I am not sure if that is as important as you might think. The studs are being pressed up INTO the body not being suspended from it . That is the reason the torque settings are less that 25 Ft lbs. The stock studs are only pressed in as well and if it was a high stress area they would have been a bolt thru arrangment. I am sure both products do the job they were intended to which is help prevent the mushroom effect not solve the issue entirely. I have had the M7 for almost 2 years now with no issues and it is only lately that other companies have come out with their versions .

 

Would it be better to get a strut tower brace?

 

I have the red craven STD and like them. I used the stock nuts.

 

I don't feel the strut tower brace would solve the problem I am trying too protect against (mushrooming) plus with my luck my car would be one of the ones with bonnet (hood) to brace interference problems.

peter

 

I bought the M7 STRP's from Detroit Tuned at the end of last year. Functionally they are the same, but IMO they look a little nicer.

 

Looks like the M7 covers a lot more area than the Craven.
I am going to buy either of them, so really which one works better.
Or may be buying the IE fixed camber plate will be even better?

My araea got lots of potholes, so I really nedd this done.

Thanks for the advice!

 

look at the diifence in the bolts, that is what sold me on the Craven.

 

I agreed with OldRick, top tower bracing would do very little to help with the tower deformation unless welded on to the tower. The plates are secure only to the bolts on top of the tower, doing so will not increase additional structure support. The plates did not have any anchor points to hold back the force of the bolt pushing up. I would recommend welding or bonding to the tower.

 

I got them for piece of mind. They are very easy to install.

 

A torque wrench has nothing to do with bolt sizing and everything to do with the degree of tightness a bolt or nut is fastened. You should use a torque wrench only for fastening.

DEFINITELY use a torque wrench set at the proper setting when tightening the nuts on the strut tower bolts. If you over-tighten, the bolt will SNAP off! Then you'll have a major problem on your hands. I speak from experience ...

 

The craven must require removal of the stock stud from the top mount. ?

 

no, the Craven has large hollow studs that thread over the top mount studs.

 

First, my apologies for resurrecting a long-dead thread.

I came across the following when doing a search on Craven STDs:

... from / Flickr set on a MINI suspension upgrade.

(Are these guys NAMers?)

Apparently these are the fixed IE camber plates; I wonder if anyone else has had a similar issue? How about with the M7 SRPs?

I'm very envious of this set-up, btw: IE fixed camber plates, Craven STDs, and Koni FSDs...

As an aside.... I also seem to recall some issue with the bolts on the either the Craven or the M7 plates interfering with the bonnet release cables.... Much obliged if someone could refresh my memory on this....

Still trying to decide whether to go with Craven or M7 plates for the top half of my strut tower sandwich....

 

IMHO you don't "need" the M7 or Craven plates when also using any camber plate.

 

M7 and it's not the bolts...it's the sharp 90 degree transition between horizontal and vertical surfaces. The Craven plates have proper machine work where the corner has been knocked down a few thousandths to remove a sharp edge.

The M7 cut through the plastic sheathing on both of our MINI's
Without a doubt, Craven. I owned both.

You're wrong - my shock towers deformed with coilovers and camber plates and the M7's on....I had to pound them flat to get the Cravens to fit.

 

Need, no, but it probably can't hurt -- especially with the kind of potholes, frost heaves, steel plates, cobblestones, etc., we get around here.

 

What sort of camber plates did you have? Any issue with needing to trim the bolts to get the Craven STDs to fit, as in the case above?

 

I had IE with the M7 and realized that there were better products to be had so I upgraded to Cross and Craven.

 

Yep, the guy in the blue sweatshirt is me (on NAM since it was MCO).

I don't recall any interference issue with the bonnet release cables... but recently, the car this set-up is installed on has been having a sporadic problem with not releasing, so I'll have to take a look at it again.

If you go with the IE camber plates and M7 top plates, you won't have to worry about the stud length. I wonder if IE designed them with the M7 plates in mind since when the M7 plates are installed one the OE top hats, there is barely enough stud length.

As far as which top plate to buy? Well... let's just say I agree with PGT.

Personally, I don't think resurrecting a long-dead thread is a bad thing... "might" help reduce repetitive posts...

 

Thanks, Ian!

 

you can see quite clearly where the hood release cable touches the M7 plate:

 

and the Craven design...

 

you can see very clearly in this pic how Craven did proper machine work on the transition....knocking the corner down before coating (this is what's NOT done on the M7 and wore through the hood cable on both of our cars):

 

Thanks, PGT; the pix are very helpful!

Is that an older model of the m7 plates, though? It seems like it might be a slightly different design than what's on offer now, though it's hard to tell from this picture...:



Have you had any issues with the bolts on the Craven plates interfering with the cable? From the picture, it seems like that's a bit of a tight fit.

 

this just in....EVERYTHING is tight on a MINI

I had the M7 STB's....the plates + strut bar. Yes, it's tight on the Craven's but it didn't cause the cable sheathing to wear through like the M7 did (in 5k miles no less).