camber plates/ strut towers

[scott.k]

hello,
this is just me being curious, I found this 911 for sale a long time ago, im sure its sold a long tim ago as well, but what always interested me about this car is the strut tower and camber plate set up. The typical way ive seen camber plates done is using the camber boxes which are sold by a few different porsche race shops. theyre much larger, and you cut out the factory strut tower and weld them in. This setup, on the other hand, looks like a piece of steel square tubing welded on top of the factory tower with tabs (im guessing) for the plates to bolt to. it looks nice to me, and is probably a more cost effective alternative, through im not sure if rigidity and strength would suffer from this setup vs., say the rennsport boxes: OBrien1

but, on this setup the bars from the cage up front ate tied into the strut tower extensions, which im sure help.

would it be strong enough without those bars welded to it?


1974 Porsche 911 IMSA GTU RSR Vintage Race Car For Sale Front Trunk above | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Flieger]

I think either one is going to be just as strong or stronger than the stock one, even without the roll cage. Although, the method of attachment (plate on top) does not seem very good to me. I would prefer attaching the plate to the underside (like factory) so that the bolts do not need to be stressed so highly.

[scott.k]

Originally Posted by Flieger

I think either one is going to be just as strong or stronger than the stock one, even without the roll cage. Although, the method of attachment (plate on top) does not seem very good to me. I would prefer attaching the plate to the underside (like factory) so that the bolts do not need to be stressed so highly.

Yeah, I agree with the bolts for sure, almost every camber plate ive ever seen is mounted under the shock tower.
Thanks for the imput

[winders]

Pretty much all the installations in a 911 that use camber boxes have the camber plates go on top. That how it is with the SRP camber boxes in my race car with "Ground Control" camber plates.

Here is another install:

Installing front camber boxes - any gotchas?

I don't really see the problem. If there were a problem, they certainly would not be engineered the way they are now.

Scott

[Flieger]

The bolt would see lower loads since the force from the strut (small on a torsion bar car, large on a coil-over car) would be adding to the preload and decreasing the clamping force with the plate on top, but subtracting from the preload (but increasing the clamping force on the plate to chassis interface) with it on the bottom.

[winders]

Originally Posted by Flieger

The bolt would see lower loads since the force from the strut (small on a torsion bar car, large on a coil-over car) would be adding to the preload and decreasing the clamping force with the plate on top, but subtracting from the preload (but increasing the clamping force on the plate to chassis interface) with it on the bottom.

I understand the mechanical aspects. My point is that the loads are clearly not a problem.

Look here:

Anyone make their own camber boxes?

Note the 935 photos. Even Porsche does not see this as a problem.

Scott

[Flieger]

Interesting. But I still like the most efficient design possible, when doing something non-original and performance oriented like that.

[winders]

With the SRP kit, having the camber plates on top makes it simple to adjust caster as well. That would be more difficult with the plates on the bottom. "Most efficient" isn't most efficient if it adds unnecessary complications.

Scott

[Flieger]

You can have the plate attach to the bottom but have the bolt heads on top. Just like how the factory does it.

[winders]

I wasn't talking about bolt heads. The plate on the bottom makes it harder to adjust caster. Again, if this were an issue, there is no way that SRP, or Porsche for that matter, would put the plate on top.

Scott