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
OP
super stock
|
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_cWhat 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]
#2673175
07/02/19 04:08 PM
07/02/19 04:08 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696 Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
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. I rate this video, "mostly misleading".
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: Sniper]
#2673876
07/04/19 07:16 AM
07/04/19 07:16 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 25,050 Texas
GoodysGotaCuda
5.7L Hemi, 6spd
|
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.
|
|
|
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
super stock
|
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: 22,696 Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
|
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
gzig5
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 350
Mequon, WI
|
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
super stock
|
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.
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: lilcuda]
#2674648
07/05/19 11:29 PM
07/05/19 11:29 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696 Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
|
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: 19,355 north of coder
moparx
"Butt Crack Bob"
|
"Butt Crack Bob"
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,355
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.
|
|
|
Re: Frame Connectors bad?
[Re: Kern Dog]
#2674847
07/06/19 01:53 PM
07/06/19 01:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,751 A collage of whims
topside
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,751
A collage of whims
|
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: 22,696 Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
|
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. 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.
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: 19,355 north of coder
moparx
"Butt Crack Bob"
|
"Butt Crack Bob"
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,355
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.
|
|
|
Re: Frame Connectors bad?
[Re: moparx]
#2675588
07/08/19 03:11 PM
07/08/19 03:11 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442 NW Chicago suburban area
Mopar Mitch
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,442
NW Chicago suburban area
|
I wonder how good the Magnum Force double-tubular SFCs are. Would they be better or as good as the typical 2x2 square SFC?
Despite all the suspension mods I've done (per allowable SCCA E/Street Prepared rules, one thing I've never gotten around to adding are SFCs. In the past, SCCA would not allow SFCs to be welded-in... they could only be bolted-in. Years later, the SCCA later allowed SFCs to be welded in, but only at two-points (front and rear).
I plan to add them sooner or later... after the new engine gets going.. maybe in 2020.
Last edited by Mopar Mitch; 07/08/19 03:17 PM.
Mopar Mitch
"Road racers and autocrossers go in deeper and come out harder!"... and rain never stops us from having fun with our cars... in fact, it makes us better drivers!
Check out MOPAR ACTION MAGAZINE, August 2006 issue for feature article and specs on my autocross T/A!
|
|
|
Re: Frame Connectors bad?
[Re: Mopar Mitch]
#2675660
07/08/19 05:58 PM
07/08/19 05:58 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645 Phila. Pa.
Mattax
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
|
Yes SP allowance remains the same - welded at two points. re: MF- made with tubing. Interesting concepts - potentially should better resist torsional forces. But still irrelevant for us, as only one additional attachment point is allowed. I think 2 1x2 rectangular boxes, seam welded together to make a 2x2 would be allowed. How much can from the extra vertical - prob not much. Probably better to take the roll bar allowances and do as much as possible with that. It could even have a bolted connection to the SFCs - at least the way I read it. The old DC/MP SFCs are only around 1" tall and 2" wide. That's what'srusting out now in my car now. (saves weight! LOL) Taller would be better and there is room to go taller without hitting the floor or going lower for about 2/3 the distance. IMO and from what I've observed, the early Barracuda's are relatively stiff, and mid model fastbacks probably nearly as good in that respect. So it all depends what car we're talking about. But yea, for any form of racing SFCs are an advantage. A coworking of mine would place his '67 GTX on jackstands for the week so the quarters wouldn't get wrinkled from racing every weekend. That's what happens when you lift the nose up so the front tires just come off the ground using just springs and pinion snubber (and slicks of course) He's the one that suggested I put the SFCs in - little did I know that they would knock my car into C Prepared. Still no real regrets.
|
|
|
Re: Frame Connectors bad?
[Re: moparx]
#2675663
07/08/19 06:03 PM
07/08/19 06:03 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645 Phila. Pa.
Mattax
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
|
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. Should take a look at the photo sequence in Herb Adams Chassis book. He makes a model of a rail frame and then weights one corner. Then adds a cage like structure and triangulation.
|
|
|
Re: Frame Connectors bad?
[Re: Mattax]
#2675792
07/08/19 11:35 PM
07/08/19 11:35 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 18,678 Fresno, CA
Jim_Lusk
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 18,678
Fresno, CA
|
Yes SP allowance remains the same - welded at two points. re: MF- made with tubing. Interesting concepts - potentially should better resist torsional forces. But still irrelevant for us, as only one additional attachment point is allowed. I think 2 1x2 rectangular boxes, seam welded together to make a 2x2 would be allowed. How much can from the extra vertical - prob not much. Probably better to take the roll bar allowances and do as much as possible with that. It could even have a bolted connection to the SFCs - at least the way I read it. The old DC/MP SFCs are only around 1" tall and 2" wide. That's what'srusting out now in my car now. (saves weight! LOL) Taller would be better and there is room to go taller without hitting the floor or going lower for about 2/3 the distance. IMO and from what I've observed, the early Barracuda's are relatively stiff, and mid model fastbacks probably nearly as good in that respect. So it all depends what car we're talking about. But yea, for any form of racing SFCs are an advantage. A coworking of mine would place his '67 GTX on jackstands for the week so the quarters wouldn't get wrinkled from racing every weekend. That's what happens when you lift the nose up so the front tires just come off the ground using just springs and pinion snubber (and slicks of course) He's the one that suggested I put the SFCs in - little did I know that they would knock my car into C Prepared. Still no real regrets. I don't remember exactly which mod put my son's Barracuda into CP, but we never looked back and his car really wasn't all that competitive (mildly built 383 against full race small blocks with full race suspension) against true CP cars, but there were so few in the local group that he easily won the class for the season. He still drove the car on the street.
|
|
|
Re: Frame Connectors bad?
[Re: JF_Moparts]
#2681083
07/25/19 12:47 AM
07/25/19 12:47 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,999 Salem
Grizzly
Moparts Proctologist
|
Moparts Proctologist
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,999
Salem
|
From a Metal Worker/Welders' point of view what Backyard Tony is saying is not entirely wrong. I'm not defending this guy, He has some funny ideas and most of them I question, but, I am willing to listen to Him. If a current Chrysler Engineer or Metalurgist could counter this subject I would really like to hear it. As I see it, the 4 torque boxes installed at the factory would have taken more time and cost more to install than a simple one-piece frame connector. Period. None of you have commented on how thick the rocker metal is or the fact that it actually is a frame for the car? A T-boned Chrysler Product shows how much strength/metal is in this area. Obviously Chrysler knew what they were doing plus, they were years ahead on Unibody construction than anyone else. I've taken a long hard look at my E-Bodies' torque boxes and I can still slightly justify putting frame connectors that weld to the floor pans and rails, but I will be making my own because I see a flaw in the currently offered design. I want a super-rigid car and know how to get it. The old rectangular tubing stuff that was bolted or welded in, I would not wast my time with. At any rate, look under a new Mustang or Challenger to see what they do their Unibodies. Look at the '70 TransAm T/A, AAR race series cars? Works for them obviously.
Mo' Farts
Moderated by "tbagger".
|
|
|
Re: Frame Connectors bad?
[Re: Grizzly]
#2681602
07/26/19 02:18 PM
07/26/19 02:18 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696 Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
|
From a Metal Worker/Welders' point of view what Backyard Tony is saying is not entirely wrong. I'm not defending this guy, He has some funny ideas and most of them I question, but, I am willing to listen to Him. If a current Chrysler Engineer or Metalurgist could counter this subject I would really like to hear it. As I see it, the 4 torque boxes installed at the factory would have taken more time and cost more to install than a simple one-piece frame connector. Period. None of you have commented on how thick the rocker metal is or the fact that it actually is a frame for the car? A T-boned Chrysler Product shows how much strength/metal is in this area. Obviously Chrysler knew what they were doing plus, they were years ahead on Unibody construction than anyone else. I've taken a long hard look at my E-Bodies' torque boxes and I can still slightly justify putting frame connectors that weld to the floor pans and rails, but I will be making my own because I see a flaw in the currently offered design. I want a super-rigid car and know how to get it. The old rectangular tubing stuff that was bolted or welded in, I would not wast my time with. At any rate, look under a new Mustang or Challenger to see what they do their Unibodies. Look at the '70 TransAm T/A, AAR race series cars? Works for them obviously. Not clear to me the point you are making above. Care to expound. I can agree on a couple of your other points, guy is NOT entirely wrong, its his conclusions he makes from those correct points is my issue, such as, making the car too stiff was frowned on by Mopar because it would effectively tear itself apart at the spot welds thinking..
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
|
|