Howdy Folks!

We are excited to offer our Engine Compartment Brace (Non-MSM Models)! We also have our Engine Compartment Brace (MSM Models) that allows the use and retention of the stock MSM bar towers to deliver the same triangulation of the front of the chassis as with the Non-MSM version with our towers.




The MaxG Engine Compartment Brace goes beyond just a normal strut bar/brace by triangulating the shock towers and firewall to stiffen the chassis.

Features and Benefits

• Improved steering response, feedback, and feel
• Integrates engine compartment structure by connecting shock towers and the firewall
• Twice as stiff as the factory MSM bar
• Buffed/Polished Brace without MaxG towers weighs 6.1lbs; Powder Coated Brace without MaxG towers weighs 6.6lbs
• Buffed/Polished brace with MaxG towers weighs just 8.9lbs; Powder Coated Brace with MaxG towers weighs 9.5lbs

Finishes Available

• Buffed
• Black Powder Coat
• Polished

An additional key note includes compatibility with our Dual Flow Coolant Reroute Kit!







Here is a chart demonstrating the results of our testing of our brace versus the factory MSM bar:



It should be noted we tested the brace with and without the firewall reinforcement to compare the results of triangulating the brace between the towers and the firewall, versus just having the brace bridge the two shock towers.

We welcome any questions or comments and look forward to hearing from the community!

Regards,
Josh

 

Got any a/b/a tests on track for lap-time results on this here brace thingamagig?

 

Not yet! We're hoping to get some track time soon to get some results in a more stressful environment.

 

Oooooo many slotted bolts.

 

Can you explain a bit on how a 3-point bending test of the brace correlates to real-world deflection? I don't think there's a vertical force at the center of the brace while driving.

 

There was no actual vertical force applied to the brace during the testing; it's hard to see from the photo, but the jack is only there to support the weight of the tension dynamometer instead of hanging it off the brace.

Below is a larger photo of the testing setup that describes what was done to actually measure the deflection, where the load is applied between the two tower through the use of turn buckles; no vertical force is applied on the center of the bar.



Hope that answers your question!

 

Seems way more reasonable now; still why is the brace disconnected from the chassis? They are supposed to work cooperatively (supposing that loading laterally the brace itself is a reasonable loadcase, which is debatable)

 

I'm guessing to allow it to move, however with the Miata's front suspension design, the shock would just pivot with the tower. It's a well thought out test, but I think bolting the shock up was an unnecessary step.

cat props to the PO for actually delivering a sturdy brace with a well thought out test and data!

 

I'm assuming why you're asking why we tested it disconnected from the firewall? Or are you asking about one of the towers not being bolted down?

For the former, we wanted to test the stiffness with and without being connected to the firewall to see if there was a measurable difference in deflection; there was! For the later, leaving one free to move allowed use to see just how the deflection actually affected the firewall itself; had we had both towers bolted down, the deflection forces would have been larger and would have made it more of a challenge to observe deflection differences between the bars we tested.

The firewall attachment plays a significant role in attempting to reduce front subframe twisting when the chassis is loading while turning or making sudden road inputs (avoiding a pothole, lane change, etc.)

Hopefully that all makes sense!

 

Much better! The small picture made it seem like you were loading the center of the brace with the jack.

 

Glad I could help!