Becuase more than double whish bone suspension honda's race in the SCCA, for a car that is McPherson strut setup a trianglelated bar is a big improvement.

 

Just because a part is overenginnered doesn't mean it's so great. For something like a set of connecting rods, or a clutch, or a set of shocks, whatever, I'd want a part that is designed to take more stress than I'm going to dish out.

The plain and simple truth is the Neuspeed bar gets the job of stiffening up the shock towers done more than satisfactorily and can be easily found for 90 bucks...full retail is 120. Sure a Benen or other triangulated bar might in theory make the engine bay stiffer, but really the difference, if noticeable at all, isn't worth twice the price to me.

Maybe on a car that was capable of exerting insane amounts of pressure on its strut towers because of its tenacious cornering ability, or just a more expensive car, or both, I could see the point in dropping a whole two bills on something like a strut bar. But an Integra? Nah.

 

If that's the philosophy that you adhere to when modifying your car, then I'm not sure why you recommended against the eBay products originally discussed.

 

There's a huge difference between "cheap shit" and "more than adequate."

For example:

Is it really necessary to buy a set of JIC FLT-A2 coilovers for $1600 when a set of shortened and revalved Konis with some GC sleeves will offer almost as much performance for half the price?

Is it really necessary to buy a Brembo big brake kit for $2300 when you can get a Wilwood kit that is almost as good for $600?

Maybe some folks are willing to shell out insane amounts of money on modifying a front wheel drive car powered by a normally aspirated inline four, but to me any sort of reasonable cost benefit analysis clearly says to go for the GC/Koni suspension and the Wilwood brakes.

I wouldn't call either of these things "cheap shit" worthy of being sold on eBay at cut rate prices. They are quality products that offer a significant performance increase and just about as much functionality as you could ever use, without being overly expensive.

Get my drift?

 

Wait...why wouldn't rear strut tower bars help? Wouldn't they be serving a similar purpose as the Type-R trunk brace?

 

Simple answer: the trunk brace is not a strut tower bar.

The rear shocks and springs are neither supporting as much weight as the fronts, nor are they as stiff as the fronts. As a result, a lot less force is exerted upon the rear shock towers.

For whatever reason lately people want to buy up every stupid reinforcement bar they can get their hands on as if it's going to make a huge improvement in the way the car drives. Basically the stock GSR front strut bar is good enough, if the car doesn't have a stocker then something like a Neuspeed front bar is nice. With an upgraded rear sway bar, a rear lower tie bar is probably a good idea.

There are however, far more important things to concentrate your hard earned dollars on that will make much more of an improvement in the way the car drives. They are: tires, shocks, springs and sway bar(s). A good alignment never hurt either. Until all of these things are taken care of I really wouldn't worry about getting your hands on the lates "gee that sure is cool" structural reinforcement.

The worst part of all of this is a simple roll cage would be way cheaper and way more effective than all these weird bars bolted to random places. It's like now you have to have a front and rear strut tower bars, front and rear lower tie bars, a trunk bar, a c-pillar bar, blah blah blah. If you really want to stiffen up the car and don't mind a bunch of bars all over the place, save the hassle and get a cage.

 

This is apples to oranges. The original discussion was about strut bars. If all you're looking for is "good enough", I think you'd be hard pressed to discern the performance difference between the $100+ Neuspeed bar and an eBay bar costing less than half that (and after all, $80 is $80 as you pointed out). Does the fact that the Neuspeed bar costs more make it of higher quality or effectiveness, even though the basic principle of its design is more or less the same (i.e., linking only the two towers)? My original argument is that the triangulated bars are a more effective design, plain and simple. If you aren't limited by a racing class and you want to add rigidity to the car by adding a strut bar, the triangulate bar will perform better. Is it more expensive? Sure. Are there people that want that next level of performance, even if it means spending more? Of course (look at the many people running custom headers and Hondata systems rather than off-the-shelf pieces and a V-AFC). We're all familiar with the concept of diminishing returns, it's just a matter of how much you value performance over cost.

 

The point I'm trying to make, and you are not seeing, is that what you seem to feel is necessary for "the next level of performance" is in fact not the case.

My examples were of things that are of reasonably equivalent function but one is significantly more expensive. There are of course instances where the more expensive item does indeed offer much more functionality over the less expensive one. A V-AFC is not reasonably equivalent to a Hondata. A DC ceramic coated mild steel header is not reasonably equivalent to a Hytech.

There are many things however, such as the examples I mentioned, where you can spend twice the money or even more than that for an incremental improvement. Think about it: what's the difference between the coilover setups I mentioned? A spiffy aluminum housing and a theaded lower mount. The "cheap" option still does a damn good job. What's the difference between the brake setups I mentioned? A slightly larger rotor and more brand recognition. Again, the "cheap" option still does a damn good job. The parallel which I drew, is that strut bars are another such instance. Sure, a triangulated bar sure is great. But for less than half the price, you can get almost all of the same effect. I mean really, it's just a strut bar.

"So you can say the same thing about the Neuspeed over the eBay crap."

No. Because the eBay crap doesn't even do its job. It just looks the part so cheap ricers can have something shiny under the hood.

For most people, most of the time, paying twice as much for "the next level of performance" is not a realistic aspiration when they're trying to buy more than one thing for their car. Getting the part that still does a more than fine job while not breaking the bank, especially for these cars, is a far more favorable option. It may not win car shows, but really, who cares?

And now since this has gone on far too long and you are obviously failing to even read what I am trying to say without forumulating some way to prove yourself, I'm done.

 

LOL...

I have Spoon strut bars on my ITR.

Although I'd never get rid of them because they were a gift from a good friend, the Spoon strut bars are not the absolute best because they have pivot points.

The Mugen and Carbing strut bars are probably better choices than the Spoon strut bars if money's no object.

 

Do you think this applies mostly to the older McPherson cars, or do you think a modern car like the EP3 would also benefit disproportionately?