C5 was the first car to use hydroformed steel frame rails. That resulted in an extremely stiff frame. If you read All Corvettes are Red you will see they actually had to weaken the frame rails to get it to pass the side impact crash tests as the original frame was too strong and didn't allow enough deformation to reduce the force of the impact. After it was adapted in the C5 GM put it in their truck lines next.

Aftermarket companies provided stiffening braces for C2/C3 Corvettes that fit between the front suspension mounts to provide added strength to keep the frame from twisting. Here is a link to the C2/C3 spreader bar from VB&P http://www.vbandp.com/C2-C3-Corvette...Page-2-30.html . If you notice there aren't any such products on the market for C5s and C6s so it seems there really isn't a need.

Bill

 

I had a STB on my old LT1 Z28. I don't think it did a thing. I never got around to having the SFCs I bought for it welded on.

 

Well, over 8,500 have viewed the recent thread on Grand Sport tire wear; and two-thirds of Vetts are bought with automatic transmissions; that should give you some indication. My guess? 80 to 90%.

 

Maybe because Vettes don't have struts.....you think?

 

And I think you would be correct.

 

I have a triangular one in my '90 Camaro and it DEFINATELY does something. I have driven the car without it after an engine swap just in case it would be in the way if I had to wrench on the new motor. After driving it enough to where I was satisfied the new engine was ok I reinstalled the brace and noticed much less shakes and rattles in the dash.

 

CRAPOLA - If only he would have installed Strut Tower Braces

 

OK, lot's of people are jumping on the strut part of the statement but regardless the question is still a valid one. Yes, it would be more correct to call them shock tower braces in the case of the Corvettte.

OK, there are likely a couple of reasons. Several have said the car doesn't need them. That's likely true but perhaps we could dive into that a bit more and guess WHY the car doesn't need them.

However, before I do that I would suggest looking at a picture of the Corvette chassis with no clothes.
http://www.ipmotor2011.com/uploads/7...68302_orig.jpg
Notice where the tops of the rear shocks are? They are right in the frame rails. It's also under the trunk floor. This means it's possible GM uses the trunk floor to do the job of a STB. I mean people often don't realize that the Corvette's floor and even the windshield add to the stiffness of the chassis. The Nissan's have that horrid STB going through the rear cargo area because that's where the tops of the dampers are. Those same parts are all under the rear floor of the Corvette. In front there really isn't much room to have anything cross over the top of the motor.

But we should also ask why those bars are needed. Often (though not always) it's because the total weight of the car is supported by those four towers. In the case of the Nissan, like the Corvette, it has separate dampers and springs but cars like the Miata have a coil over design (I'm not referring to the aftermarket misuse of the term, just a spring around the damper). The Corvette supports it's static weight under the chassis where the spring mounts. The shock towers only deal with damper loads and the loads associated with bottoming the suspension. In the Miata both spring and damper loads go into the shock towers thus they have to deal with a higher load. By using the lead spring GM is able to spread the load out over more of the chassis thus lessening the need for a STB.

BTW, as others have said, STBs are most important when you have struts because movement of the top of the damper results in changes to the car's alignment. With double wishbone and multi-link designs* a movement of the shock tower only reduces your damper effectiveness and to a lesser extent the spring's control of the chassis. Your alignment is unchanged.

*Double wishbone is a sub-set of multilink. It's just a case where two links happen to form a triangle and happen to be fused together.

 

 

Well after reading the responses to my post I think it's quite clear I did not know what a "strut" was. Now after some google searching I can see this was indeed a stupid question.

But I DID learn a lot about my car's frame, and now I have an even deeper appreciation for it.

Despite my question I actually do know quite a bit about my car, and have read a few books on the history or Corvette as well, the more I learn the more there is to like about these machines.

For instance I was surprised to find out that the Viper is not a solid frame vehicle and the newer ones have strut tower braces. Re-affirms the statement that Corvette is America's only true sportscar.

The Porsche 911 is also unibody.. found that interesting.

 

The '93-'02 F-body also had an SLA front suspension. And shock tower braces were common additions.

SLAs and STBs are not mutually exclusive.

 

honestly its not a stupid question: you didnt know about the corvette frame and the braces are also called shock tower braces (not just strut braces) because cars with shocks sometimes need them. Unibody cars are weaker and under abuse they loosen up. Most ricers put those braces on their cars for looks but will never need them and will only slow their cars down because theyve added more weight. However in certain situations they are very useful. If you were to go through some backroads in a unibody car and gun it over a few high railroad tracks at speed you could quickly see how badly you can distort the mounts...

 

Well Chevy didn't have to add any extra support to the coupe for the vert. Probably one of the only convertibles that are actually lighter than their coupe counterparts. That tells you how good the frame is already.

 

The Viper and Corvette chassis are of somewhat similar designs. They are both space frames with similar front and rear sections though the Corvette I think uses the center tunnel more than the Viper. The X brace used by Dodge would probably up the chassis stiffness of the Corvette as well (hard to say without a better study of the two frames) but it would likely raise the hood height of the Corvette.

Getting hung up on the type of chassis a car has is often a fools game. Some people insist that the Corvette is a ladder frame because it has two main frame rails. It does but it's hardly a ladder like the C1 or C2 Corvette. Some call it body on frame because they think the term refers to body panels bolted to a chassis (which would make almost all Ferraris body on frame). Some think it can't be a space frame because it's doesn't have enough tubes. Yet the space frame Countach starts to look a lot like the Corvette frame if you simply close in the tubes with panels.

The same people might insist the LS7 isn't a good motor because it hardly cracks 70hp/l. Really this is silliness. As they say in racing when the green flag drops the BS stops. When it comes to these technical details the devil in in them. Sometimes the design features that are critical to making one design work are often useless or even detrimental in another case. I personally think the cases where going against conventional wisdom successfully are often the most interesting cases.

 

Not all strut tower braces are ugly.

The Hotchkis in my 2000 WS6:


And the car: