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: 19,388 north of coder
moparx
"Butt Crack Bob"
|
"Butt Crack Bob"
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,388
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: 20,762 A collage of whims
topside
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,762
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: 19,388 north of coder
moparx
"Butt Crack Bob"
|
"Butt Crack Bob"
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,388
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.
|
|
|
|
|