres that the 5 like work much better and thats were I’m at !!
Thanks, guys!
The bit of info I’ve managed to turn up seems to suggest that there is other bolt-on bracing which is more effective at stiffening the chassis.
I’m still wavering a bit on the do it/don’t bother, but gut feeling suggests it must have some benefit, however small - but that may be the psychosomatic thing again I have a couple of weeks til the alignment/cambers are checked/adjusted, so I’ll see how I feel when the time comes.
Anyone else care to share their thoughts/experiences?
What’s the best way of overcoming scuttle vibration?
Cheers!
I have a factory one on my Mk1, I think it was from a S Ltd but not sure. It made a difference to my car, it stopped a lot of vibration, new shockers were fitted first, but the vibration was still there. Suspension brace fitted vibration almost gone. She drives a lot better as well, although she is a little lower than standard and has bracing underneath. That was done before I had her.
I think chassis rails help a lot and allow the suspension to work better as the whole car becomes more rigid.
When I had a rollbar fitted that made a noticeable difference top the amount of scuttle shake, the car felt more tied together.
there was a group buy on nutz for chassis rails recently , people who have fitted them are saying positive things.
The sought after ones were made by P5 aka mxrestorer aka phil who was goin g to do a GB on nutz but it didn’t happen
both the rollbar and the chassis rail are more money than an tower strut brace though so pays your money makes you choice
I think the chassis rail are around £150 plus extra to fit, Jass performance do some, and there are others. For rollbars GCF or TRLane, there are others the two I mentioned work with a softtop, I have a TRLAne and an HRW , the softtop still goes up and down 
The only brace I’ve had that makes a difference is a 3-point triangulated brace; I have a Okuyama brace, but Moss do a rip-off version.
They are for noise, harshness and vibration purposes, they damp out some of the jiggleyness you can sometimes feel and by adding a bit of mass, they lower some of the high frequency stuff. Do they do what strut tower brace does? No. Will your car handle better with one? No. Will you perceive it to be better with one? Probably, because you will want it to.
Just look at how they are made and mount to understand that they are not designed to transmit any significant load across the towers and that as the suspension is controlled by wishbones and not pivoting around the top bodywork, they don’t perform any alignment function.
What e said ^
Appreciate that a “shock-tower brace” isn’t a true “strut brace” as the Mx-5 has wishbone suspension, not MacPherson struts. But you seem to be saying it is effective at reducing vibration by stiffening the forward part of the shell?
So, to sum up, is it fair to say that although a shock-tower brace won’t improve the car’s road-holding ability, it does improve the car’s driving characteristics?
Cheers,
Mark
Looks impressive! The three-point job that Moss sells doesn’t have the triangulation bracket, so I can’t see it as being as effective as either your Okuyama brace or the standard “straight-over-the-top” effort, as it has an additional joint that could conceivably twist.
I suspect my main problem could well be the air intake “snorkel”, which you don’t seem to have.
How is the brace fitted to the bulkhead? Are extra bolt-holes needed, or are they existing?
Cheers,
Mark
Lol!
The car had new coil-overs all-round last year, which improved the ride no end. Reducing/removing vibration is really what I’m aiming for at the moment!
Cheers,
Mark
If tower braces make any sort of significant difference to the handling, Mazda would have fitted them to all cars as standard.
The ones they fitted to top spec cars literally held the cross tube with two self tapping screws each side.
They can take away some the “noise, harshness and vibration” it can make the car feel more composed. What they don’t do is stiffen the body in anyway that adds strength and resists twisting.
Factory Mk1s never had braces like this. You may be mixing up the Mk1 with some other make or model
I suppose if the rear subframe brace made any difference, Mazda would have fitted them as standard to all models. No, wait, they didn’t. All braces were deleted on 90hp models…
You point is?
That’s what I’m looking for, for the Harvard, anyway.
Which brings me back to my original question - who’s got which brace and why did they choose that particular type?
Saz has the Okuyama/Carbing brace, which seems to be unavailable outside Japan, and impossible to order anyway, other than from America, where its rather expensive!
Any other thoughts?
Cheers,
Mark