Does anyone make sub frame connectors for C Bodies?
- Thread starter NWPT70
- Start date
330dTA
Senior Member
No manufacturers. But many have fabricated those themselves.
Samplingman
Old Man with a Hat
Shane, are you talking about the rubber isolators that the bolts go through?
saylor
Senior Member
wasnt an NHL hockey puck the correct size? did i dream that?
Samplingman
Old Man with a Hat
LOL, that was a fix listed here somewhere, same dimensions at least.
330dTA
Senior Member
To me subframe connectors mean tubes that you use to tie front end stub frame and rear frame rails. The "hockey pucks" are not "connectors". They are "isolators". Two entirely different things.
Yes I am looking for rails @330dTA
65Fury440
Senior Member
On one of the Fury groups on FB, there was a guy building some, I don't remember specifics though, sorry.
Ironwolf
Senior Member
Try these guys, Auto Rust Technicians in Rhode Island. The do all kinds of frame rust repairs, sell all kinds of odd things that work wonders and in the past have done some misc fabrication to make stuff workable. Just a shot .....
http://www.autorust.com/
About
Auto Rust Tech has been reconstructing rusted cars and trucks for 40 years now. The company was created in 1977. With a background in engineering, and hailing from the manufacturing mecca of Detroit, Michigan, Jerry wanted to be in business manufacturing products for the automotive industry. The initial plan was to join into the aftermarket industry and make oversized fuel tanks and tube products for off road jeeps. As the small product line developed, several other areas were explored, including seat frames, tanks, bumper racks and assorted other small metal products.
One day a friend asked Jerry if he knew anyone that could weld up his old Volkswagen Beetle. Not being someone to pass up a chance to make some cash, Jerry took it into his fabrication shop and started welding. Thirty years later we’re an overnight success.
We’ve repaired over 20,000 vehicles in our 40 years. With a vast inventory of techniques learned over the past 40 years, we are able to repair automobiles that no one else will even look at, never mind fix, and guarantee our work.
We also developed a great product line; Safe-T-Cap Frame repair kits, which we created to assist ourselves in repairing vehicles. What was once parts for our own use, has turned into a small manufacturing business. We make kits for all the popular Mopars, as well as assorted GM Cars and Trucks, Toyota Trucks, CY, YJ and TJ Jeeps, Saabs, Mustangs, and Datsun Z cars. We are continually developing new products to meet our customers’ demands. It’s our way of fixing the car without being there.
We are located in Rhode Island, in an industrial park on the outskirts of the Capitol City of Providence. We utilize every available area in our 10,000 sq foot facility to do our rust repair and manufacturing. We are fully equipped to sandblast, fabricate, and do preliminary body work on our repairs. We are not equipped to do finish body work, nor do we do any paint work. We do not do any mechanical work unless it’s directly involved in our repair procedures. Naturally we do not offer any interior work either. We prefer to do what we specialize in: “rustorations”, and leave the rest up to the other specialists.
More and more television shows are teaching people how much fun it is to have an older car, and people are finding vehicles, sometimes in the most unusual places, that need rust repair. Whether it is structural or cosmetic, Auto Rust Tech is the most capable to assist in repairing the vehicle and providing the owner with the confidence that our 40 years experience brings.
Product Categories
International Orders
For International Orders call us toll-free at 800.407.7024 to place your order.
Online sales are available to our US customers only at this current time.
All our prices are shown in US Dollars. Payment must be by credit card (Mastercard, Visa, or Discover).
Cart
- No products in the cart.
Mon Thru Fri: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm
Sat: 8:00 am to 12:00 pm
Tel: 401-944-4444
Sub-frame connectors are quite common for GM F-body cars (Camaro and Firebird) in their first two generations (prior to the 1982 model year). There IS a reason THEY need them.
When I looked underneath my '70 Monaco, I discovered something that made me smile. Unlike the GM F-body cars, the outer rear sub-frame rails tended to overlap where the rear "frame" rails were for the rear leaf spring mounts. The front rails were outboard of the rear rails, as I recall. No real need for anything additional, as I could see back then . . . especially compared to the way GM did their "unit-body" bodies back then.
On the '65-'68 C-body cars, the front sub-frame was tied into the floorpan vertically and horizontally, with small flat washers interrupting the metallic path for noise transmission. On the '69-'73 cars, the isolators were much larger, but still pretty stiff, for better noise isolation. "Torsion Quiet Ride", they called it. There was also some additional rubber isolation in the rear suspension, too.
Years ago, a friend built some sub-frame connectors for his '70 Charger out of square tubing. They also intruded into the rear footwells, which he welded to them. Considering the offset placement of the front rails and the rear suspension rails on the '69-'73 C-body cars, things might not be that easy. Might have better luck making "frame rails" that go to the rocker panel area, welding to it there, then going back inside to the rear rails for the front of the rear suspension. Square tubing with right angles or mitered joints?
On the "bent-bar" Aspen/Volare and later '79-'81 Newport/NY/St. Regis cars, the rubber isolators were replaced with cast iron pieces for "service replacement" on police cars. BUT one thing to remember with solid or semi-solid/polyurethane body mounts . . . the original mounts were designed to flex. Taking the flex at those locations "out" will transfer those same bending/flexing motions/harmonics to places they weren't designed to be. Metal fatigue will follow, typically.
First time I flew in a commercial jet in the early 1970s, when we took off, the overhead bin doors flexed and shook. From structure harmonics and bending motions. I looked up at that happening and said a prayer for a safe trip! Then I realized that if it didn't flex, it would break. That helped a little. Later flights were in planes that didn't have that same level of shake, though. The door latches might have needed adjustment, too!
IF you're trying to stiffen-up a car body, the best thing to do is install a roll cage, behind the front seat, along the sides, braces to the back, and such. Not too good for a daily driver, though, all things considered! Unless you're into that sort of thing.
If all you're wanting to do is decrease weatherstrip squeeks from a little body flex, lube the rubber. If the doors don't close well, adjust the hinges and/or replace the hinge bushings. Might need some new striker bolts, too? In fabricating sub-frame connectors for a Chrysler C-body, you can probably spend a good bit of time and money (design and engineering) and end up with something that is worse than it started out to be, by observation.
If you're going for a rompin'stompin' stroker engine to lift the front tires, use less tire on the back and get it rolling before using WOT to help decrease bending forces on the body. Unless you have a "locker", there will always be torque reaction that is a little uneven, which is why one front wheel will lift more than the other one. You can decrease body twist on a non-rollbar car, but you'll never get rid of it completely. Just the dynamics of the situation. Unless, possibly, you do some extensive x-bracing of the floorpan.
Next time you find a Buick GN at a weekend cruise or the races, ask the owner if he races it. If he says "a little", then look at the upper window side weatherstrip, then follow that line back into the sail panel. You'll probably see some body cracks where the sail panel of the quarter panel meets the roof panel skin. "Coach joint", they call it. IF there are cracks there, there's been some racin' going on!
On my '77 Camaro, over time, there's been enough body flex for very short "breaks" to be on each side. Those cars need connectors, as a matter of course. Especially the t-top cars!
Chrysler had the best design and strongest UniBody cars of anybody in the USA. And better than many "international" brands, by observation.
If you need to fix some rust . . .
CBODY67
When I looked underneath my '70 Monaco, I discovered something that made me smile. Unlike the GM F-body cars, the outer rear sub-frame rails tended to overlap where the rear "frame" rails were for the rear leaf spring mounts. The front rails were outboard of the rear rails, as I recall. No real need for anything additional, as I could see back then . . . especially compared to the way GM did their "unit-body" bodies back then.
On the '65-'68 C-body cars, the front sub-frame was tied into the floorpan vertically and horizontally, with small flat washers interrupting the metallic path for noise transmission. On the '69-'73 cars, the isolators were much larger, but still pretty stiff, for better noise isolation. "Torsion Quiet Ride", they called it. There was also some additional rubber isolation in the rear suspension, too.
Years ago, a friend built some sub-frame connectors for his '70 Charger out of square tubing. They also intruded into the rear footwells, which he welded to them. Considering the offset placement of the front rails and the rear suspension rails on the '69-'73 C-body cars, things might not be that easy. Might have better luck making "frame rails" that go to the rocker panel area, welding to it there, then going back inside to the rear rails for the front of the rear suspension. Square tubing with right angles or mitered joints?
On the "bent-bar" Aspen/Volare and later '79-'81 Newport/NY/St. Regis cars, the rubber isolators were replaced with cast iron pieces for "service replacement" on police cars. BUT one thing to remember with solid or semi-solid/polyurethane body mounts . . . the original mounts were designed to flex. Taking the flex at those locations "out" will transfer those same bending/flexing motions/harmonics to places they weren't designed to be. Metal fatigue will follow, typically.
First time I flew in a commercial jet in the early 1970s, when we took off, the overhead bin doors flexed and shook. From structure harmonics and bending motions. I looked up at that happening and said a prayer for a safe trip! Then I realized that if it didn't flex, it would break. That helped a little. Later flights were in planes that didn't have that same level of shake, though. The door latches might have needed adjustment, too!
IF you're trying to stiffen-up a car body, the best thing to do is install a roll cage, behind the front seat, along the sides, braces to the back, and such. Not too good for a daily driver, though, all things considered! Unless you're into that sort of thing.
If all you're wanting to do is decrease weatherstrip squeeks from a little body flex, lube the rubber. If the doors don't close well, adjust the hinges and/or replace the hinge bushings. Might need some new striker bolts, too? In fabricating sub-frame connectors for a Chrysler C-body, you can probably spend a good bit of time and money (design and engineering) and end up with something that is worse than it started out to be, by observation.
If you're going for a rompin'stompin' stroker engine to lift the front tires, use less tire on the back and get it rolling before using WOT to help decrease bending forces on the body. Unless you have a "locker", there will always be torque reaction that is a little uneven, which is why one front wheel will lift more than the other one. You can decrease body twist on a non-rollbar car, but you'll never get rid of it completely. Just the dynamics of the situation. Unless, possibly, you do some extensive x-bracing of the floorpan.
Next time you find a Buick GN at a weekend cruise or the races, ask the owner if he races it. If he says "a little", then look at the upper window side weatherstrip, then follow that line back into the sail panel. You'll probably see some body cracks where the sail panel of the quarter panel meets the roof panel skin. "Coach joint", they call it. IF there are cracks there, there's been some racin' going on!
On my '77 Camaro, over time, there's been enough body flex for very short "breaks" to be on each side. Those cars need connectors, as a matter of course. Especially the t-top cars!
Chrysler had the best design and strongest UniBody cars of anybody in the USA. And better than many "international" brands, by observation.
If you need to fix some rust . . .
CBODY67
Wollfen
Old Man with a Hat
What is it you are trying to achieve with the car?
Mine were fabbed up from square stock by a local guy near me and welded in. But welding makes it hard to replace front frame section in the future. Brackets can be welded and connectors bolted in if preferred. My rockers were/are weak and being a convertible doesn't help. Money well spent. Much stiffer. Now when jacked up the doors ...almost close now. Amazing how twisty they are.
Are there some small metal tabs in the door frame, on the body, with corresponding "wedges" on the doors? Some of the things you might not notice, but were there on many convertibles and t-top cars.
From what I understand, Chrysler corp convertibles seemed to be "bad" about the body joint between the front of the quarter panel and the center panel in front of the trunk cracking from body flex. I've seen a few B-body convertibles that were or had cracked there. Somewhat involved to repair and repaint.
As for the doors, with time the hinge pins and bushings will wear and let the doors drop a little. That'll affect body line alignment and ease of closing. Parts are now probably available in repro, I suspect. This is something we used to not worry about, but the longer 2-door doors and such can have more issues than 4-doors. GM pickups are especially "bad" in this area.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
From what I understand, Chrysler corp convertibles seemed to be "bad" about the body joint between the front of the quarter panel and the center panel in front of the trunk cracking from body flex. I've seen a few B-body convertibles that were or had cracked there. Somewhat involved to repair and repaint.
As for the doors, with time the hinge pins and bushings will wear and let the doors drop a little. That'll affect body line alignment and ease of closing. Parts are now probably available in repro, I suspect. This is something we used to not worry about, but the longer 2-door doors and such can have more issues than 4-doors. GM pickups are especially "bad" in this area.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Samplingman
Old Man with a Hat
Stub frame "connectors" in a C body is totally unnecessary, IMHO, the the Chrysler unibody engineering is second to none. If you are experiencing body flex in a C there are bigger problems going on.
I was advise by a non c body guy that all unibody cars should have sub frame connectors to increase driveabilty. I guess he doesn't know our cars well!
CanCritter
Senior Member
adapt and adjust....we made what we had to..used what we could and found replacements for **** we couldn't find
Mine did not as well as not having other things like sway bar mounting brackets. But I might be the odd ball. So that reminds me to put torque boxes on the list. thnx
73Coupe
Senior Member
has2bmopar
Senior Member
I have a '68 300 with original torque boxes on the front of the spring mount that look just like the ones on a hemi car.
Similar threads
