this case in particular, m7 made those strut tower protectors quite a while before craven created their own strut tower defenders. craven was able to take an idea and make it better than the predecessor.

 

Silly possible newb question, but how can you tell if its mushroomed? anyone have a pict of normal vs mushroomed? thank youq

 

quick search led to this pretty good descrip

 

Thank you, I had searched and found that, I was wondering if anyone had the picts described there, but I guess that will have to do

 

They look pretty straight to me, should I be out there with a straight edge and level or would it be VERY obvious if it mushroomed?

 

I don't think mine has mushroomed yet but I have m7's front strut brace and will have TSW's camber plates installed. I would think that it would look fairly obvious looking at the mounts from the sides, perhaps.

 

Have a look at a newer design that should prevent mushrooming much better than any decorative plate bolted on top of the strut tower:

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...d.php?t=153521

 

I will post all the pics I have. They are like mushrooms, pics spread out all over NAM.

 

I agree with you OldRick those do look like they'd help.

I have the decorator plates on my 43,000 mile MINI & so far the mushrooms have not sprouted. In my mind using both the Madness plates along with the decorator plates would be the ideal set up. I'm now using the decorator plates & IE fixed camber plates. I'm now well protected & I have the bonus of 1.8 degrees of negative camber.

 

I agree that "underneath" reinforcement should be best. That said, I do NOT agree with some that the "decorative" plates are only decorative... I'm unable to grasp how a tower could possibly deform like in the "severe" photo above with the M7 plates in place. Could it deform some? Yes. Could the upper strut mounts deform some? Yes. But could it deform into the shape of a mushroom while the studs are being held in place and mostly parallel by the M7 plates? I don't think so. I've heard of some folks who had enough deformation using the M7 plates to make them hard to remove... but I haven't seen ANY evidence of "severely" deformed towers while using them (or the Craven plates, either).

The only way the upper strut mounts are going to mushroom is for (a) the middle to move up or (b) for the bolts to move down. Since the bolts aren't going to do much moving with the M7 plates in place, then the deformation would be limited (mostly) to the amount the middle of the mount can get pounded upward in the hole that the M7 plates don't cover... they can certainly deform enough to make the bolts splay out a little, and make the plates hard to remove. But I just don't see how you're going to get anything more than mild mushrooming with the plates in place...

That said... I'm running the same setup and Crashton now... and will soon be replacing my M7 plates with the GTT strut brace. I'm pretty confident that my camber plates plus the brace will provide sufficient protection... not because the brace is pressing against the sheet metal (mostly it isn't) but because it's bracing the position and angle of the bolts.

 

Trouble with the M7 and Kragen plates is that they are only 1/8" thick aluminum at the bolt holes and in the deep grooves across the plate.

Splaying bolts could easily deform the thinnest part of the plate at the bottom of the holes, and the grooves are only going to avoid creasing the 1/8" thick part of the alum. plate because they squeeze against the ridges of the tower. The grooves are not a close fit against the ridges until they have already creased a bit.

So there is not much resistance added by these plates opposing the pillow-bearing plate pounding up against the inside of the shock tower.

Now if the towers were being dented downward instead of bulging upward, the alum. plates might work pretty well, but that only happens while the car is airborne...

 

Back to my decorator plates. They worked for me & until I see a picture of a failed M7 plate I'm guessing that they will work for others too. Maybe the plates only helped some & the fact that I have tires with sidewalls helped the rest.

That's all, I'm off to motor some.

 

I see how those things *could* happen.... but do we have evidence that they *have* happened? And, if they *did* happen, would the result be severe mushrooming, or less mushrooming that would have occurred without the plates?

My point is that the plates may not *prevent* mushrooming, but I'm pretty confident they can and do reduce the severity of mushrooming... and given how much easier an install they are than an underneath solution, they're probably worth the money for folks who aren't going to take their front suspension apart...

 

The difference in install time between the two types is about a half-hour.

 

For you maybe (and maybe me ).

But not for the average MINI owner. Difference for them is difference between removing and replacing 6 easily accessible nuts, vs. something way more involved than the average non-oil-changing owner would tackle...

 

+1

Some folks can't even manage those 6 bolts. There are very large differences in mechanical ability on this forum. That is why I try to help folks out here as I know you fellows do to.

 

One could, of course, pay a mechanic for a half-hour of his time. Kind of a drastic notion, I know...

 

These would reduce mushrooming a bit. Maybe more than the top mounting plates because it will keep the mount from deforming keeping the whole assembly stronger. Although, the problem that I see with this design is that just like the top mounting plates, this does not address the crappy bushing in the strut mount. If you hit a bump that is hard enough to deform the stock mount, the bushing will crack and give you a really harsh ride increasing the chance of mushrooming. It is definitely a step in the right direction, but I still feel that the best bet is to completely replace the poorly made stock mount.

 

Find me a good, MINI-experienced mechanic that will only charge 30 minutes labor to drop the front suspension on both sides... in my hometown... and I'll buy you a six pack.

Closest mechanic to me that I trust with my MINI (or recommend to anyone else here) is a 3 hour round trip drive....

Versus 5 minutes to remove and replace 6 nuts....

 

Decorative plate? According to you and on what theory? I dunno that I have seen any of the manufacturers of the "reinforcement plates" referring to them as "decorative."

Sheesh.... let's see if your new label for the plates gets traction.

 

I'd be curious how all these people who say the top reinforcement plates are useless, do not help or are mere "decorations" seem to know more than the manufacturers of the plates.

Amazes me that people who post on here seem to know all about these things, apparently far more than manufacturers who have spent thousands in R & D and production.

Basically, some are calling Craven, M7 and others a bunch of con artists selling snake oil.

Does anyone who says the reinforcement plates are useless and decorations have any science to back up their claims, or is this all your armchair opinion?

 

It's not as simple as snake oil. They are not selling a product that does not do anything. They are selling a product that addresses the symptom, not the cause. The cause is 2 fold. There is a thin weak strut mount with a rubber bushing that is not up to our stiff suspension, and there is the thin sheet metal tower that it is connected to. Using a strong plate above the tower will reinforce the tower sheet metal and it will help keep the bolts from the mount from splaying out. It addresses the results of the mount deformation (which is the mushrooming) without addressing the fact that the mount could still deform. The Mini Madness one is a bit better IMO because it reinforces the top of the strut mount. The reinforcement on top of the mount by MM should keep the top from bending and I think it would help keep the mount from deforming. But there is still a weak bushing that will eventually break and cause problems. If the rubber cracks, then there is less force absorption by the strut mount which will direct more force at the thin tower. The MM one is a step in the right direction, but even with it, a bad impact with a pot hole can still crack the bushing in the mount.

After seeing the way the mount deforms along with the tower, and seeing that the rubber bushing after breaking is a hazard and causes a rough ride, I personally think that vendors should step up to the plate and make strut mount replacements that will eliminate both the bushing problem and the deformation problem. So far there is only one company that has done this, and they have gone the easy route and taken a mount from another car and made it fit ours causing a slight increase in ride hight up front and negating the added positive camber from the hight increase by building neg camber into the mount. I wish there were other options...

 

If you have any understanding of engineering at all, it should be obvious that you don't reinforce something against impact from the bottom by bolting 1/8" of aluminum on the top.

I won't say that the decorative aluminum plates are totally useless, but it's pretty obvious that the trade-off between effectiveness and ease of installation for the aluminum top-plates was made in favor of ease of installation, not solid, effective design.

The M-M plates don't take a real smart mechanic to install - (eight bolts instead of six, plus removing/replacing the wheels - duh...), and IMHO, even if you paid for an hour, getting a piece that works is better than one that is, at best, poorly designed and marginally effective.

I've got the M-M plates. Good luck to those of you who spent for the decorative aluminum. Personally, I would rather replace an inexpensive pillow-bearing after a pothole than try to figure out how to repair or replace the sheet-metal tower-top.

 

You have picked up on one point but there is another . Would you drop the front suspension and add a plate between your strut top and the body mount thereby increasing your ride height and wheel gap without getting a 4 wheel alignment? Not to mention that you have just reduced your front camber even more when you are really trying to go the other direction if your goal is to get better than stock handling out of your car. To get that camber back you would have to add some type of camber plate to the mix which run about anywhere from $300 to $ 500 on average. Having a plate on top is not the best possible method ,we have agreed on that, but just how much better is the one underneath? Is it that much better than an install you can do in your driveway ? We have sold hundreds if not thousands now and the number of people that have had a problem AFTER installing them can be counted on one hand .
If you want to make your own under mounts you can go out and get some sheet metal from the hardware store, make a cardboard template , cut it out , make your own and then put the $99 you saved towards the instillation costs. The undermount is much less complicated shape wise as it is mostly flat and should not be hard at all to make.

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

All very good points Randy.

I feel if one is going to the trouble to drop the front struts & install the Madness plates why not go with a set of IE fixed camber plates? It is just about the same labor & both will require a realignment. With the IE plates there is the bonus of some negative camber plus the added bonus of a beefier strut bearing / top mount.

Randy my decorator plates have worked well for me, along with my decorator strut brace. Thanks!