Hi guys,

New here, just wondering what the exact part numbers are for the strut tower bar that fits the 3.6L. I know a certain CTS-V bar fits, but I need the part number or at least the exact year and engine to be sure it fits

If anyone has one for sale I'll take it!!! Looking for a rear also

Thanks

Mark

the LS2 strut tower brace off of the 06-07 CTS-V's fits the stock CTS. It is the same STB used on the CTSes with the sport appearance package.
i think nickc530(something something) found a retailer that will sell STBs for the CTS at a lower cost than the OEM.

i got mine through Lindsay Cadillac for about 145 shipped i think.

oops i think i almost gave you the wrong part number, but someone might be able to verify it. 15245609

What year do you have?

2003s and some 2004s have a problem with the STB and hood clearance. The late 2004s and later have a notch in the hood and isolator that clears for the STB. Without the notch the hood will hit the STB and not close, or so I have read here.

My 2004 is too early and is missing the notch. In the future, I will investigate a solution.

Dan

The trut bar for the '07 sport works too. Not expensive!
I got one too

Check with Schramauto.com. They sell them for $80 shipped. Check out this thread for a little more info
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-forum-2003-through-2007/133453-anyone-interested-stb.html

unless your on laughing gas or blown...you dont need that....


kinda like a Honda with a Giant wing..........just not as ugly......


put your $$$ into something else.......exhaust? tints?

If you run autocross you DO need one.

makes a big difference, i have front and rear strut braces, corners much better. way less body roll.

makes a big difference, i have front and rear strut braces, corners much better. way less body roll.

Were did you pick up the rear tower brace?

i got mine from rms from here, he now sells them at lindsay cadillac.

sorry guys i have an 05 so the notch is in the hood... should be good, id like to reduce bodyroll, hence why im wondering... tints and exhaust are already done

I have a 05 and the STB was immediatly noticible. It stiffened up the body tremendously, I didn't realize how much flex there was. I then added the V sway bars and the cornering is really tight without affecting the ride. Best simple mods ever.

sorry guys i have an 05 so the notch is in the hood... should be good, id like to reduce bodyroll, hence why im wondering... tints and exhaust are already done

STB's dont reduce body roll. You'll need to get a set of sway bars and/or performance springs/shocks for that....or get rid of weight.

STB's preserve suspension geometry under sideways load...they resist chassis flex

I have a 05 and the STB was immediatly noticible. It stiffened up the body tremendously, I didn't realize how much flex there was. I then added the V sway bars and the cornering is really tight without affecting the ride. Best simple mods ever.you've got a nice car...6 spd :)

STB's dont reduce body roll. You'll need to get a set of sway bars and/or performance springs/shocks for that....or get rid of weight.

STB's preserve suspension geometry under sideways load...they resist chassis flex
yeah that's what i meant

If you run autocross you DO need one.

negative.

STB's dont reduce body roll. You'll need to get a set of sway bars and/or performance springs/shocks for that....or get rid of weight.

STB's preserve suspension geometry under sideways load...they resist chassis flex

umm sorry guys. That is not the case in a unibody car. For strut bars to actually be effective at "stiffening" up the suspemsion geometry requires the strut bar to be braced to the chassis itself.

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachments/cadillac-cts-forum-2003-through-2007/41366d1208794211-cts-2003-strut-tower-bars-strutbar.jpg

this is what happens when it is not braced to the chassis. You just have a bar that swings up and down with the suspension. Even on a side to side, it is then worse because you are transfering load from one side to the other.

unless someone made a strut bar for the CTS that ties into the chassis. The mod is just a "butt dyno" mod.

negative.



umm sorry guys. That is not the case in a unibody car. For strut bars to actually be effective at "stiffening" up the suspemsion geometry requires the strut bar to be braced to the chassis itself.

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachments/cadillac-cts-forum-2003-through-2007/41366d1208794211-cts-2003-strut-tower-bars-strutbar.jpg

this is what happens when it is not braced to the chassis. You just have a bar that swings up and down with the suspension. Even on a side to side, it is then worse because you are transfering load from one side to the other.

unless someone made a strut bar for the CTS that ties into the chassis. The mod is just a "butt dyno" mod.Figgie, what I said IS correct. I didnt say the CTS needs an STB. I said that an STB won't reduce body roll, sway bars will.

so the engineers at GM just added a piece of metal for no benifit, ya they tend to do that, just up production cost, redesign the hood and add more parts that aren't needed.

concorso

you are correct. My post was not directed at you :)


so the engineers at GM just added a piece of metal for no benifit, ya they tend to do that, just up production cost, redesign the hood and add more parts that aren't needed.

funny that you mention that!

The engineers did not add that. ;) It was marketing. It is the EXACT same reason that porsche adds cross drilled rotors on thier street cars and thier entry level cup cars but no where to be found in there mid and high priced Cup cars. Mind you that those Cup cars are pure 100% racing vehicles.

"The factory did it, it must be right!!" mentality.

Wrong answer.

They add what people are willing to buy, how ever uninformed even if it infact does nothing in the end.

concorso

you are correct. My post was not directed at you :)




funny that you mention that!

The engineers did not add that. ;) It was marketing. It is the EXACT same reason that porsche adds cross drilled rotors on thier street cars and thier entry level cup cars but no where to be found in there mid and high priced Cup cars. Mind you that those Cup cars are pure 100% racing vehicles.

"The factory did it, it must be right!!" mentality.

Wrong answer.

They add what people are willing to buy, how ever uninformed even if it infact does nothing in the end.


Do you have any data to back up your claims or are you just stating opinion?

concorso

you are correct. My post was not directed at you :)




funny that you mention that!

The engineers did not add that. ;) It was marketing. It is the EXACT same reason that porsche adds cross drilled rotors on thier street cars and thier entry level cup cars but no where to be found in there mid and high priced Cup cars. Mind you that those Cup cars are pure 100% racing vehicles.

"The factory did it, it must be right!!" mentality.

Wrong answer.

They add what people are willing to buy, how ever uninformed even if it infact does nothing in the end.
whens the last time someone opened the hood and saw a strut brace
then said ooooh i must buy this car. i'm sure they could come up with better marketing solutions then that, one that at least more than a small fraction of consumers would be aware of. like where's my usb port.

whens the last time someone opened the hood and saw a strut brace
then said ooooh i must buy this car. i'm sure they could come up with better marketing solutions then that, one that at least more than a small fraction of consumers would be aware of. like where's my usb port.


the same consumer that sees the import tuner magazines, the sports compact magazine, mtv and or just like to be with the current trend of the day.

There is a reason why there is even a market for this worthless contraptions. It is not because it works. The mind is a very powerful tool. At the same time it is also real easy to trick the brain into something that is not there.

Again I ask you how you know this? I want to see your proof that an STB does nothing at all.....

Again I ask you how you know this? I want to see your proof that an STB does nothing at all.....


MoTeC + 3 G lateral accelerometer + Data logging = golden.

With that said the burden off proof is not to disprove that it does not work. The burden of proof is to infact show that it DOES work. Have a friend remove or leave installed your STB, BUT, he can not tell you and you won't know if the STB is installed or not. Take it to a track and time it. Do it 4 -5 times (8 to 10 times total) to average out the readings. If the STB do actually work. The times will be lower with the STB installed. If it does not. The time will be on par to one another. quite simple really.


With that said, You won't see proof from me. I spent way to much money to just flip those cards over.

But I will point you in the right direction. I suggest talking with anyone that actually has logs on race circuits like Laguna Seca, watkins glenn or any SCCA/ACA/Miata cup sanctioned event. They might want to talk more about what they run.

You still havent proven it doesnt work. I dont need to prove to you that it does, you need to prove to me that it doesnt.

Since this is my first year running autocross I would not be an accurate test subject for my times of having it and not having it.

You still havent proven it doesnt work. I dont need to prove to you that it does, you need to prove to me that it doesnt.

Since this is my first year running autocross I would not be an accurate test subject for my times of having it and not having it.

no

science does not work that way. ;)

Something can not be DISPROVED to work. On the other hand something can be proved to work.

ie

I can not disprove anything (god, santa claus, STB). I can prove that an STB does actually improve times around the track or not.

So happy hunting.

Again I ask you how you know this? I want to see your proof that an STB does nothing at all..... Guys, Figgie is right... An STB on a unibody is generally pretty useless. The only proof you really need is that the CTS-VR DOESN'T use one. If a CTS-VR doesn't need an STB, prove why a CTS does?

no

science does not work that way. ;)

Something can not be DISPROVED to work. On the other hand something can be proved to work.

ie

I can not disprove anything (god, santa claus, STB). I can prove that an STB does actually improve times around the track or not.

So happy hunting.

Yes it does because I said so!! AHAHAHAH! My car handles waaaayyy better than before but I also added other components.


Guys, Figgie is right... An STB on a unibody is generally pretty useless. The only proof you really need is that the CTS-VR DOESN'T use one. If a CTS-VR doesn't need an STB, prove why a CTS does?


Now THAT is an EXCELLENT point.....

http://e30m3performance.com/myths/Strutbar_Theory/stress_bar_theory.gif

http://e30m3performance.com/myths/Strutbar_Theory/compression.gif

with forces being exerted on the top of the srtut mount during cornering it seems sensible to brace across the two towers. it definitely appears it would givew more structural integrity from lateral forces.

http://e30m3performance.com/myths/Strutbar_Theory/stress_bar_theory.gif

http://e30m3performance.com/myths/Strutbar_Theory/compression.gif

with forces being exerted on the top of the srtut mount during cornering it seems sensible to brace across the two towers. it definitely appears it would givew more structural integrity from lateral forces.While I get your point and still disagree with you...

POINTS FOR COLORFUL DIAGRAMS!!

i can handle that, i notice a difference, what ever it is it feels positive. and it looks cool. also the cts-vr has a roll cage connecting the strut towers, which i would imagine would be all the strucural rigidity it needs.
http://www.cadillacfaq.com/faq/answers/img/lseca/lseca-5.jpg

it also has another bar across the front of the engine where that guy is pointing joining another point on the strut tower.

Tommy just owned yall. The VR does have an STB. Also, look at those beefy ass bars at the top for added strut tower support. You guys point has just been disproved.

Tommy got those nice drawings from:

http://e30m3performance.com/myths/Strutbar_Theory/strut_bar_theory.htm

which also has a great explanation. I was just about to draw up something similar, with my own theory, when I found that page from the Wiki page on STBs.

Personally, I feel that the handling performance of our car would benefit from a STB. It only makes sense that the shock towers of these unibody cars would flex under high cornering situations. And flex means they are changing the geometry. Adding the STB should reduce the flex by stabilizing it with the other tower. Also, the whole geometry gets "boxed in" by connecting it up top. On the other hand, I do wonder how much the stock thin boxes of steel help. They are not really that beefy.

I am going to add one someday. In my situation, it is rather ironic. I used to look down on "those crappy unibody cars" that were "missing a frame". I never understood why anybody would want one of those. Now, I needed a new car and the CTS fit perfectly. Darn GM, make me a full frame performance car again (other than that perfect Y body). :rant2:

Dan

http://e30m3performance.com/myths/Strutbar_Theory/stress_bar_theory.gif

http://e30m3performance.com/myths/Strutbar_Theory/compression.gif

with forces being exerted on the top of the srtut mount during cornering it seems sensible to brace across the two towers. it definitely appears it would givew more structural integrity from lateral forces.


only problem.

that is a macpherson strut setup. ;) The Cadillac CTS is a double wishbone setup. Take ONE guess what is missing in that picture that changes the entire force diagram (you got one guess only!).


Tommy just owned yall. The VR does have an STB. Also, look at those beefy ass bars at the top for added strut tower support. You guys point has just been disproved.

Your lack of reading fundamentals is staggering. But since you brought it up.

let see what I said in post #17

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/1491132-post17.html

and the sentence.

For strut bars to actually be effective at "stiffening" up the suspemsion geometry requires the strut bar to be braced to the chassis itself.


everyone get that one?

One more time

For strut bars to actually be effective at "stiffening" up the suspemsion geometry requires the strut bar to be braced to the chassis itself.

Care to take a guess what the Cadillacs CTS-VR chassis is? :)

Tommy

thanks for proving my point ;)

"owned" indeed.

umm sorry guys. That is not the case in a unibody car. For strut bars to actually be effective at "stiffening" up the suspemsion geometry requires the strut bar to be braced to the chassis itself.


If the CTS is composed of unitized-body construction (which it is) then the
entire assembly of sheet metal (excluding the doors and front fenders) IS the
chassis. Therefore, the towers where the top of the front suspension anchors
to (and where an STB would mount to) IS part of the chassis. So I do not
quite understand your argument.

Still, I have used an STB in the past, and it did absolutely nothing for me.
Maybe if you are racing, there would be some benefit to it, I don't know, but
for a street car, I think it is wasted money.

But then, I am one of those in the minority here who thinks any performance
mod (and exterior cosmetic mod for that matter) is a waste of money :D



BTW, when you guys post images wider than 800 pixels, it really screws up
the display and makes reading posts more difficult. ;)

only problem.

that is a macpherson strut setup. ;) The Cadillac CTS is a double wishbone setup. Take ONE guess what is missing in that picture that changes the entire force diagram (you got one guess only!).




Your lack of reading fundamentals is staggering. But since you brought it up.

let see what I said in post #17

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/1491132-post17.html

and the sentence.




everyone get that one?

One more time

.

Care to take a guess what the Cadillacs CTS-VR chassis is? :)

Tommy

thanks for proving my point ;)

"owned" indeed.
i know what your are getting at as far as a roll cage for unibody designs. the images i found where just for an example, while i agree a roll cage setup is obviously going to give more structural strength, you don't gotta sound like physics geek to make your point.
i still do not agree with you that a strut brace without a roll cage does absolutely nothing, like i said there are examples all over the internet that condradict what you are saying, with just as long winded physics babble as you describe, and no they are not all trying to sell something.
i'm not trying to "own you", i merely disagree.
i will take the engineering development choices of gm over someone merely owns a gm.
if the braces actually hindered performance i'm sure all the track guys on the v" forum would be ripping them out of their cars in record numbers.

i know what your are getting at as far as a roll cage for unibody designs. the images i found where just for an example, while i agree a roll cage setup is obviously going to give more structural strength, you don't gotta sound like physics geek to make your point.
i still do not agree with you that a strut brace without a roll cage does absolutely nothing, like i said there are examples all over the internet that condradict what you are saying, with just as long winded physics babble as you describe, and no they are not all trying to sell something.
i'm not trying to "own you", i merely disagree.
i will take the engineering development choices of gm over someone merely owns a gm.
if the braces actually hindered performance i'm sure all the track guys on the v" forum would be ripping them out of their cars in record numbers.

Physics babble? I have not even used any physics as of yet. Just plain old geometry. It is quite simple really. The strongest shape will always be a triangle. Without triangulation for the stb to rigidly mount against. It is not in the strongest polygon configuration.

BTW did you read who the 2nd quote was from. It was not you. It was Nick. My 2nd reply was to him and not you :)

btw see the drawing for the forces on a two A-Arm suspension like most all modern cars.

sorry didn't mean to come across as snippy.
your diagram doesn't seem to have the right point of force.
the force would be exerted on point 9 in the diagram below, which is also the same point where the strut bar mounts.
http://www.trademotion.com/schematics/mechanical/NLP030.gif

so the part number is....? Just kidding, you guys are NUTTS!!! I never thought this post would explode with diagrams showing g forces etc. Guys are too smart for yourselves. All the research I ever needed to do is right here lol

sorry didn't mean to come across as snippy.
your diagram doesn't seem to have the right point of force.
the force would be exerted on point 9 in the diagram below, which is also the same point where the strut bar mounts.


well there is a problem still though. Cadillac uses rubber bushing not polyurethane bushings. So The A Arm will move a heck of alot before transferring anything to the item #9 in your diagram. Now with that said, during cornering, Item #9 will serve as a fulcrum point and not a complete load tranfer as you are thinking (ie pull upper A arm out and the outter most bolts will want to tilt in).

basically to even get to the point of an STB making ANY type of improvement if at all, requires pulling all the suspension out and anything that is rubber, chucking, and replacing with polyU.