Anyone build there own SF connectors?

I was just wondering how hard it would be to build some SFC that bolt at the rear and maybe weld to the front SF so the SF could still be removed if needed. Seems like they could be built to follow the contour of the floor a little closer than the aftermarkets do. Looks like you could come off the front subframe about even with the top , zig down at the rear floor pan and then zag back up and straight back to bolt in to the usual location. Anyone done this? Any pics of some homemade SFC?
Thanks,
Guy

Carl Casanova has made his own SFC, but they are fully welded. You will get a much more stronger chassie if you weld them.

If you eventually need to remove the subframe you can cut of the SFC just behind the subframe.

Carl Casanovas SFC (http://www.geocities.com/casanoc/)


Jan

Guy, Here is a link to the ones we fabricated. Mine are fully welded, but they could have been fabricated to bolt on.
My opinion is to fully weld them. In reality, how often will you be removing your sub-frame? If is is not frequently, perhaps it would be worth giving up a little convience for overall strength.
Chris
http://community.webshots.com/user/smits67

Yeah that's right, I removed mine recently and it hadn't been off the body since the factory put them together. Previous owners had repainted it three times but never took it off.

So I am going to weld my connectors and hope the frame will stay on for another 35 years to come. :cool:

Jan

Jan,
He might consider installing a set of solid body bushings before installing weld-in subframe connectors too. After the connectors are welded in, it makes the solid body bushing uprgade more difficult to do.
Chris

I've read alot of postings about subframe connectors...The purchased subframe connectors appear to be made from square tubing, which reduce your ground clearance. I have not studied the geometry, but couldn't one use rectangular tubing such as 1" X 3" to increase the ground clearance? Each end of the subframe would still have to be designed/fabricated to attach to both the subframe and rear frame rail.

As a side note...I had to replace both floor boards. I somehow ended up with two sets(that's another story). I actually welded both sets into the car. One had the running board lip turned down, and the other one had it turned up(the original way is turned down). The bottom set was put in first. When I put in the second set on top of the first set, I drilled 4 rows of holes across the top set, so that I could weld the top set directly to the bottom set through those holes. Before I welded through the holes, I pushed the bottom floor board up against the top floor board with a hydralic pump jack. The 4 rows of holes were approximately 1-1 1/2 feet apart, with 4 holes per row. In between the two floor board layers I also layed seam sealer to futher bond the two sets together, and hopefully stop any creaking noises from the two sets possibly binding. These two layers of floor boards should really stiffen the body(or at least thats my thoughts). Does anyone think I will still need subframe connectors?

Here are the ones that Detroit Speed & Engineering makes. They are fabricated to follow the shape of the floor boards. Ideal for increasing ground clearance.

Here's a link to their page! (http://www.detroitspeed.com/SubframeConnectors.html)

http://www.detroitspeed.com/Images/SubFrameConnectorsNewWebPage02.jpg

i am thinking about making some for my Nova that go straight thru the rear floorboards from the spring perches to the rear of the subframe. i will probably not weld them to the subframe to allow removal later on, but totally weld them solid to the floor. this will definitely stiffen things up.i won't lose any ground clearance, but will lose a little bit of rear foot room- which doesn't matter, since no one over the age of 3 ever rides back there, anyways.

The problem with using a flatter tube is that the torsional strength is greatly reduced. The larger the diameter, the better. Either mine or the DSE connectors will have no ground clearance issues and if painted correctly are really hard to see.

Originally posted by novaderrik:
which doesn't matter, since no one over the age of 3 ever rides back there, anyways. Doesn't kids grow? Just wonder, mine did... Now they are grown ups and i can do all the playing myself graemlins/beers.gif

Jan

by the time my nephew is big enough to be able to bitch about the lack of room for his feet, the car will probably have a cage in it and the backseat will be more useless than it already is. right now, if even a small adult sits back there, the rear suspension bottoms out and stuff starts to rub. that's the price one pays for wide tires and a low slung stance.
but that's just my car- everyone has to decide what they are willing to give up to achieve whatever their car will be like when completed. for me, ground clearance is more important than rear leg room.

Guy,

I built something similar to what you are describing for my convertible. I don't have any great close up photos, but you can see them off the car here: http://www.geocities.com/hrayhouston/
and on the car on the exhaust page. They are designed to bolt under two subframe mounting points on each side and replace the front leaf spring mount.

Ray

PS. Didn't we meet last year at a car show at Lamar Dixon in Gonzales?

hey! it's the blown apart Camaro that made it into that one car magazine that one time.
what is the backspacing on those S-10 wheels from the factory? a set of those would probably look alright with the spokes painted black and the outer rim polished like you did.

Novaderrik, the stock back spacing is listed as 4.33 inches. I had another 1/8 inch machined off. There needs to be a little more backspacing for fitting maximum width tires, but they work fine with the tires I have. I can fit 245/50R16's on the rear, but had to trim the fender lip to prevent rubbing. These wouldn't fit up front without some minor rubbing, so I went with 225/50R16's up there.

Ray

SFC's are really a question of how hard you want to work. I bought the DSE's for my 69, and they are really sweet, very high quality and well thought out. It is a bit of work to install them, but worth it.

BUT! If you are going through the trouble of doing this, you may consider just fabbing them up yourself. There really is nothing super-trick about them, and tubular steel is really, really cheap.

As far as being removable, I have thought about that too. Mine are (obviously) welded to the front SF, and I have considered re-doing the front (and rear) suspension dramatically on my car. I guess that's why they make cuttoff tools! I'd really hesitate at bolt-on units, eventually they will elongate the mounting holes: not good.

Mark

Hey Ray, I don't think we've met, I haven't been to Gonzales, but I'm not that for from Baton Rouge, what brings you there?
I love that exploded shot of your car, that is awsome! I like the looks of the SFC, too.
I'm a ways from doing anything with SF connectors , I still have to assemble my car and make sure everything is square. I'm just trying to decide which route to go.
Thanks to all,
Guy

Originally posted by novaderrik:
if even a small adult sits back there, the rear suspension bottoms out and stuff starts to rub. that's the price one pays for wide tires and a low slung stance. Believe it or not but I drove four of my womans friends and her in mine two years ago, I was glad that I had Hi-Jackers then. Three women in the back seat, and two in the front passenger seat. The ride wasn't that far and those poor Hi-Jackers had to carry that fat load by them selves. The springs was there just for the ride. graemlins/clonk.gif graemlins/clonk.gif

What a relief when I unloaded them, even with a Big Block it felt like a heavy pull.


Jan