Posted By: StealthWedge67
B-Body subframe connectors - 12/28/09 08:57 PM
Which ones & who from? All I see on Summit is the Competition Engineering ones. Are they good? I'll be welding these into a 67 Satellite. Thanks as always, guys.
B-Body subframe connectors
Posted By: broncobra
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/28/09 09:08 PM
I got mine from Greg, at Magnum H.P. They are the laser cut ones that fit/weld up to the contour of the floor pan.
Posted By: DaytonaTurbo
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/28/09 09:10 PM
You can also use regular square tube if you don't mind cutting into your floorboards in the area the backseat passengers feet go.
Posted By: DAYCLONA
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/28/09 09:43 PM
Quote:
You can also use regular square tube if you don't mind cutting into your floorboards in the area the backseat passengers feet go.
....best way to go about it, but I would recommend rectangular box iron (tube) widest dem, vertical, 3/16- 1/4" wall, cut thru the floor where the tube needs to be recessed, ...those floor fitting "saw tooth" u shaped subframes are a joke, some are cut down so thin, why bother
Posted By: DaytonaTurbo
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/28/09 10:24 PM
Quote:Quote:
You can also use regular square tube if you don't mind cutting into your floorboards in the area the backseat passengers feet go.
Well I think a 1/4" wall is way overkill and going to add a lot of weight, quarter inch is pretty darn thick! We went with 2x3" .100 wall tube. Thicker than any of the stock framing yet reasonable on weight.
Posted By: Jeff_383
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/28/09 10:27 PM
I have the Comp Enginering ones on my 67 Coronet, welded in, and they work good.
Posted By: DennisH
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/28/09 10:43 PM
US Cartool. Best single upgrade to the Coronet ever. Drives solid, rattle free, doors shut better etc. My welder says the fit was perfect.
Posted By: DAYCLONA
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/28/09 11:22 PM
Quote:Quote:Quote:
You can also use regular square tube if you don't mind cutting into your floorboards in the area the backseat passengers feet go.
Well I think a 1/4" wall is way overkill and going to add a lot of weight, quarter inch is pretty darn thick! We went with 2x3" .100 wall tube. Thicker than any of the stock framing yet reasonable on weight.
I like overkill!.....plus I don't like anything under 500 HP either
..... .100 wall tube is good for exhaust pipe 
Posted By: buckeye
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 01:00 AM
hi just tacked mine in 2day not sure if bought from cartool or m.d.s. alittle grinding but looks good...and they are thicker than oraganal fram rail.s front or rear ..so why cut up ur floor board,s
Posted By: Stanton
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 01:10 AM
1/4" thick is ridiculous. Great for reinforcing a dumptruck box but has no place in this application. If you think you're making so much power that you need 1/4" wall tubing then you should be looking at more framework than just connectors! Besides, it's the tubing shape that provides most of the strength, not the thickness.
Posted By: StealthWedge67
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 01:28 AM
Fabbing from 1/4" steel box is rediculous! and I wont be cutting through the floors! The US Car Tool pieces look very nice! I'm sure they stiffen the chassis up significantly more than the C.E. ones that just weld front and rear, and are separate from the floor, between. But I'm sure you need to rip your seats and carpet out to install those. Also, my car has factory undercoating on the floors. I'd have to remove all of that..... Not that big of a deal, I know..... But I'd rather not make the job harder than it has to be. Hmmmm, What to do? In the words of George Costanza... "Why must there always be a problem!?"
Posted By: dragaddict
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 03:29 AM
We used the U S Tools ones on a 69 B Body and am pleased with the results. They were work to install as my floorpan and the parts were not an exact match so we fitted them. I hammered the floors. We also put in the spring re locating kit at the same time using info off of the A Body site. Also narrowed the rear end a few inchs. My point is it was work but it is a great upgrade and combining a couple of other steps into the project really paid off. There are other ways but this WORKS and we are very pleased with the results. Went on Power Tour last year and car was great. If you are drag racing only I would do more but this is more than enough for 440 street car.
Posted By: snojet
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 03:56 PM
Take a good look at what you are going to end up with. If you use the connectors that just weld to the bottom of the car you will only be connecting to a small part of the frame in back. If you cut the floor you will be able weld to the top layer of floor that transfers to the back of the car. I have done many of these and the full 2x3 tube with 1/8 is the best and longest lasting way to go.
Posted By: 72roadrunnergtx
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 05:15 PM
Quote:
Take a good look at what you are going to end up with.
Posted By: snojet
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 05:32 PM
The pic's you posted are very nice and it confirms what I said. The back connection is only about 1 1/4 tall. The rest of the factory frame is above it and not connected to anything. If you are going to take the time to add the connector you mite as well go the full height and add some real support so the car won't twist. Height is strength when it come's to frame's
Posted By: StealthWedge67
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 06:30 PM
Both pictures of the US Cartool connector installs are on cars being stripped and put on a rotisserie. My car is rolling, and has a very nice full original interior in place, that I don't really feel like ripping out. I'm just looking to help stiffen my car up. The Comp Eng. pieces can be installed fairly easily, and I think will offer me what I'm looking for.
Thanks fellas
Thanks fellas
Posted By: GTXKen
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 06:43 PM
Mancini has some too, either will work fine if welded in http://chucker54.stores.yahoo.net/framconpac.html
Posted By: 72roadrunnergtx
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 07:10 PM
Quote:
The pic's you posted are very nice and it confirms what I said. The back connection is only about 1 1/4 tall. The rest of the factory frame is above it and not connected to anything. If you are going to take the time to add the connector you mite as well go the full height and add some real support so the car won't twist. Height is strength when it come's to frame's
No argument here on the principles you describe, if I was building a race car, I would have no problem with cutting the floor, or anything else for that matter, to strengthen the integrity of the entire structure. My understanding of the OP's posts on this thread was the desire to stiffen his car without extensive modifications. It can be done and will result in a significant/noticeable improvement in body rigidity.
Posted By: TC@HP2
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 07:31 PM
The units that bisect the floor will provide the most strength, and if you don't want to grind all the undercoat off for contoured ones, then that pterry much leaves you with the standard tube style connectors. I think CE, Mopar, and a few others are all the same design and are desigend as a bolt in, but they can be welded on the ends. While they do not tie in the floor pan, they do offer a HUGE increase over nothing at all and will greatly reduce body deflection.
Posted By: DennisH
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 09:31 PM
It is worth the effort to remove the seats/carpet. The grinding off of the factory undercoating sent my welder to the emergency room with a rash. Wear protective clothing. No bolt-on will give the ridgid results that welded will.
USCartool B's fit well.
USCartool B's fit well.
Posted By: jcc
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/29/09 09:46 PM
Quote:
The pic's you posted are very nice and it confirms what I said. The back connection is only about 1 1/4 tall. The rest of the factory frame is above it and not connected to anything. If you are going to take the time to add the connector you mite as well go the full height and add some real support so the car won't twist. Height is strength when it come's to frame's
, but nobody's listening.
Posted By: WannaRunner
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/30/09 06:08 PM
'69 RR, boxed subframe connectors, welded in correctly....
Posted By: WannaRunner
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/30/09 06:14 PM
You can hardly tell they are there, and sorry for the mess......
Posted By: TMP66
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/31/09 03:19 PM
Quote:
Fabbing from 1/4" steel box is rediculous! and I wont be cutting through the floors!
2x2 .083-ish will work just fine if you dont't want to cut the floor. It will go up against the floor from about the seat area back to the rail end.
I don't get paying these outfits hundreds of dollars for 10-20 bucks worth of tubing.
Posted By: jcc
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/31/09 03:55 PM
Works for me, for a lightweight solution
Posted By: TC@HP2
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 12/31/09 04:37 PM
Quote:
[
I don't get paying these outfits hundreds of dollars for 10-20 bucks worth of tubing.
Me either, but there are also plenty of people willing to plop down $300-800 on tubular control arms that only have $50 worth of parts in them.
Posted By: DaytonaTurbo
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 01/01/10 12:44 AM
Quote:
'69 RR, boxed subframe connectors, welded in correctly....
Finally a picture of it done right. Not intrusive at all and would probably never notice it after the carpet was thrown in.
Posted By: DRJDVM
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 01/01/10 08:49 PM
Boy this topic has been beat to death on this board...do a search and you'll hear the same argument over and over again....:)
This is the way I look at it..... yes the square tube has some more strength, since compared to the "fit to floor" ones, one wall will be thicker. Thats about it.
Take alook at the rest of your frame.....its a U-channel spot welded to the floor....take a look at your rear crossmember...its a U-channel tying the two frames together....take a look at your trans crossmember...its s U-channel too.....
My point is that having a big beefy square tube in the middle doesnt change that much. The rest of the frame still has lots of places to flex. Having one section of square tube in an otherwise "U-channel ladder frame" isnt a huge improvement.
Take some 2x4 and make a big rectangle....put jack stands under 3 corners and then put a weigh on the unsupported corner... the frame will twist and that corner will drop ALOT. The bottom line is that SFC dont add much torsional stiffness... they add alot to front to rear sag and bend....but not torsional.
If you want torsional stiffness you need to add alot of triangulation too....like torque boxes and other braces, that triangulate the "corners" of the "box" that the frame makes up.
Dont get me wrong....SFC are well worth it... and they do help quite a bit in a uni-body car.....but dont fool yourself into thinking they make the car super rigid. If you dont believe me, take a look at a real "frame design" book by race car builders etc etc. My Herb Adams book has great pix of just how much torsional stiffness is added (or not added) by common types of frame designs and "reinforcements".
I think that the difference between the "fit to floor" and full square tube is so small in the big picture, that it really makes no difference. Sounds good on paper to argue about but the diff is so small it really doesnt matter. Its one of those topics where it seems intuitive....full box is stronger....but put it into context of the whole car and its really doesnt translate..... do the math...look at the physics of the whole car.....
This is the way I look at it..... yes the square tube has some more strength, since compared to the "fit to floor" ones, one wall will be thicker. Thats about it.
Take alook at the rest of your frame.....its a U-channel spot welded to the floor....take a look at your rear crossmember...its a U-channel tying the two frames together....take a look at your trans crossmember...its s U-channel too.....
My point is that having a big beefy square tube in the middle doesnt change that much. The rest of the frame still has lots of places to flex. Having one section of square tube in an otherwise "U-channel ladder frame" isnt a huge improvement.
Take some 2x4 and make a big rectangle....put jack stands under 3 corners and then put a weigh on the unsupported corner... the frame will twist and that corner will drop ALOT. The bottom line is that SFC dont add much torsional stiffness... they add alot to front to rear sag and bend....but not torsional.
If you want torsional stiffness you need to add alot of triangulation too....like torque boxes and other braces, that triangulate the "corners" of the "box" that the frame makes up.
Dont get me wrong....SFC are well worth it... and they do help quite a bit in a uni-body car.....but dont fool yourself into thinking they make the car super rigid. If you dont believe me, take a look at a real "frame design" book by race car builders etc etc. My Herb Adams book has great pix of just how much torsional stiffness is added (or not added) by common types of frame designs and "reinforcements".
I think that the difference between the "fit to floor" and full square tube is so small in the big picture, that it really makes no difference. Sounds good on paper to argue about but the diff is so small it really doesnt matter. Its one of those topics where it seems intuitive....full box is stronger....but put it into context of the whole car and its really doesnt translate..... do the math...look at the physics of the whole car.....
Posted By: TMP66
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 01/02/10 01:04 AM
Quote:
I think that the difference between the "fit to floor" and full square tube is so small in the big picture, that it really makes no difference. Sounds good on paper to argue about but the diff is so small it really doesnt matter.
Exactly. Also it seems like 90% of the time when this subject comes up the guy fretting about ultimate design and strength of subframe connectors has a street car driver that likely 60 foots in the 2 second range.
Posted By: jcc
Re: B-Body subframe connectors - 01/02/10 02:19 AM
Quote:
Boy this topic has been beat to death on this board...do a search and you'll hear the same argument over and over again....:)
This is the way I look at it..... yes the square tube has some more strength, since compared to the "fit to floor" ones, one wall will be thicker. Thats about it.
Take alook at the rest of your frame.....its a U-channel spot welded to the floor....take a look at your rear crossmember...its a U-channel tying the two frames together....take a look at your trans crossmember...its s U-channel too.....
My point is that having a big beefy square tube in the middle doesnt change that much. The rest of the frame still has lots of places to flex. Having one section of square tube in an otherwise "U-channel ladder frame" isnt a huge improvement.
Take some 2x4 and make a big rectangle....put jack stands under 3 corners and then put a weigh on the unsupported corner... the frame will twist and that corner will drop ALOT. The bottom line is that SFC dont add much torsional stiffness... they add alot to front to rear sag and bend....but not torsional.
If you want torsional stiffness you need to add alot of triangulation too....like torque boxes and other braces, that triangulate the "corners" of the "box" that the frame makes up.
Dont get me wrong....SFC are well worth it... and they do help quite a bit in a uni-body car.....but dont fool yourself into thinking they make the car super rigid. If you dont believe me, take a look at a real "frame design" book by race car builders etc etc. My Herb Adams book has great pix of just how much torsional stiffness is added (or not added) by common types of frame designs and "reinforcements".
I think that the difference between the "fit to floor" and full square tube is so small in the big picture, that it really makes no difference. Sounds good on paper to argue about but the diff is so small it really doesnt matter. Its one of those topics where it seems intuitive....full box is stronger....but put it into context of the whole car and its really doesnt translate..... do the math...look at the physics of the whole car.....
Well this will be for the second time I will ask for/suggest one of these horse beaten subframe connector posts be at least archived, silly me, that will never happen.
Besides, OP, just switch over to other unlawful sub frame conncetor post that has declared that the new connector of the month is better then sliced bread.
Monkey see, Monkey do
