Official Suspension Bars and Braces Thread

[SpencerC]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive @Spencer@CorkSport; Have you discontinued the CorkSport Lower Front Brace / Front Lower Arm Brace and / or importing the Autoexe Front Lower Arm Brace? .

We aren't making the lower control arm bar / brace if that is the one you are talking about. We had to many people complain that it was hitting.

[aackthpt]

Originally Posted by Crarrs Buy the one you think is the prettiest. You probably aren't going to be able to tell the difference on your commute.

So basically you're saying it's rice? Hmm. Based on this, you might be right.

And you're right, 80% of commutes I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But if I install a mega stiffness bar and come around a freeway overpass doing 60+, encounter a traffic jam requiring immediate near-maximal braking, and the car snap-oversteers I'd know it. And that type of traffic situation happens WAY more than I'd like.

But you're right that 15-20% probably won't change anything.

[greatdane68]

Originally Posted by Spencer@CorkSport We aren't making the lower control arm bar / brace if that is the one you are talking about. We had to many people complain that it was hitting.

I haven't had a problem with mine, except for when I went to change my oil, but that was minor.
What was it hitting?

[Crarrs]

Originally Posted by license2ill Same shape, design, and materials specs? lol, you know that's where they'll all start to diverge even if they are the same. Whiteline's sway bar is solid, right? All the others are hollow and a couple at 32mm. How do the attachment points get considered in that chart? Wish these companies could be trusted to be accurate, and more forthcoming. It's not a big ask, but apparently "that's just part of modding" like that knucklehead poster above said. What a maroon.

Are you kidding me? All I did was ask you how you figured out what stiffness of rear sway bar you'd need to meet your needs. The ONLY reason you need to be splitting hairs over claims about one company's 32mm bar vs another's is if you know exactly what roll resistance numbers you're going to require to set your car up with a certain balance. Everything else is semantics.

All I've seen you do during your entire time here is ask a bunch of vague, open-ended questions (see above....) about general suspension design theories and practices, and then get frustrated when people tell you or imply that you need to do more research on the subject in general versus spoon-feeding you the exact best setup to put on your particular car right this moment. The "best" suspension is always going to depend on what you want to do with it, and what other components you've got feeding loads into it.

i.e. How much power do you have? [aka How much drive traction do you need?]
What type of track will you be running? [aka How much camber do you need to maintain in-corner momentum without sacrificing braking or drive grip?]
What springs are on the car? [aka How much are those contributing to your roll stiffness?]

Doing "research" doesn't just constitute asking everyone all kinds of questions. It means figuring out a bunch of this stuff yourself via reading books and taking measurements on your own car.

What a maroon.

[Inquisitive]

Although there is a general call for a standard, benchmark comparison of all products, perhaps at “phate’s testing centre” (just kidding), I am not sure (and this is pure speculation on my part) that @phate; would want to be in the distribution or manufacturing business when purchasing decision criteria includes looks, but this is the nature of the fickle market. Perhaps we can forgive the manufacturers for taking liberal licence in the choice of words when marketing their wares. Spin doctors might be cheaper than test centres, but why even bother if the results are not the sole criterion.

For me, I like the resourcefulness displayed by some members willing to dig through parts bins, pour over product catalogues or just purchase, test, resell what doesn’t work and tell us about it.

[license2ill]

Yeah, that's how Sure Motorsports survived. Glad those customers took some measurements after spending their money first.

[zenit]

Originally Posted by aackthpt And you're right, 80% of commutes I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But if I install a mega stiffness bar and come around a freeway overpass doing 60+, encounter a traffic jam requiring immediate near-maximal braking, and the car snap-oversteers I'd know it. And that type of traffic situation happens WAY more than I'd like.

Snap oversteer occurs when the rear is unloaded during a "steer" (aka body roll & turn) condition.
Braking to slow down for a traffic stop in a straight line that swaybar isn't doing anything. On top of that, I can tell you from personal experience that roll bias is HEAVILY mediated by the quality of tires. Put some real crappy or worn tires on even a stock setup and you'll have a spin happy car, in a turn.

Originally Posted by Crarrs Doing "research" doesn't just constitute asking everyone all kinds of questions. It means figuring out a bunch of this stuff yourself via reading books and taking measurements on your own car. What a maroon.

QFT

Originally Posted by Inquisitive Although there is a general call for a standard, benchmark comparison of all products, perhaps at “phate’s testing centre” (just kidding), I am not sure (and this is pure speculation on my part) that @phate; would want to be in the distribution or manufacturing business when purchasing decision criteria includes looks, but this is the nature of the fickle market.

Overall, yes. It is unfortunate that we have to testing ourselves, but we really have to cut the bullshit about manufacturer claims.

It is also the nature of the market, and the simple fact that we have choices is great. I would never want to produce part a for a variety of reasons, over emphasis on looks being one of them. But there is active development to the suspension knowledge base on msf, and it won't always align with the vendors...

[aackthpt]

Originally Posted by zenit Snap oversteer occurs when the rear is unloaded during a "steer" (aka body roll & turn) condition. Braking to slow down for a traffic stop in a straight line that swaybar isn't doing anything. On top of that, I can tell you from personal experience that roll bias is HEAVILY mediated by the quality of tires. Put some real crappy or worn tires on even a stock setup and you'll have a spin happy car, in a turn.

Agreed. I didn't mean stopping in a straight line, but I guess I wasn't clear. I mostly mean something like the curved overpass in a freeway interchange. There's one in particular that I take often, is great fun at 60+mph, and fairly often has a backup near its end that will require braking while still in the turn. Another that I tend to take at about 70mph and is similarly jam-prone near its exit. Shit happens on the road, unpredictable shit. I need a car that helps me deal with unpredictable shit, not one that gives me more shit.

That's a good point on the tires, too, I don't doubt it.

[phate]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive Although there is a general call for a standard, benchmark comparison of all products, perhaps at “phate’s testing centre” (just kidding),

Speak of the devil...

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...psx8g9lmpw.jpg

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...pstarm0xhz.jpg

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...psjaooghgw.jpg


Measuring real rates is the only reason I'm making these claims. Simple bars follow the torsion and bending equations very closely (see Puhn or Staniforth for the formulas, or an engineering textbook on mechanics of materials if you want to see how the equations are derived). The MS6 front bar (pictured) followed very closely because it has simple geometry that works well with the Puhn/Staniforth equations. Both the front and rear bars on an MS3 will follow the formulas closely for the same reason.

The MS6 rear bar does not, because the geometry does not lend itself well to the equations. No doubt an equation could be derived for the MS6 rear bar, but now that I have the real rates I see no reason to.

[B4RK3R]

Originally Posted by license2ill I was joking...but it would be nice to have some comparative info discussion to follow.

Originally Posted by Inquisitive Agreed - I'd like to hear about how effective these solutions are for eliminating torque steer, wheel hop and under-steer.

Although I can't speak for any other products, I can tell you that my JBR 1.25 RSB and RMM have been flawless. I can tell you that with both of these products torque steer has been eliminated in my vehicle. Im running the JRB RSB on the stiffest setting with factory end-links and haven't had a problem yet. Under steer is virtually eliminated, and the car will hit corners hard. Both quality products I would recommend to anyone. I have paired these products with Bilstein B8's and Swift springs, and can tell you with just what I have, this car handles phenomenal over stock.

I live in Western NC and we have some amazing roads, my car eats all of them up. In fact, a few weeks ago a friend and I did the Caesar Head circuit (Google map it if your not familiar) in his modified 2014 WRX. I chased him up, and he chased down. Neither of us could shake each other, and he was very impressed with my setup. The only thing I noticed was my suspension setup was far superior to my crappy all season tires I equipped for the winter season. On a few corners my tires would squeal and step out a bit giving me a little butt wiggle action, but my suspension was there to bitch slap it back in line when it got unruly. Once I get some stickier tires, Ill be running his WRX on the Dragon. I really didn't expect my car to handle as well as it did, but I'm glad it does. Any questions, just let me know.

To answer some of the questions @Inquisitive; PM'ed me about:

Did the suspension products you purchased:

1 live up to the hype- Absolutely. Couldn't have asked for better results for the money I spent!
2 have any negative comments - The only thing I noticed is the RSB is starting to squeak (needs grease) and my endlinks will eventually need replacing.
3 installation- The RSB was simple. 30 minutes max. The Bilstein B8's are a completely separate story, UGH!
4 offer good value - Yes, for the money I spent, I couldn't ask for more.
5 would you rather have chosen an alternative- If my bank account was endless I would have went with a coilover setup, but since this thread is really about Bars, I couldnt be happier with my JBR products!

[Inquisitive]

I love the word craft of marketers. Imagine a job of trying to entice someone to buy something that reads your ad once. I mean what emotions do you address? Let’s take the example of the top two purchase items here. As evidenced by the Genpu signatures / profiles that I have read, the JBR RSB sells four times as many as the CS RSB. Both are vendors on this forum. So, I hope they don’t mind us looking at the differences. The JBR at $195 costs less than the CS at $219.99. With apologies to phate, but just for market comparison purposes, the JBR at 593 (124% or 24% stiffer than OEM) is probably stiffer than the CS at 114% (or 14% stiffer than OEM, probably at 546 lbs/in). The JBR has three-way adjustment and the CS two. The JBR offers a lifetime warranty and the CS a two-year warranty. The JBR is made of chromoly and the CS aluminium.

If I were a competing manufacturer, I would choose a thicker (so I could claim it was stiffer), cheap material (makeup an exotic alloy material name) to beat the $195 JBR selling price. I would drill four holes. Why not? This is a great marketing tool. I’d have to put a zerk fitting on the bracket just to compete and use 90a polyurethane to match CS’. Depending upon how long I thought it would last before it rusted from the inside out would determine the length of warranty that I would offer. Even then, not everyone would be returned as many fitted vehicles would be sold before claims were lodged. It’s a calculated risk they take.

Buyer beware – it is up to all of us not to be gullible to marketing hype.

Originally Posted by phate Measuring real rates is the only reason I'm making these claims.

If anyone would have the live data results, I knew it would be you.

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by phate JBR's description of rate makes no fucking sense at all. They do make sense if you do the calculations for the bar, but it is the bar's rate, at the end link hole, holding 1 side static. Since there is a motion ratio involved, it will reduce the bar's effectiveness, and in roll you get deflection on both sides of the bar... If you want to relate it to body roll, it is most common to express the resistance to roll in terms of lb-in/1° body roll, where it takes motion ratio and track width into account. Otherwise, just the bench rate is great, none of this "lb/in/in body roll". I doubt many companies bench test their bars. I know Whiteline does not, they told me that on the phone. Most of the time, you can get a good idea of how much stiffer a simple bar is by looking at the change in diameter. Whiteline has a pretty decent chart showing this, here: If you are changing from solid to hollow, or vice versa, this chart doesn't apply. Like I said, though, it's not 100% accurate anyway. Just a decent means of estimating % change.

I found this page on Whiteline's site that goes a little more in depth about adjutment holes and that chart you included. From the looks of it, the Whiteline bar is much more mild with a 16% and 35% increase from stock 26mm(adding 1 and 2mm on the chart), unless JBR's right about stock being 25mm. The Whiteline rear bar should be 36% and 57% stiffer if stock is actually 25mm.

http://www.whiteline.com.au/docs/bulletins/BL-281.pdf

I also found some info about the Progress 32mm hollow rear bar on another forum that states the stock rate of 862lbs/in. They also state the factory bar as measuring 25mm. The Progress bar has two settings: 56% stiffer than the stock sway bar with a rate of 1342.89 lbs/in
and 79% stiffer than the stock sway bar with a rate of 1542.27 lbs/in.

Progress Technology Rear Sway Bar Review

That info on the Progress bar seems to roughly align with the Hotchkis numbers of 95% stiffer than the stock sway bar with a rate of 1625 lbs/in and 140% stiffer than the stock sway bar with a rate of 2030 lbs/in. But how the Hotchkis is supposed to be so dramatically more stiff than the with what looks like the same measurements and attachment points is another question though. How Corksport's 28mm hollow bar is only 14% stiffer at one point and a whole 80% more stiff at the inside attachment point is another question too, unless they are in fact basing their claims on JBR's numbers.

For a piece that folks are saying is interchangeable amongst manufacturers, establishing a baseline of credibility to allow for a look at features and warranties is proving difficult yet again.

[Inquisitive]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive …If I were a competing manufacturer…

No fear, shipping costs would make me uncompetitive. Speaking of shipping costs, JBR ships for free yet for CS you must add $100.20 ($100.30) for US shipments. As an aside, shipping and customs fees usually doubles the cost of anything I purchase and I need 12 of my currency units for every US dollar (with lower local earning potential and lower purchasing power).

Back to marketing: Where is the mention of R&D in their ads? Where is the sponsorship (of Nator)? Where do they claim that Nator endorses their products? Back to general point, where is the standard testing facility mentioned (or ISO manufacturing standards)?

I thought that aluminium is usually more brittle than most other metals (not a good choice for a RSB?). Would mild steel work (backed by a lifetime warranty)? Is weight really a consideration (no marketing value) given that it is below the centre of gravity?

Where is the DIY stuff? Surely welding a cross bar near the end to the middle would stiffen the RSB (bad or impractical design?).

Are we doing our bit? If we asked vendors to provide the testing measurements, make modifications or provide a bulk discount, are we prepared to place orders in advance?

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive No fear, shipping costs would make me uncompetitive. Speaking of shipping costs, JBR ships for free yet for CS you must add $100.20 ($100.30) for US shipments. As an aside, shipping and customs fees usually doubles the cost of anything I purchase and I need 12 of my currency units for every US dollar (with lower local earning potential and lower purchasing power). Back to marketing: Where is the mention of R&D in their ads? Where is the sponsorship (of Nator)? Where do they claim that Nator endorses their products? Back to general point, where is the standard testing facility mentioned (or ISO manufacturing standards)? I thought that aluminium is usually more brittle than most other metals (not a good choice for a RSB?). Would mild steel work (backed by a lifetime warranty)? Is weight really a consideration (no marketing value) given that it is below the centre of gravity? Where is the DIY stuff? Surely welding a cross bar near the end to the middle would stiffen the RSB (bad or impractical design?). Are we doing our bit? If we asked vendors to provide the testing measurements, make modifications or provide a bulk discount, are we prepared to place orders in advance?

They're all steel tubes, but the CS comes with some nice billet aluminum, greasable clamps for the extra. JBR offers billet brackets on his $300 thick tube, or for an extra $90 on the standard version..

I'm still wondering if the stock rear sway bar is actually 25mm or 26mm, and if the Hotchkis is thicker material than the Progress bar, and how a 28mm CS bar achieves the numbers or if they really even mean 14% stiffer. The gap from hole to hole on the CS bar can't make for that dramatic of a difference, and at 28mm, it should be slightly stiffer than the 27mm Whiteline, but less than the 32mm bars.

Where are JBR's numbers coming from and how do they relate to the numbers for the other 32mm bars out there?

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by license2ill Whiteline's sway bar is solid, right? All the others are hollow and a couple at 32mm.

The Corksport bar is solid.

Originally Posted by Inquisitive The JBR has three-way adjustment and the CS two. The JBR offers a lifetime warranty and the CS a two-year warranty. The JBR is made of chromoly and the CS aluminium.

The CS bar is solid steel (not aluminum - where did you get that from??), and actually has 3 settings.

The JBR bar has 5 settings.

My CS bar on the softest setting performs about the same as my JBR bar did on the middle (middle hole on both ends) setting, for what it's worth...

[mituc]

Originally Posted by license2ill I'm still wondering if the stock rear sway bar is actually 25mm or 26mm,

The factory rear sway bar is 25mm, front is 26.

[mituc]

The rear sway bar bushes have a smaller ID than the front bushes. I'm not sure if they are 25 or 25.5 but not 26 as the front. I didn't measure the sway bars but the bushes are different though.

[Deldran]

Originally Posted by Nliiitend1 The Corksport bar is solid. The CS bar is solid steel (not aluminum - where did you get that from??), and actually has 3 settings. The JBR bar has 5 settings. My CS bar on the softest setting performs about the same as my JBR bar did on the middle (middle hole on both ends) setting, for what it's worth...

I am pretty certain my CS rsb only had 2 holes for adjustment. I think they did a couple design changes to their rsb

One thing that has been bugging me about this thread, is the couple claims I have seen of bars helping wheel hop. I am fairly certain a rear bar will have extremely little of any effect on wheel hop. A front bar might have a bit more effect, but only of said wheel hop induces body roll. If you are having wheel hop issues a bar is not the part you are looking for.

I will speak about the setup I had on my 3. I had the CS rear bar on the stiffest setting, CS endlinks, CPE stage 2 rmm, and mazdaspeed coilovers. aligned to -2 in the rear and -1.7 in the front. My car was very neutral, with understeer only occurring if I went to hot into a corner. There was likely more I could have done to allow me to go hotter into a corner, but I was extremely happy with how the car handled.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by Deldran I am pretty certain my CS rsb only had 2 holes for adjustment. I think they did a couple design changes to their rsb

Two holes on each side means 3 settings.

[Inquisitive]

Originally Posted by license2ill They're all steel tubes, but the CS comes with some nice billet aluminum, greasable clamps for the extra.

Originally Posted by Nliiitend1 The CS bar is solid steel (not aluminum - where did you get that from??), and actually has 3 settings.

My bad, I didn’t read my own OP correctly. Just the bracket is aluminium. Here is their current CS website blurb.

Originally Posted by Deldran I am pretty certain my CS rsb only had 2 holes for adjustment.

Correct, the current CS RSB has two holes.

Originally Posted by Deldran One thing that has been bugging me about this thread, is the couple claims I have seen of bars helping wheel hop.

The only real references to wheel hop were those made by the manufacturer (TB) of the front traction bar. The other references were referring to my PM to the respective members and they just quoted my PM. @Dimenus; had a broken PMM that might have been aggravating his wheel hop. He also installed GC Coil-overs. I used AP, which is a completely different topic.

Permutations and combinations - for clarity

@Nliiitend1; when you say three settings (S to S, S to H, H to H) with two holes per side, which makes four combinations (including H to S), you are referring to effective settings negating the left or right-hand side orientation. Correct?

So, for three holes per side, seven effective settings would be:

1 Soft to Soft;
2 Soft to Medium;
3 Soft to Hard (stiff);
4 Medium to Hard;
6 Medium to Medium; and
7 Hard to Hard.

Therefore, eliminating duplicates, for example, left soft to right medium is effectively the same as left medium to right soft.

Are there more duplicates? Is a Soft to Hard equivalent to a Medium to Medium?

[silvapain]

Anti roll bars only resist articulation movement, not movement where both side are displaced the same amount.

[EvoFire]

Front bars would help if both wheels don't hop in unison, though I have never looked at whether that's a thing or not.

[Inquisitive]

Originally Posted by EvoFire Front bars would help if both wheels don't hop in unison, though I have never looked at whether that's a thing or not.

It seems that members have more success with motor mounts than front bars at controlling wheel hop. To me, that unnecessary power can just be dialled out with AP and rather applied elsewhere - so to speak.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive Permutations and combinations – for clarity @Nliiitend1; when you say three settings (S to S, S to H, H to H) with two holes per side, which makes four combinations (including H to S), you are referring to effective settings negating the left or right-hand side orientation. Correct? So, for three holes per side, seven effective settings would be: 1 Soft to Soft; 2 Soft to Medium; 3 Soft to Hard (stiff); 4 Medium to Hard; 6 Medium to Medium; and 7 Hard to Hard. Therefore, eliminating duplicates, for example, left soft to right medium is effectively the same as left medium to right soft. Are there more duplicates? Is a Soft to Hard equivalent to a Medium to Medium?

Yes. "Soft to Hard" is the same as "Medium to Medium."

[Nliiitend1]

@license2ill;

Did I stutter??

[jack_hammer]

Originally Posted by Nliiitend1 Yes. "Soft to Hard" is the same as "Medium to Medium."

full hard is where it's at.

wait, are we talking bars or boners?

[EvoFire]

Originally Posted by Nliiitend1 @license2ill; Did I stutter??

I was wondering about that too wtf

[EvoFire]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive It seems that members have more success with motor mounts than front bars at controlling wheel hop. To me, that unnecessary power can just be dialled out with AP and rather applied elsewhere - so to speak.

Oh of course I agree, just theoretically that applies. I don't think anyone has done it to cure hop though. I can see how it would help put power down coming out of a corner though, keeping things flatter.

[Inquisitive]

Are there any further comments on the OP?

Headings

• Changed Rear Camber Arms to Rear Camber as SPC’s Rear Camber Adjustment Kit is not technically a Rear Camber Arm
• Changed 4-Point Ladder Brace to 4-Point Braces as not all 4-Point Braces are Ladder types
• Removed Rear Brace Bars with previous content moved to Rear Strut Bars
• Changed to plural
• Changed Upper Control Arms to Front Adjustable Camber

Content

• Moved GTSPEC Front Lower Tie Brace, AutoExe Front Lower Arm Brace and UR Front Lower Bar to Front Traction Bars
• Added the Steeda / Racing Beat comparison image between the two product descriptions. Thanks @TiGraySpeed6;
• Moved whatever looked like a Rear Strut / Tower Bar to Rear Strut Bars – there might be some duplication here, such as:
CS Rear Chassis Brace ≡ Rear Brace Bar @Spencer@CorkSport; ?
• Removed duplicate UR Rear Tower / Strut Bar
• Moved UR Front Member Brace to 4-Point Braces as it looks like it has four points to me

Moved “How it works” and Technical Info to Top.

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 … And, THANK YOU for the effort & time you're putting into this, I hadn't realized this is one of the larger, if not the largest, category of parts available for the speeds.

Thanks for noticing. I certainly wasn’t trying to set any records, but I admit it is the largest project that I’ve done for @Raider;
.

[Raider]

For sure, this is going to the Knowledgebase!

http://www.mazdaspeedforum.org/forum/foru...-thread-186158

[aackthpt]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive Where is the DIY stuff? Surely welding a cross bar near the end to the middle would stiffen the RSB (bad or impractical design?).

I don't know anything about it but @maisonvi; has a DIY RSB according to his sig.

[phate]

Linking Ultra Racing's site as the overall "How It Works" and "Technical" is just a big advertisement for their products. They have some very watered down explanations that I wouldn't put in either of those categories. Just my opinion, but I think 'how it works' and 'technical' should be just that, and not an advertisement.

[maisonvi]

Originally Posted by aackthpt I don't know anything about it but @maisonvi; has a DIY RSB according to his sig.

I did make my own RSB. 2 ways to make a RSB stiffer (well 2 of many ways, but for practical purposes just 2) Diameter of the bar, and thickness of the wall. Go bigger on either and the spring becomes stiffer.

I did the math on my bar vs the stock bar to calculate spring stiffness and made it according to what I wanted.

Also, material can be changed as well, but I was set on 4140 as my material, so that wasnt an option for me

[BenWhitney]

subbed. Thinking next mods are rear sway bar & links, camber arms, lowering springs, and tower brace. Great thread.

[Inquisitive]

Originally Posted by phate Linking Ultra Racing's site as the overall "How It Works" and "Technical" is just a big advertisement for their products. They have some very watered down explanations that I wouldn't put in either of those categories. Just my opinion, but I think 'how it works' and 'technical' should be just that, and not an advertisement.

I’m not disagreeing with you. Both state clearly they are Ultra Racing’s. Watered down for a GearHead is very different from where I think most of us are. I mean I am still trying to wrap my head around Puhn and Staniforth’s formulae. I didn’t want to rewrite the “"How It Works" and "Technical Info" links and I couldn’t duplicate the images easily without infringing copyrights. I think that they do add value.

Would some sort of caveat or warning suffice, such as, “Warning, the following links are the opinion of Ultra Racing’s and not necessarily those shared by this MSF”?

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive I’m not disagreeing with you. Both state clearly they are Ultra Racing’s. Watered down for a GearHead is very different from where I think most of us are. I mean I am still trying to wrap my head around Puhn and Staniforth’s formulae. I didn’t want to rewrite the “"How It Works" and "Technical Info" links and I couldn’t duplicate the images easily without infringing copyrights. I think that they do add value. Would some sort of caveat or warning suffice, such as, “Warning, the following links are the opinion of Ultra Racing’s and not necessarily those shared by this MSF”?

No, it's clear,very basic, and well-presented with the illustrations. It's not salesy and it's clear where the links are from. We could discuss the needs and necessity of the pieces and more technical depth from there as well as any criticisms, but the links are fine and it's clear where they are from. More companies should be providing at least the same level of info in their pitches. The links' origin aren't something to get hung up on.

[jack_hammer]

i like books with pictars, too. words make me hurt in my head brain.

[MSP611]

Hmmm guess I need to get rear camber arms, the corksport skid plate looks nice.

No one makes an aftermarket tie rod endlink for toe adjustment for the speed6?

I have pretty much everything else. It sucks none of this bracing is for speed6. Gt spec used to make all these braces for speed6, streetunit (yes we know there reputation) before they were garbage made some too I have a couple.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by license2ill JBR said they were 25mm, but a bitch fight with micrometers ensued soon afterwards and nobody was satisfied with their girth after the measurement contest. Thread was closed prior to completion.

To be accurate, JBR claimed that it was 1", not 25 mm.

[TiGraySpeed6]

Originally Posted by MSP611 No one makes an aftermarket tie rod endlink for toe adjustment for the speed6?

I didn't even bother looking for an upgrade on the tie rod ends, just got a set from RockAuto

Outer Tie Rod End - Moog - 1 - MOG ES800027
Outer Tie Rod End - Moog - 1 - MOG ES800028