mx5cartalk.com

has anyone installed one of these?

anyone want to give me pro's / con's if you have?

http://www.miatamania.com/Shop/ViewProducts.aspx?PlateIndexID=38927&SortOrder=1

Does not appear to add extra lightness!

Cheers,
Alf

Alf wrote:Does not appear to add extra lightness!

Cheers,
Alf

not all of us are looking for "saving" weight
i would rather have a car that has all of its interior bits which handles rather then a car with every single "extra" bit of weight taken out.
i mean some people go as far as to taking the bonet stay out...
thats just stupid and not me.

extra weight... who cares....

Here took 2 seconds to find on m.net http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.ph ... +Power+Kit

To sum it up, "some" people like it. The very old thread was closed ages ago, but the general concensus was that its not worth the money (if it even does anything).

Personally, if you want a tighter drivetrain, buy solid engine mounts and diff mounts, the only 4 points where the engine, diff and gearbox are attached to the car. Solid mounts are pretty hardcore though (they're harsh). If anything, it will reduce weight.

ALF yes keeping mass low is very important, but the advantages of some heavy items, eg FM frame rails, braces, and turbochargers, outweigh the negative effect of their added mass. (no pun intended). But yes I think in this case you're right.

It looks like overkill to me. The Mazda engineers would have spent a lot of time designing the PPF and if it needed a few mill of extra thickness I'm sure they would have done it.

They are a good idea in big power cars. The PPF stretches and warps under high power launches. There's been a few break in race car land over the years. I've been meaning to make something up for a while now.

My PPF cracked at the diff mounting points

Garry wrote:My PPF cracked at the diff mounting points

The diff end is where the greatest bending moment (torque) is applied. I don't see that this brace will do much as it is attached at the other end...

You'd be better off thickening the top and bottom flanges of the C section rather than adding another web if you are trying to increase bending stiffness. I'd say that unit was a waste of time.

It'd be really funny after all the crap this poor little brace has copped from all over the world that it turned out to be really good. Someone do a strand7 stress analysis on it, until then nobody can be certain.

Sasso wrote:Someone do a strand7 stress analysis on it, until then nobody can be certain.

Why? Is fatigue an issue?

orx626 wrote:

Sasso wrote:Someone do a strand7 stress analysis on it, until then nobody can be certain.

Why? Is fatigue an issue?

no but flex is.

Sasso wrote:

orx626 wrote:

Sasso wrote:Someone do a strand7 stress analysis on it, until then nobody can be certain.

Why? Is fatigue an issue?

no but flex is.

Is deflection an issue with PPF's?

what are you talking about? doesn't it twist with the gb and tries to take the diff with it?

Sasso wrote:what are you talking about? doesn't it twist with the gb and tries to take the diff with it?

If the PPF is suppose to transfer torque from the gearbox to the diff then why would Mazda have used a torsionally weak section such as a channel?