Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Frame Connectors bad? #2673117
07/02/19 03:34 PM
07/02/19 03:34 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,161
Los Angeles, CA
JF_Moparts Offline OP
super stock
JF_Moparts  Offline OP
super stock

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,161
Los Angeles, CA
So I'm watching the latest Uncle Tony's Garage (DeFeo) on youtube, and saw that he is recommending against installing frame connectors in our unibody cars. Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjOJveyZn_c

What does everyone think? I've had frame connectors in my 71 Satellite since 1990, and I've daily driven that car just about every day since.

Thanks.

Jim

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: JF_Moparts] #2673160
07/02/19 04:00 PM
07/02/19 04:00 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,176
nowhere
S
Sniper Offline
master
Sniper  Offline
master
S

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,176
nowhere
yeah, I think I'll refrain from watch anymore of his stuff.

Back when the slideruled the calculations on those designs they had crap for tires and traction so there was no flex to speak of.

Now days it is entirely possible to build a unibody that has more traction than the engineers from back then ever dreamed of and had they known they probably would have put in frame connectors.

Using his logic, we should keep the drum brakes too.

lol

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: JF_Moparts] #2673175
07/02/19 04:08 PM
07/02/19 04:08 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
J
jcc Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc  Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
J

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
Never heard that theory before.

Its a typical case of taking a few correct facts and connecting them differently and incorrectly, to gain i suspect , 15mins of fame?

Yes, the benefit of frame connectors is they do increase rigidity in an area that is not originally rigid, nor was it designed to be in its OEM intended use.

Our issues are different.

A frame connector will in almost every case increase stress in other areas,which will of course increase the loads on the spot welds in those areas beyond the FC.

I completely disagree with the statement that any flex was designed into our uni-body's. It was known, it was acceptable, it was likely a cost compromise solution, but iflex was not sought.

"Torgue box reinforcement gussets" are a quick cheap band aid for a very poor solution of using the door sills to tie the front and rear sub frames together. It is an obvious compromise, it works in a street car, and has a proven satisfactory record of getting the job done, barely, hence the need for FC.

Edit: The "work hardening" is a buzz word the speaker just throws out, and not exactly correct, and if the spot welds were prone to this problem, we would see it likely already on a number of 100K+ mile cars, and the factory could overcome by design, without much effort anyway. His opening line speaks highly of the noticeable improvement of adding FC gives, and in the end, tells the listener you don't need them in a street car. Can't wait till he video tapes my favorite, LCA gussets and 11/16" TR ends. laugh2

I rate this video, "mostly misleading". twocents


Last edited by jcc; 07/02/19 09:32 PM.

Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: jcc] #2673252
07/02/19 04:43 PM
07/02/19 04:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 18,677
Fresno, CA
Jim_Lusk Offline
I Live Here
Jim_Lusk  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 18,677
Fresno, CA
I don't plan to watch the video, but I can say with absolute certainty that frame connectors are a near necessity on convertibles. Both my wife's GTS and my son's Dart have stock suspension (small block and big block) and slightly larger than stock tires. No fancy traction aids on either car. The only change is that my son's Dart has frame connectors along with a much heavier engine (440 instead of a 340). You can feel the difference in body flex on a normal road. Due to its rarity, the GTS will not get frame connectors. We'll just continue to live with the flex. My Barracuda convertible got them shortly after I tore the car down.

I don't think they are as necessary on a street driven hardtop, but they still help.

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: JF_Moparts] #2673314
07/02/19 06:08 PM
07/02/19 06:08 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,385
Pikes Peak Country
T
TC@HP2 Offline
master
TC@HP2  Offline
master
T

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,385
Pikes Peak Country
I disagree entirely.

Anytime you make the body a variable in the suspension equation, you have the opportunity for inconsistent application of rate and control. Additionally, in the era these cars were originally built, ride comfort was a much higher priority than it is now. This flex was deemed acceptable to teh factory engineers based on the rates being used in suspensions back then. As drivers have demanded more from the chassis, designs have grown more rigid to accommodate the higher wheel rates. To keep suite, older cars have to have that rigidity added to them.

Similar improvements in rigidity can be achieved by doing seam welding, but this is a very labor intensive effort that most don't want to do and is not easily applied to cars not getting complete body and paint makeovers.

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: TC@HP2] #2673322
07/02/19 06:33 PM
07/02/19 06:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,645
So Near, Yet So Far
topside Offline
Too Many Posts
topside  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,645
So Near, Yet So Far
Time to cut back on the Weed...

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: JF_Moparts] #2673796
07/03/19 09:40 PM
07/03/19 09:40 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,947
Oregon
A
AndyF Offline
I Win
AndyF  Offline
I Win
A

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,947
Oregon
I'm pretty sure that the chassis design guys in Detroit would roll their eyes at this. The OEM guys have been trying to make cars stiffer and stiffer. They use all sorts of tricks to make the car super stiff without adding weight. High alloy material, box structures, foam filled boxes, hydroformed parts, etc. It has been a chassis stiffening arms race for several decades now. The muscle cars that we work with are limp rags compared to a modern chassis. They were limp rags because they were designed on a drawing board and nobody had the ability to actually figure out how to make them stiffer without spending a fortune. If they had known how to do it they would've.

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: Sniper] #2673876
07/04/19 07:16 AM
07/04/19 07:16 AM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 25,050
Texas
GoodysGotaCuda Offline
5.7L Hemi, 6spd
GoodysGotaCuda  Offline
5.7L Hemi, 6spd

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 25,050
Texas
I made it about 35s into the video. No, just no.


Edit: Ok, I watched a little more. He's an idiot when it comes to vehicle design, stick to the youtube engineering degree.

Last edited by GoodysGotaCuda; 07/04/19 07:21 AM.

1972 Barracuda - 5.7L Hemi, T56 Magnum 6spd - https://www.facebook.com/GoodysGotaHemi
2020 RAM 1500
[img]https://i.imgur.com/v9yezP9.jpg[/img]
Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: GoodysGotaCuda] #2673940
07/04/19 11:28 AM
07/04/19 11:28 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,385
Pikes Peak Country
T
TC@HP2 Offline
master
TC@HP2  Offline
master
T

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,385
Pikes Peak Country
The sad thing about this is all the supporting comments under the vid thanking him for preventing them from making the mistake of adding chassis stiffening to their cars.

Publish an opinion, market it, and you’ll find supporters, no matter how misguided and well intentioned it may be.

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: JF_Moparts] #2674385
07/05/19 11:23 AM
07/05/19 11:23 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 701
Northern California
lilcuda Offline
super stock
lilcuda  Offline
super stock

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 701
Northern California

Was at my buddy's house last night for a bbq. He has been in the collision repair business for 35 + years. His job is to cut off all of the twisted metal and weld in the replacement pieces. He has to make sure it is structurally sound and all the panels line up, then it gets sent to the finishing guys. I guarantee he has welded on more cars in a year than Tony has his entire life.

Anyway, I asked him what he thought about this and he laughed. He said the only reason the factory didn't tie the subframes together was to save money.


'67 is an abbreviation of 1967
67' is an abbreviation of 67 feet
They are not interchangeable.
Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: lilcuda] #2674443
07/05/19 01:51 PM
07/05/19 01:51 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
J
jcc Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc  Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
J

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
Originally Posted by lilcuda

Was at my buddy's house last night for a bbq. He has been in the collision repair business for 35 + years. His job is to cut off all of the twisted metal and weld in the replacement pieces. He has to make sure it is structurally sound and all the panels line up, then it gets sent to the finishing guys. I guarantee he has welded on more cars in a year than Tony has his entire life.

Anyway, I asked him what he thought about this and he laughed. He said the only reason the factory didn't tie the subframes together was to save money.


Your friend maybe not be entirely familiar with old Mopar unibodies. IMO, the main reason was space/lack of floor height/ road clearance. I can't see using the rockers/door sills as compromised frame replacements saved much, if any money.


Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: jcc] #2674512
07/05/19 05:05 PM
07/05/19 05:05 PM
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 350
Mequon, WI
G
gzig5 Offline
enthusiast
gzig5  Offline
enthusiast
G

Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 350
Mequon, WI
Originally Posted by jcc
Originally Posted by lilcuda

Was at my buddy's house last night for a bbq. He has been in the collision repair business for 35 + years. His job is to cut off all of the twisted metal and weld in the replacement pieces. He has to make sure it is structurally sound and all the panels line up, then it gets sent to the finishing guys. I guarantee he has welded on more cars in a year than Tony has his entire life.

Anyway, I asked him what he thought about this and he laughed. He said the only reason the factory didn't tie the subframes together was to save money.


Your friend maybe not be entirely familiar with old Mopar unibodies. IMO, the main reason was space/lack of floor height/ road clearance. I can't see using the rockers/door sills as compromised frame replacements saved much, if any money.


If it saved $10 per car, times how many millions of uni-body cars they made in that time frame, it adds up to real money.

At my company, they will spend an extra week engineering out two fasteners that won't have to go into the assembly. The material and time to install them saved is tens of thousands per year.

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: jcc] #2674553
07/05/19 06:29 PM
07/05/19 06:29 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 701
Northern California
lilcuda Offline
super stock
lilcuda  Offline
super stock

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 701
Northern California
Originally Posted by jcc
Originally Posted by lilcuda

Was at my buddy's house last night for a bbq. He has been in the collision repair business for 35 + years. His job is to cut off all of the twisted metal and weld in the replacement pieces. He has to make sure it is structurally sound and all the panels line up, then it gets sent to the finishing guys. I guarantee he has welded on more cars in a year than Tony has his entire life.

Anyway, I asked him what he thought about this and he laughed. He said the only reason the factory didn't tie the subframes together was to save money.


Your friend maybe not be entirely familiar with old Mopar unibodies. IMO, the main reason was space/lack of floor height/ road clearance. I can't see using the rockers/door sills as compromised frame replacements saved much, if any money.


A unibody is a unibody. Doesn't really matter what badge is on the grill, for the most part. Yes, there will be different approaches to the engineering, but the bottom line is that if it will save money and they can get by without it, an OEM will leave out something.

You are kidding about the ground clearance, right? It's not like Mopar was building lowriders.


'67 is an abbreviation of 1967
67' is an abbreviation of 67 feet
They are not interchangeable.
Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: JF_Moparts] #2674627
07/05/19 10:02 PM
07/05/19 10:02 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,161
Los Angeles, CA
JF_Moparts Offline OP
super stock
JF_Moparts  Offline OP
super stock

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,161
Los Angeles, CA
For the record, I think that Tony DeFeo has some really great content on his YouTube channel. And his magazine articles from the 80's are some of my favorites.

However, given that I've had frame connectors in one of my cars for close to 30 years, I didn't want to believe it had been a bad decision on my part. Of course I'm biased.

Thanks all.

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: lilcuda] #2674648
07/05/19 11:29 PM
07/05/19 11:29 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
J
jcc Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc  Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
J

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
Originally Posted by lilcuda
Originally Posted by jcc
Originally Posted by lilcuda

Was at my buddy's house last night for a bbq. He has been in the collision repair business for 35 + years. His job is to cut off all of the twisted metal and weld in the replacement pieces. He has to make sure it is structurally sound and all the panels line up, then it gets sent to the finishing guys. I guarantee he has welded on more cars in a year than Tony has his entire life.

Anyway, I asked him what he thought about this and he laughed. He said the only reason the factory didn't tie the subframes together was to save money.


Your friend maybe not be entirely familiar with old Mopar unibodies. IMO, the main reason was space/lack of floor height/ road clearance. I can't see using the rockers/door sills as compromised frame replacements saved much, if any money.


A unibody is a unibody. Doesn't really matter what badge is on the grill, for the most part. Yes, there will be different approaches to the engineering, but the bottom line is that if it will save money and they can get by without it, an OEM will leave out something.

You are kidding about the ground clearance, right? It's not like Mopar was building lowriders.


No, I am not kidding, typical mopar owners back in the day, would be rather put off by having a FC protruding into the floor, and if a robust FC (ie Deep) was under the floor , it would have made the car a good candidate for getting high centered over a steep bump. A frame connector solution would have been cheaper then the solution we were given. There are a lot of pieces, welds, fitments, etc that a single robust FC per side would have replaced.


Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: jcc] #2674779
07/06/19 11:08 AM
07/06/19 11:08 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,240
north of coder
moparx Online content
"Butt Crack Bob"
moparx  Online Content
"Butt Crack Bob"

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,240
north of coder
it's been my experience even 2x2 connectors stiffen up the platform without needing to protrude into and above, the floor.
it is noticeable, so in my opinion, it's worth doing.
your mileage may vary.
beer

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: moparx] #2674839
07/06/19 01:12 PM
07/06/19 01:12 PM
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,493
Granite Bay CA
Kern Dog Offline
Striving for excellence
Kern Dog  Offline
Striving for excellence

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,493
Granite Bay CA
So far, that video has been the only one that I have found to be misleading. His other videos are either in line with what I have experienced, known or suspected. I commented to the video that his friend "Rick Ehrenberg" would surely disagree with him on frame connectors.

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: Kern Dog] #2674847
07/06/19 01:53 PM
07/06/19 01:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,645
So Near, Yet So Far
topside Offline
Too Many Posts
topside  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,645
So Near, Yet So Far
Look at the underside of a '66-'67 Fairlane if you want to see something almost scary.
They had basically nothing in the way of longitudinal reinforcement, from the firewall back to the rear spring eyes, except the rockers, which are smaller than our Mopars.
Almost no structure to support the trans or distribute loads.
A buddy of mine is a Ford guy, and has one of his Fairlanes up on a rack. I'd never really looked under one before.
He says that the quarters actually tend to split in the area under the roof C-pillars...
I've put frame connectors under A & B bodies, a Nova, and a Camaro; without exception, every one became more solid, handled better, hooked better, & rode better.
Even the doors open & close better.

Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: moparx] #2675297
07/07/19 06:54 PM
07/07/19 06:54 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
J
jcc Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc  Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
J

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
Originally Posted by moparx
it's been my experience even 2x2 connectors stiffen up the platform without needing to protrude into and above, the floor.
it is noticeable, so in my opinion, it's worth doing.
your mileage may vary.
beer


That also goes along with my thinking, anything at all is an improvement in that the area/design is so lacking, for our needs,
And I believe in only the vertical axis a 2x3 FC thru the floor is nearly double the stiffness of a 2x2. FC.
I have both currently installed in my collection, one day I'll toy around with a built up custom punched/flared thin wall FC in the range of 4x2.5. Kinda like the internal Hindenburg Dirigible frame, with a better outcome.We'll see. laugh2


Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
Re: Frame Connectors bad? [Re: jcc] #2675469
07/08/19 10:39 AM
07/08/19 10:39 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,240
north of coder
moparx Online content
"Butt Crack Bob"
moparx  Online Content
"Butt Crack Bob"

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,240
north of coder
the vertical walls of the connectors add strength, and there is not much to gain going wider than the front and rear subframes [which are around 2" wide]
although i have never done this comparison, it would be interesting to compare a piece of 2x3x1/8 thick [or 12ga-.105 thick] to a piece of 2x2x 3/16 or 1/4 thick.
not much difference in weight [we are looking at commonly available material], but what would be the torsional differences ?
just a reoccurring thought.
beer

Page 1 of 2 1 2






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1