GnatGoSplat Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 For your viewing pleasure, I found some pics of W-body strut towers at the junkyard that were all cut up. A common myth is that the gen 1 W-bodies with rear leaf spring have strut towers that are as strong as the 95-99 Monte/Luminas that have rear coil over strut springs. This couldn't be further from the truth, the MC/Lumina rear strut towers are not constructed anywhere similar to the W-bodies with rear leaf. This is not to say the gen 1 rear strut towers aren't strong enough for rear coilovers, but that GM apparently felt it necessary to thoroughly beef up the rear strut towers of the MC/Lumina when they went to the conventional coil over strut design. First, the 95-99 Monte/Lumina rear strut tower. Wow, that's a beefy strut tower. This pic taken of a chopped-up, fire damaged Lumina. This is the 88-96 strut tower. Nothing but 1/8" stamped sheet metal throughout with no bracing or reinforcements. This pic taken of a chopped-up 90 Turbo STE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegeta Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 Is the shape different that the extra layer cant be added? Any chance of adding reinforcement underneath? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted November 17, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 Is the shape different that the extra layer cant be added? Any chance of adding reinforcement underneath? The shape is different enough that an extra layer of sheetmetal designed for a 95-99 Monte/Lumina wouldn't match up. If you wanted to just spot-weld some additional 1/8" sheetmetal to the existing strut towers, you probably could. I'm sure you could add reinforcement anywhere you see fit, although I wouldn't know the best place because I'm no mechanical engineer. If I wanted them really strong, I would probably build some frame work that runs across the top of them and also down the back using some steel tubing similar to the shock hoops you can get for lifted trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Burning Rom Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 Good Info! Great Pics! Too bad that Turbo STE had to be chopped up to provide them though :oops: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismellrealbad Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 i think ill stick with a leaf spring if i ever got around to this project....since now im reconsidering keeping my car n all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91cutty Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 i think ill stick with a leaf spring if i ever got around to this project....since now im reconsidering keeping my car n all There's something about these MF'ing cars. You try to ditch them and they reel you back in! They're even worse than women! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dykz34 Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 How about similar pictures? Those are two different areas. For a TRUE comparison, you'd need to have pictures of BOTH towers with the struts removed and then take a side shot of each to show the thickness. You cant compare them with these pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted November 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 How about similar pictures? Those are two different areas. For a TRUE comparison, you'd need to have pictures of BOTH towers with the struts removed and then take a side shot of each to show the thickness. You cant compare them with these pictures. Actually, they are the same area, different angles. The cuts are in similar areas, both had the front part of the wheel well hacked off. I photographed the Lumina more from below to show the bracing and upper mount structure, neither of which are present in the gen 1 strut towers. There was not a whole lot to show on the 90 from that angle, the strut towers are so small it would have been obstructed by the strut. That shot does show the thickness, you can clearly see the edge of the sheetmetal. The entire upper 1/2 of the Monte/Lumina strut tower and wheel housing was triple layers of 1/8" sheetmetal bonded (spot welded?) together, while the layers split off and are anchored in different areas on the bottom half. I know you like to think these gen 1 W-body rear strut towers are built tough, but it is one single piece of stamped 1/8" sheetmetal throughout, nothing more. There were no other layers split off and anchored in different areas to provide bracing or stiffness. There literally is not much else to show. Trust me, there are NADA, ZERO, ZILCH similarities. 95-99 Monte and Lumina is much stronger, perhaps over-engineered, but still much stronger for whatever reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dykz34 Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 But how do you know that the layers dont end when they run up into the fender? Did you take pics of the top of the tower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey b Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 would that tower fit in a 92 with slight modification? I might get one of those with a spring and get a spring made to make it lower. Much cheaper that the FFP coilovers. Been thinking about that for a while now. First was from a chrysler product, but then I saw a 99 regal and it had the mounting holes for the strut AND the spring coil in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dykz34 Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 The tower is probably welded into place. Also, there are three mounting holes for the 95+ rear springs whereas on Gen. 1 W-Bodies there are only two strut mounting holes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted November 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 But how do you know that the layers dont end when they run up into the fender? Did you take pics of the top of the tower? I have pics of the top from the underside of the strut tower on the Lumina. Some layers do end at certain points, but they are still there for reinforcement. I don't know what difference it would make whether they run up into the fender or not? That doesn't change the fact that the strut towers are multiple layers in many areas where strength is needed, and also braced/anchored at different points while the gen 1 strut towers are built as though no strength was needed at all. The fender could be cut out of a 95+ Lumina and the strut tower would still hold. This is like comparing a house made of steel I-beams and concrete to a wood frame house, but saying the concrete house isn't any stronger than the wood frame house because there are spots that aren't 100% concrete. joey b, You can't (easily) put the 95+ strut tower into a 92. The 95+ strut tower is 4x larger to start with. If strut were out of it, I could put my whole head under where the upper strut mount goes. In a 92, only my fist would fit. The 95+ tower metal layers are also welded to different areas on the body and unibody frame. You're talking major surgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowtiekid Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 Unless all the layers are actually anchored to the body somewhere, all they are doing is making the top of the tower more rigid. Since the footprint of the top of the tower is so much larger on the Gen IIs (to make room for the large coil springs), they have to add more metal to keep it from flexing. The larger the area, the more metal needed to keep it from flexing. The part that you have labeled as “1-Layer of reinforcement†looks to be nothing more than a cap in the underside of the top of the tower. This is basically the same as the large steel piece that is welded to the top of the Gen I towers. The vertical pinch weld on the Gen I towers also acts like an “I†beam. The force exerted by the struts is acting along the center section of the “beamâ€Â. While both styles are quite different, I don’t see (from a ME point of view) where one is so much stronger than the other. Many of the reinforcement layers on the Gen II towers don’t appear to anchor anywhere in particular. So they just appear to be reinforcement for the roof of the towers. The bottom line is that you can’t compare strength based purely on how thick the material is… shape of the tower is as important as anything else. Shawn, do you have any pics of the “frame rail†that runs under the trunk floor to the rear of the car? I am curious as to how those differ from Gen I to Gen II. Thanks for the pics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 The entire upper 1/2 of the Monte/Lumina strut tower and wheel housing was triple layers of 1/8" sheetmetal bonded (spot welded?) together, while the layers split off and are anchored in different areas on the bottom half. He did say they were anchored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted November 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 Unless all the layers are actually anchored to the body somewhere, all they are doing is making the top of the tower more rigid. They are, and isn't more rigid = stronger? Metal flexion will eventually lead to metal fatigue. The part that you have labeled as “1-Layer of reinforcement†looks to be nothing more than a cap in the underside of the top of the tower. This is basically the same as the large steel piece that is welded to the top of the Gen I towers. I don't see it... the cap on the bottom would act as a reinforcement to protect the top of the strut tower from upward vertical upward forces, seeing as how the cap is formed so that its sides are turned down and spot-welded to the vertical surfaces. I don't see how the steel piece welded to the top of the gen 1 towers would protect the top of the strut tower from any upward vertical forces. I don’t see (from a ME point of view) where one is so much stronger than the other. Find a JY and find one that's been cut away and study the design. I'm sure you would see it. Shawn, do you have any pics of the “frame rail†that runs under the trunk floor to the rear of the car? I am curious as to how those differ from Gen I to Gen II. Thanks for the pics. I didn't take any, but my guess (and it's just a guess) is the frame rails are similar. However, the 95+ Lumina strut tower IS anchored in several more spots on the bottom than the gen 1's. That would give it significantly more strength in maintaining proper camber and caster at the tops of the towers under the same amount of stress. Also the fact that the upper mount is so large to distribute the force across a greater surface area would greatly reduce the likelihood of the tops of the strut towers deforming or flexing. There are enough people using coil-overs to prove that the gen 1 strut towers are plenty strong, but it's clear (to me at least) that the 95+ strut towers are considerably stronger and designed for coil springs from the beginning. It doesn't look to me that the engineers at GM ever intended for the gen 1 W-body strut towers to endure much more than just damping forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowtiekid Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 Well, unless the "cap" runs the full length of the vertical portion, the vertical portion itself is not any stronger. Yes, the tops of the towers are heavier, but they have to be since they are larger in diameter/area. if the top strut mounts werent that big and only applied force in the center of that large area, they would push through. I am not saying the new style doesnt have more metal there, i am just saying that there are other things to consider when evaluating overall strength. Unfortunately, none of the JYs around here have any W body cars cut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heza Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 this is a wonderful debate. ill keep reading because right now im looking at buying Bowtiekid's rear coilovers. other members are using coilovers and have not had any problems with the coilover setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowtiekid Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 No one has ever had a problem with the coil overs. As Shawn himself pointed out, the Gen I towers are strong enough for coil-overs even though they were not designed for it. Yes, the new towers are thicker, but I dont see a problem with either tower. I am done with the debate. I just wanted to make it known that the Gen I towers will not cause a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.