C/C Plates work with Stock Strut Tower Brace?

[Daegoba]

Just got new wheels and tires (thanks Forgeline!!) and after 7k miles, I noticed the wear on the fronts. Settings were at -1.2° when the car was lowered on FRPP T springs. I didn’t think the wear would be much, but it’s more than I anticipated. So...

Can I run caster/camber plates and still keep my stock shock tower brace?

I don’t have much experience with Vorshlag, but their product looks nice. In the Foxbody world, Maximum Motorsports is the go-to. Anybody ran both? Like one over the other?
Let’s talk about it!

 

[JDee]

This is for an S550, but I think some of my experience may be relevant to S197s.

I have the MM plates. Not a great experience. Max camber I can get is -2.1, their design does not give any benefit to modifying the shock towers in any way, they are maxed out for movement towards the center of the car inside the strut tower. Also the hardware is janky, I had a bolt snap at way less than their 46 lbft setting, which they initially blamed on my torque wrench, then they backed off on that when I told them the brand. Then they charged me money to ship a replacement. Others have had this problem as well. I could fool around with strut bolts and clearancing the strut at the knuckle but that would impact my tire to strut clearance which is 4mm and I don't want to go less than that. They fit with the stock shock tower brace,but there is very little room between the strut bolts and the brace, certainly slotting the bolt holes is not an option with the brace there.

I just bought the Vorshlag units and their jig for opening up the strut towers. They look much better engineered and I am told by Jason can get -3 stock and -3.5 once the towers are opened up. Expensive, yes, especially given the state of the Canuck buck these days (eating the bulk of a G note to get them up here), but the MM ones just don't work well enough.

I have never had any weird tire wear problems running a lot of negative camber, on the street or on the track. I think that problem is worried about way too much. Just my personal experiece though, as always YMMV.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Just got new wheels and tires (thanks Forgeline!!) and after 7k miles, I noticed the wear on the fronts. Settings were at -1.2° when the car was lowered on FRPP T springs. I didn’t think the wear would be much, but it’s more than I anticipated. So...

-1.2° is a very mild camber setting. Getting much wear from that tells me that your real problem is probably bad toe (part of which could have come from the camber change that came with the lowering). Did you get an alignment after lowering the car?

If you have to choose between the C-C plates and the tower brace, choose the plates.


Norm

 

[Daegoba]

This is for an S550, but I think some of my experience may be relevant to S197s.

I have the MM plates. Not a great experience. Max camber I can get is -2.1, their design does not give any benefit to modifying the shock towers in any way, they are maxed out for movement towards the center of the car inside the strut tower. Also the hardware is janky, I had a bolt snap at way less than their 46 lbft setting, which they initially blamed on my torque wrench, then they backed off on that when I told them the brand. Then they charged me money to ship a replacement. Others have had this problem as well. I could fool around with strut bolts and clearancing the strut at the knuckle but that would impact my tire to strut clearance which is 4mm and I don't want to go less than that. They fit with the stock shock tower brace,but there is very little room between the strut bolts and the brace, certainly slotting the bolt holes is not an option with the brace there.

I just bought the Vorshlag units and their jig for opening up the strut towers. They look much better engineered and I am told by Jason can get -3 stock and -3.5 once the towers are opened up. Expensive, yes, especially given the state of the Canuck buck these days (eating the bulk of a G note to get them up here), but the MM ones just don't work well enough.

I have never had any weird tire wear problems running a lot of negative camber, on the street or on the track. I think that problem is worried about way too much. Just my personal experiece though, as always YMMV.

Thanks for the experience. I’m not so much concerned about the wear, as it was slight after the mileage. I just want good, even wear through the tire. I was leaning towards the Vorshlag units anyway.

 

[TMSBOSS]

I have MM plates and kept my factory brace. There is plenty of stud above the brace.

 

[Daegoba]

-1.2° is a very mild camber setting. Getting much wear from that tells me that your real problem is probably bad toe (part of which could have come from the camber change that came with the lowering). Did you get an alignment after lowering the car?

If you have to choose between the C-C plates and the tower brace, choose the plates.


Norm

Thanks Norm.
It wasn’t over the top, but I’d think it would have been a little less severe with only ~1.2° negative. I know there’s a benefit of running the plates, but I want to keep my strut tower brace as well. I may just order some and see if I can modify my brace to fit with them.

 

[Daegoba]

I have MM plates and kept my factory brace. There is plenty of stud above the brace.

Good to know! Why’d you choose the MM plates over the Vorshlag?

 

[TMSBOSS]

I got a deal from a member who was selling his car after the lap of america. He had these plates, brake cooling ducts complete and a rear diff girdle as a package. I would have bought the Vorshlag plates had this deal not popped up.

 

[67GTA]

Thanks for the experience. I’m not so much concerned about the wear, as it was slight after the mileage. I just want good, even wear through the tire. I was leaning towards the Vorshlag units anyway.

Great deal on a brand new set here on TMO if they’re still available - link below. The Vorshlag plates are modular on the spring side, so you would just need to get the correct spring adapter from them for your current setup.

https://trackmustangsonline.com/threads/mustang-05-14-vorshlag-camber-plates.15374/

 

[Bill Pemberton]

Have run both M&M and now have the Vorshlag ones. The key is both are good products, but the Vorshlag is definitely the over-engineered one with the most range of movement. That is a major plus since one often finds different amounts of camber adjustment for different tires and the M&M set is a sterling set, but Vorshlag ( imho) is the Gold Standard. Yes, one can achieve way more camber with the Vorshlag system from my personal experience with a GT 350 and 3 Bosses.

My son has a Vorshlag set on his EVO 9 and seeing the quality and adjustment he could make caused me to switch for good. I am old fashioned concerning one other item, and that is customer service and being able to talk to the guys at Vorshlag was a super impressive benefit. Not that M&M wasn't okay , just that Vorshlag will chat with you and really make sure you are getting the best for your vehicle.

Need we say more, they are also a TMO Sponsor.

 

[Grant 302]

For street only use and for those that the primary function of the plates will be to reduce the static camber, the cheaper MM units make more sense.

For anyone who needs or might need the greater negative adjustment range, the Vorshlag plates make more sense and are probably the best built ones available.

I have two sets of MM plates. First set because they were available first. Second set because they came with the CorteX/JRi system. Otherwise the Vorshslag plates would be the obvious choice for me.

Not sure what Bill means by ‘over-engineered’. I’d call them well-engineered. Easy to recommend despite not owning them.

 

[Bill Pemberton]

Semantics my friend , over engineered , well engineered , superbly engineered , can all be used synonymously in this example. Sorry, the term came about with some friends of mine explaining George Ciamillo of MGW, as we often teased him for taking a perfectly superior product with no flaws and trying to make it better. He didn't just re-engineer his products we said the often over engineered them, so it was being used in a positive sense and yes is an exaggeration.

The Vorshlag piece just hit me as having a similar finesse, so I used that over engineered comment and yours is much better to accurately describe. Sorry if it is misleading , but appears we both feel the same about the product.

 

[Grant 302]

Thanks for over-explaining, Bill.

 

[Bill Pemberton]

Ha, Ha......got me on that one Grant!!!!

 

[TymeSlayer]

I got -2.6 on my MM plates before they maxed out on my Boss. Brace fits on just fine too.

 

[Daegoba]

I got -2.6 on my MM plates before they maxed out on my Boss. Brace fits on just fine too.

Good to know. Thanks dude.

 

[Bill Pemberton]

I could only get 2.4 max with the M&M plates on my two prior Boss 302s, and that was part of the reason I chose the Vorshlag over them this time around. Only one side would max out that high and I really could tell I needed closer to three on the Boss S with the way my tires were wearing.

As Grant noted , good choice if you will only occasionally run and are mainly concerned about the car being street driven , the M&Ms are solid quality. But if you are a constant modder and highly competitive, then I would recommend the Vorshlag system --- just because that way you don't buy twice . Using myself as an example, because so often , in the past, I splurge on something and then later realize I should have spent a bit more for something that works a bit better, has more range ,or allows more mods. Just saying..............

 

[TymeSlayer]

^^^
Good advise as always from the Track Codger.

 

[Grant 302]

The max camber adjustment from any set of plates will also depend on the ride height (and other geometry if different than stock like A arm length). This is the main reason everyone has different figures to report for max negative.