PDA

View Full Version : 21st Century C5 front clip FOR SECOND GEN F BODIES. !LOOK!



newby
02-06-2006, 04:18 PM
is ANYONE else planning on A C5 front suspension for their second gen f body? if you are serious, aka have the money now or would be once you see the finished product, please post up here.

If there is enough interest 21st Century is interested.

Including myself, I know of one other person for sure. need a few more then that though.

No one else I know of (wayne, martz, etc) has shown any interest in actually producing a frame rail for this conversion. Everyone is too stuck on the first gens. (no offense guys)

Now is OUR chance to get some quality parts for OUR rides!

formula
02-06-2006, 10:20 PM
quanto costa? i'm liking the idea....

Mean 69
02-08-2006, 06:51 AM
No one else I know of (wayne, martz, etc) has shown any interest in actually producing a frame rail for this conversion. Everyone is too stuck on the first gens. (no offense guys)

That's not entirely true, but I can certainly see why folks would think so. We have the back end solution right now, and have design work well underway for the front end too. 21'st seems to be a good bunch of guys from what I have heard from others that have dealt with them, I would bet their stuff would be good too.

M

Travis B
02-08-2006, 07:06 AM
Jim Meyer makes one for 2nd gens already! Not C5 but he makes a nice peice......

zbugger
02-08-2006, 10:22 AM
Jim Meyer makes one for 2nd gens already! Not C5 but he makes a nice peice......
Yeah, that one does look like a nice piece. The Martz front sub looks ok too, but it's based on mustang II stuff.

PTAddict
02-08-2006, 02:06 PM
Just based on looking at it, the Meyer frame would seem to be pretty weak in torsion. The control arms look short, and it appears he's once again using his favorite spindle, the 2nd Gen F-body/B-body, which means that one of the hardest issues to fix in old car geometry, the scrub radius, won't be fixed.

The fact that there's no mention on the site of basic suspension parameters like roll center location and migration, front view swing arm, anti-squat, bump steer, scrub radius, etc would seem to indicate that either he's not put a great deal of time into engineering these things, or he doesn't think his potential customers care much about such things.

But who knows, I could be wrong and he might have good answers to all this. It sure looks pretty, anyway.

GetMore
02-08-2006, 02:54 PM
Give some more info. If it looks worth it I might be interested. (Worth it to me in this case means a big improvement is handling capability over my better-than-stock but still basically stock setup but not too costly.)

PTAddict
02-08-2006, 03:48 PM
Just to respond to the original post, I would be very interested in a 2nd gen front sub from either 21st CSM or Lateral Dynamics. Those are the two outfits I've seen putting enough engineering into their designs to make a worthwhile improvement on the stock 2nd gen sub, which is decent to begin with.

BonzoHansen
02-08-2006, 05:29 PM
This is the meyers clip.
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif
Discussed at nastyz28. I do not understand enough to comment, but many there believe it uses the engine block to add to rigidity (small k-member)
http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37856&highlight=meyer

I just thought I'd give you the link to the discussion.

PTAddict
02-08-2006, 06:10 PM
In general, using the engine as a structural member in cars with street pretensions is not a good idea, since it transmits major vibration to the entire car structure. In any case, when you look at this frame from a structural perspective there really is little the engine would add to offset the biggest concern, which is torsional rigidity (the ability to resist twisting one framerail up and the other down in the side view, under roll loads). My concern comes from the minimal cross section of the single major cross member (under the engine). Compare that with the stock subframe, or almost any subframe with performance pretensions. If you're running a full cage with front bars attaching toward the front of the subframe rails, this is much less of a concern. Otherwise ... Appearances can sometimes be deceptive when analyzing structural rigidity, the only way to tell for sure here would be competent FEA analysis. Maybe Meyer did that, but somehow I doubt it.

trayb
02-08-2006, 06:39 PM
What really concerns me about this is the pricing of the subframe. 5500 is quite a bit of money to spend on a bare metal subframe. Understanding how much engineering goes into making such a critical component, some friends and I have gotten with a suspension engineer that used to build trans-am cars to assist in building our 1st Gen and 2nd Gen suspensions. I can tell you from first hand experience of the amount of time spent engineering all the components to fit and work well. At the present time we are undecided if we are going to market our stuff, but if we were the focus would be on the side of the guy without a water cooled check book. Affordable performance can be achieved without draining your savings account and eating ramen noodles for a few months.

If you can't pull 1g it doesn't matter how much you paid for it, and leave the Mustang type stuff on a Ford.

newby
02-10-2006, 08:53 PM
wow for posts... i checked the first couple days and nothing. yeh!

first of all PTAddict or anyone else really seriously interested shoot Ed an email at [email protected] or feel free to pm me and i'll send you the stuff i've been getting from 21st

I didnt mean to say that no one is making anything for these cars at all... I am just pointing out that by and large, the second gen doesn't get the same R&D that the first gen gets.

More specifically, I want a subframe I can bolt very good, readily available parts to that handles as good as possible (insert C5 parts here :woot: ). I learned two things watching rally racing on espn2 for 12hrs straight:
1. those guys are nuts!
2. they specifically use the best performing OEM parts that way when it breaks its easy to fix.

not to say I actually look forward to breakage but I do know that its much more fun to beat on a car then it is to look at one.

thats why one off custom spindles and full custom subframes are not for me.

newby
02-10-2006, 09:40 PM
What really concerns me about this is the pricing of the subframe. 5500 is quite a bit of money to spend on a bare metal subframe. .. Affordable performance can be achieved without draining your savings account and eating ramen noodles for a few months.

AMEN BROTHER!!

2-3k is much easier to swallow. I'm hoping thats what the end number will be like.

cpederslie
02-11-2006, 10:13 PM
Wayne Due already has a C5 clip for the second gens. I'm heading up to his shop tomorrow to pickup the clip for my Nova so I'll see if I can get some pictures from him. Last time I was up there he was putting a C5 clip in a second gen Firebird. I know the car is out for paint right now, but he should have some pics prior to going to paint.

PTAddict, I thought you had or were going with a WD C4 clip in your 2nd gen?

Check back for pics tomorrow.

newby
02-12-2006, 06:20 AM
that is news to me. I contacted him the same time i contacted 21st and he said he wasnt making a C5 for the second gen, only the C4. also he only has the C5 listed for the first gen on his website.

if he has done some for second gens i would like to see pics as well.

also, does WD use eccentrics in his frames?

PTAddict
02-12-2006, 09:15 AM
PTAddict, I thought you had or were going with a WD C4 clip in your 2nd gen?

Check back for pics tomorrow.

Nope, I have a WD C4 sub in my '67. It's a nice piece, but the C5 geometry is somewhat better than the early C4 and that's the direction I would go now.

cpederslie
02-12-2006, 11:05 AM
that is news to me. I contacted him the same time i contacted 21st and he said he wasnt making a C5 for the second gen, only the C4. also he only has the C5 listed for the first gen on his website.

if he has done some for second gens i would like to see pics as well.

also, does WD use eccentrics in his frames?

Not sure when you contacted him. I think it is fairly recent that he finished up the first one, which is in the Firebird I mentioned. Unfortunately my daughter got the flu last night so I am stuck at home with her today. I called Wayne and he's going to email some pictures and info today, so as soon as I receive it from him I'll let you know.

newby
02-12-2006, 12:58 PM
I keep hearing/reading about them here and there but I have yet to found a website or seen any of their work. any one have pics or a url?

cpederslie
02-14-2006, 10:53 AM
Here are some pics of the Firebird that is receiving Wayne's first Second Gen C5 clip. Wayne said the owner is going to be running 305/17 tires all the way around.

newby
02-14-2006, 02:44 PM
is wayne doing the cage too? any mention of cost?

wick
02-14-2006, 03:14 PM
That 'Bird has a Pontiac motor in it too!! I want to see some more pics as it gets built.

cpederslie
02-14-2006, 06:42 PM
is wayne doing the cage too? any mention of cost?

As far as I know Wayne did the cage too. As far as cost on the second gen clip I don't know. I am waiting for Wayne to send me more info. Will advise when I know more.

As far as build pics on the Firebird, the build pics to this point will be on Wayne's site in the next week or so. Once it comes back from paint more pictures will be taken and put up on his site.

DonQuehotey
02-14-2006, 06:48 PM
Progressive Automotive has already built a complete chassis using C-5 stuff front and rear. I dont see what the big advantage to bettering the geometry is to that extent if you are still using the stock sub frame connection points and not actually building a chassis for it.

newby
02-16-2006, 03:18 AM
Progressive Automotive has already built a complete chassis using C-5 stuff front and rear. I dont see what the big advantage to bettering the geometry is to that extent if you are still using the stock sub frame connection points and not actually building a chassis for it.


I'm not sure what anyone else has planned, but I am planning a full chassis upgrade w/ a c4 irs in the rear to complement the front. I looked at their full chassis and that is too much race for me. this is still suppose to be a street car by and large.

thanks for the updates cpederslie, i'm going to get back in touch with 21st and see how things are going in that camp as well.

70ptta
02-17-2006, 05:24 PM
so how much for the 21st frame

David Pozzi
02-17-2006, 09:28 PM
In general, using the engine as a structural member in cars with street pretensions is not a good idea, since it transmits major vibration to the entire car structure. In any case, when you look at this frame from a structural perspective there really is little the engine would add to offset the biggest concern, which is torsional rigidity (the ability to resist twisting one framerail up and the other down in the side view, under roll loads). My concern comes from the minimal cross section of the single major cross member (under the engine). Compare that with the stock subframe, or almost any subframe with performance pretensions. If you're running a full cage with front bars attaching toward the front of the subframe rails, this is much less of a concern. Otherwise ... Appearances can sometimes be deceptive when analyzing structural rigidity, the only way to tell for sure here would be competent FEA analysis. Maybe Meyer did that, but somehow I doubt it.

I second that. One tube crossing the front is going to make for a very very weak sub in torsion, weak to the point it would probably break if cornered very hard. Engines aren't designed to take torsional loads, if the loads are small enough, it would be OK, they did it in Can-Am cars, but the weight of a Camaro is double that of a Can-Am car, so the loads would be high.

Damn True
02-17-2006, 09:40 PM
What if one used the two holes in the front of the sub as a place to weld in a tube of similar dia. as a cross-brace?

David Pozzi
02-17-2006, 11:02 PM
Any cross bracing is a good thing. My 89 IROC had a bolt on tubular brace that bolted to the 4 anri-roll bar holes.
If a sub isn't tied into what amounts to a tubular chassis structure, it needs to be very strong. A first gen sub is stronger torsionally than a second gen sub stock for stock, according to D!ck Guldstrand.

PTAddict
02-18-2006, 08:16 AM
Any cross bracing is a good thing. My 89 IROC had a bolt on tubular brace that bolted to the 4 anri-roll bar holes.
If a sub isn't tied into what amounts to a tubular chassis structure, it needs to be very strong. A first gen sub is stronger torsionally than a second gen sub stock for stock, according to D!ck Guldstrand.

That's interesting info. There's an outfit making Herb Adams style cowl-mounted subframe braces for 2nd gens, I might need to try a set of those on my '71.