AM max g chassis builds [Archive]

absolom

04-23-2007, 01:34 AM

Thanks Frank!

My chassis is a Morrison all right, but is from before their Max-G set up. I cut the front and rear suspension out of the car and made my own ... if I had started with a Max-G I wouldn't have had to do that.

If you want to see some photos of how my chassis and body go together, click on my sig.

jp

i'm looking, do you have any specific pics?

you are using body mounts right?

or is the body welded to the chassis

parsonsj

04-23-2007, 03:57 AM

The body is welded to the chassis. Weld points are the rockers, firewall, trunk, and wheelwells. From the engine compartment back, there is sheetmetal welded to the frame continuously.

jp

CraigMorrison

04-23-2007, 04:26 AM

anybody got any more links to any max g chassis builds?

we're seriously contemplating getting one for our 65 mustang build, and i was just wanting to see a few examples on how people are mounting the body to the chassis

thanks ahead of time

:6gears:

Right now, Woody's Hot Rods is putting together a 69 Mustang with one of our MaxG chassis under it. The entire build is being covered in Super Rod magazine. Last month they did a step by step series on how they mounted the body and used most of the stock floor sheetmetal. It was a very cool install. If you can't find it on the news stands, let me know and I will send you a photocopy.

wiedemab

04-23-2007, 06:09 AM

I've got to get over to Woody's to check out their projects. They are only about 5 miles from my house and I've never been to their shop.

They are also doing a '65 Comet with a Max G under it. I'm not sure how far along it is though.

I believe they are setting it up to be able to remove the body from the frame on both the Mustang and the Comet.

Here is a link to their site - I think they have some pics posted

http://www.woodyshotrodz.com/

Later,

Brandon

absolom

04-23-2007, 06:33 PM

Right now, Woody's Hot Rods is putting together a 69 Mustang with one of our MaxG chassis under it. The entire build is being covered in Super Rod magazine. Last month they did a step by step series on how they mounted the body and used most of the stock floor sheetmetal. It was a very cool install. If you can't find it on the news stands, let me know and I will send you a photocopy.

awesome, i've been to their website and checked it out, i'll see if i can find a copy of super rod

i talked to steve webb and he worked me up a quote, hopefully, we'll be ready to order it at the beginning of the summer

absolom

04-23-2007, 06:34 PM

The body is welded to the chassis. Weld points are the rockers, firewall, trunk, and wheelwells. From the engine compartment back, there is sheetmetal welded to the frame continuously.

jp

why did you decide to weld the body and chassis together as opposed to using body mounts?

parsonsj

04-23-2007, 06:51 PM

why did you decide to weld the body and chassis together as opposed to using body mounts?I considered making the chassis "removable". But, in reality, is that really ever gonna happen? Do you really ever plan on removing the body? If so, why?

The other thing to consider is that my car has a cage. How do you weld in a rollcage and still have the ability to remove the body? Also, I used the frame rails as a big "jig" to hold the body in place (relative to itself) as I rotated it around on a body rotator. I'm not sure I'd be willing to do that with a raw body.

jp

absolom

04-23-2007, 08:03 PM

I considered making the chassis "removable". But, in reality, is that really ever gonna happen? Do you really ever plan on removing the body? If so, why?

The other thing to consider is that my car has a cage. How do you weld in a rollcage and still have the ability to remove the body? Also, I used the frame rails as a big "jig" to hold the body in place (relative to itself) as I rotated it around on a body rotator. I'm not sure I'd be willing to do that with a raw body.

jp

i've kinda got the idea of doing a small cage in the 65 stang, and using the floor plates as some of the body mounts to the chassis, along with fastening it at the rocker panels and right below the firewall

excellent project by the way, definitely some amazing work

:)

parsonsj

04-23-2007, 08:47 PM

Thanks!

Whatever you decide, give Kevin Kosir (ext. 222) at Morrison a call. He's been there and done that with just about everything. He can give you tech advice and guidance from a real world standpoint.

jp

silver69camaro

04-24-2007, 05:08 AM

I considered making the chassis "removable". But, in reality, is that really ever gonna happen? Do you really ever plan on removing the body? If so, why?
jp

That is a very true statement. We often get questions on wanting to make the frame removable, but you pretty much summed it up. If a person is going to go this far when building a car, what is the chance they'll want to tear it all apart? With this method, you get a rock-solid body structure.

customcam

04-24-2007, 03:38 PM

is it more of a detailing issue when bolting the frame in?

absolom

04-24-2007, 08:03 PM

That is a very true statement. We often get questions on wanting to make the frame removable, but you pretty much summed it up. If a person is going to go this far when building a car, what is the chance they'll want to tear it all apart? With this method, you get a rock-solid body structure.

did alloway make his 67 bolt on or did he weld it?

parsonsj

04-25-2007, 04:44 AM

I think many people approach this with an initial thought of bolting onthe body because they see those cool street rod chassis in magazines. You know: full rolling chassis complete with drivetrain. Beautifully finished, and looks like you could practically drive it.

You can do something like with a street rod, because the bodies bolt on top of the frame. For us muscle car guys, that doesn't work so well, because the car would sit too high. To get this to work, you need to channel the body over the frame (the more, the better!), and that makes it difficult to make the body bolt on.

If I had a customer that required a bolt on body, I'd make it like this:

1. Get a chassis that is 1/8" narrower than the rocker panels on the car I'm building.
2. Create a floor that bolts on to the chassis and is suitably reinforced. It is important to leave a weld edge for welding to the rocker panels.
3. Cut the floor out of the body from rocker to rocker.
4. Position the body on the chassis/floor combination and weld the floor to the rocker panels of the body.

Now you can unbolt the body from the chassis and do whatever you want to with it off the chassis. You'll need lot's of hands or some sort of crane to move the body around, and you'll also want to be sure and add some reinforcement so that the body doesn't flop around when the floor is cut out of it.

jp

silver69camaro

04-25-2007, 05:00 AM

did alloway make his 67 bolt on or did he weld it?

Welded with 10 gauge floors, if I'm not mistaken.

ironworks

04-25-2007, 08:06 AM

wow that is light, the floor must weigh a couple hundred lbs minimum.

Rodger

CraigMorrison

04-26-2007, 04:39 AM

Welded with 10 gauge floors, if I'm not mistaken.

Actually, Alloway makes all of his cars bolt-on so he can remove the body and detail both body and chassis.

absolom

04-30-2007, 05:53 AM

Actually, Alloway makes all of his cars bolt-on so he can remove the body and detail both body and chassis.

that car is ridiculous, i wish i could see a build up

StRacerDuke

04-30-2007, 08:47 AM

Actually, Alloway makes all of his cars bolt-on so he can remove the body and detail both body and chassis.

That's insane! and not in a good way. I guess it's a nice touch if your paying a few hundred grand though. The only time I think you would want to do a bolt on is if the body is fiberglass and can be lifted off to work on the cage if it's involved wreck at the track.

I just don't see the point of a lift off steel chassis, especially if you have to add all the weight to the floor in bracing.

Craig, do you have any pictures of the G3 vette mounts to your frame? I'm interested to know if you channeled it over the body and had to re-glass new mounts or if you used the existing frame mounts.

CraigMorrison

05-01-2007, 08:41 AM

Ryan- The 3G Vette project uses all of the stock body mounts and the body is sitting on top of the chassis just like stock. We mini-tubbed it for a 295 rear tire and had to do a little glass work around the trans tunnel since we were using a Viper T56 (BIG CASE!). The chassis is designed so you can bolt a C1 Vette body down on it w/o fiberglass mods.

CraigMorrison

05-01-2007, 09:05 AM

that car is ridiculous, i wish i could see a build up

I just spoke to Alloway today, and he is sending me a few discs with "thousands" of pictures of the Mustang build. We will be putting together a build-up series on our website soon!

HsvToolFool

05-01-2007, 06:48 PM

I just spoke to Alloway today, and he is sending me a few discs with "thousands" of pictures of the Mustang build. We will be putting together a build-up series on our website soon!

Okay, you just confused the heck outta me. "The" 69 Mustang build from the magazine article is at Woody's Hot Rods in Ohio. Bobby Alloway's shop is outside Knoxville about 3 hours from my house. Is Alloway building a different Mustang or did he travel to Ohio with a camera?

I'm seriously considering MaxG for a rather extreme (at least to me) 66 Mustang convertible pro-tourish rod. From the start I've wanted a Kugel IRS, and my research (which means naively pestering Alloway and Alan Johnson with stupid questions) reveals that the only solid design is a frame or sub-frame. Despite that a few people on the web have just welded in IRS mounts, I agree with the experts that the early Stang uni-body is just too frail for the point-stress from an IRS. The MaxG appears to be the cleanest and most cost-effective route, especially as I was considering the Heidt's Mustang front-end, a custom rear sub-frame, and weld-in sub-frame cons.

So I'm also desperate to see some detailed MaxG build photos. I'm mostly concerned how the floors are finished. The MaxG central "wishbone" appears to exclude any recessed flooring below the rocker panel height. I'm not sure I'm willing to have flat floors which are level with the top of the rockers. Perhaps that trade-off is unavoidable, but I've just not seen an example showing how the floors are recessed around the frame members.

CraigMorrison

05-02-2007, 04:43 AM

There are two different Mustangs, both featuring our chassis. Alloway built his (debuted at SEMA) with our MaxG chassis, and right now Woody's Hot Rodz is building a 69 R code Mustang with our MaxG chassis. Woody's used about 80-90% of the stock floor and only sectioned the body over the chassis 3", while Alloway made a completely new floor and made the pinch weld on the rocker level with the bottom edge of the chassis. These two cars are a prime example of how different the floor issue can be dealt with.

In fact, we are off to Ohio on Monday to watch the testing of all three of Woody's "Buckaroo Build Off" cars. 69 Mustang, 55 Chevy and '40 Willys. A PT 40 Willys! Video and pics to follow.....

BRIAN

05-02-2007, 06:40 AM

Cost wise and time savings you are not going to beat the AM Max frame set up. I just tried on a project because I wanted to use some oddball parts and it would have been easier and cheaper to have just used the AM frame.

If you are doing a total frame up deal anyway you will probably need new floors so fabbing flat over using stocks really isn't all that much work. Depending on the shape of the floor you may actually gain head room. The key here is what you want in the end. If you want an on the floor car where you can control exactly what tire size and how the car sits you go with the AM full frame. If you are willing to fit your rims/tires to the car/suspension and trade off some ride height go with any of the many bolt on stuff. There are so many guys racing vintage Mustangs that I am not sure where the info that they are too weak comes from??? Any weakness issuess can easily be addressed with simple bolt on or weld in parts. I do not think there is any debate that one will handle better than the other although with the AM frame you will have a stronger platform.

Welding a full frame into a unibody car gives you the ultimate platform as far as strength goes. There really is no reason to make it bolt on and it can actually bite you in the ass with reassembly fit in the end if you haven't done it before.

Decide on what rim size and how you want the car to sit. If they fit with near stock components go that route. If not cut out floor stuff them under there and send AM your measurements.

Good luck.

HsvToolFool

05-02-2007, 07:01 PM

There are two different Mustangs, both featuring our chassis.

Aha! Just as I thought...Pronoun trouble. Thanks for clearing that up.

Woody's used about 80-90% of the stock floor and only sectioned the body over the chassis 3", while Alloway made a completely new floor and made the pinch weld on the rocker level with the bottom edge of the chassis.

I'll defintely have to see photos of both and compare. Alloway took the approach I was considering, but I can't imagine how he made it a bolt-on setup. I suspect his interior floors are flat and level with the top of the rockers. Which is fine for an extreme performance car with racing seats and 5-point harness, but not so comfortable or practical with a daily driver / street rod.

Cost wise and time savings you are not going to beat the AM Max frame set up.

I agree.

If you are doing a total frame up deal anyway you will probably need new floors...

I'm expecting the floors and torque boxes need some mild repair at least. They always do. But I won't know until the strippers take all my money.

Wait. That didn't sound right.

A MaxG frame would address the main design flaw of the 66 Mustang convertible (and allow me to have my IRS bling). There's just not enough solid metal connecting the front and back halves of the car. To keep the price low, Ford used a marginal uni-body design where they shouldn't and then tried to compensate with oversized rockers and a big bolt-in plate underneath. It's just not enough. Park on a hill that twists the car a little and you can't close top because the front catches won't reach. The door clearances change every time you hit a bump in the road.

My expectations are not too high. I'm not demanding 1.1 G skidpad runs. I want nimble, fun, and solid. None of that applies to a 90-hp Sprint Six, a 3-speed toploader, and the handling characteristics of Otis the town drunk.

absolom

05-03-2007, 02:54 AM

I just spoke to Alloway today, and he is sending me a few discs with "thousands" of pictures of the Mustang build. We will be putting together a build-up series on our website soon!

damn, i would love to see that

awesome

absolom

05-03-2007, 02:59 AM

Aha! Just as I thought...Pronoun trouble. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'll defintely have to see photos of both and compare. Alloway took the approach I was considering, but I can't imagine how he made it a bolt-on setup. I suspect his interior floors are flat and level with the top of the rockers. Which is fine for an extreme performance car with racing seats and 5-point harness, but not so comfortable or practical with a daily driver / street rod.

I agree.

I'm expecting the floors and torque boxes need some mild repair at least. They always do. But I won't know until the strippers take all my money.

Wait. That didn't sound right.

A MaxG frame would address the main design flaw of the 66 Mustang convertible (and allow me to have my IRS bling). There's just not enough solid metal connecting the front and back halves of the car. To keep the price low, Ford used a marginal uni-body design where they shouldn't and then tried to compensate with oversized rockers and a big bolt-in plate underneath. It's just not enough. Park on a hill that twists the car a little and you can't close top because the front catches won't reach. The door clearances change every time you hit a bump in the road.

My expectations are not too high. I'm not demanding 1.1 G skidpad runs. I want nimble, fun, and solid. None of that applies to a 90-hp Sprint Six, a 3-speed toploader, and the handling characteristics of Otis the town drunk.

we used heidts IRS and made some custom sfcs on the 65 vert we did

they stiffened it up a pretty good bit, door gaps don't change at all while it's on the lift, much much stiffer than my 03 cobra lol

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2006/11/IMG_2244-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2006/11/IMG_2245-1.jpg

atomicjoe23

05-03-2007, 11:19 AM

The MaxG central "wishbone" appears to exclude any recessed flooring below the rocker panel height. I'm not sure I'm willing to have flat floors which are level with the top of the rockers. Perhaps that trade-off is unavoidable, but I've just not seen an example showing how the floors are recessed around the frame members.

HsvToolFool;

I would have to agree with Brian on the fact that you may actually end up with more head room by fabbing your own floors on/around the Max-G chassis/frame than you would have if you used the stock floor pans/unibody construction. With the Max-G chassis/frame you can put the floors anywhere you like!!!

I have seen the interiors of both of these cars and neither one of them have flat floor pans (at least as I think you were talking about). When I decided that I was going to use the Max-G chassis/frame for my '67 Pontiac Firebird 400 coupe project I pictured something along the lines of a C4 Corvette type interior layout (not in the looks department, just the general layout). . .relatively high door sills and driveline tunnel/center console in relation to seat height. . .although the higher door sills may make it slightly more difficult to get into and out of the car (although I really don't think that my door sills are going to end up being even as high as a C4 Corvette's) I will have a better height for my center console than I would with the stock floor pan/driveline tunnel. . .a fair trade of in my book. After having looked at both of the Alloway builds (Mustang and Challenger) I think that the Challenger looks pretty close to stock (especially considering the builder) and the Mustang interior reminds me of a Chrysler E or B-body interior with the long center console.

atomicjoe23

05-03-2007, 11:54 AM

I'll defintely have to see photos of both and compare. Alloway took the approach I was considering

Here's the link to the Alloway Challenger in PHR:

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0512phr_1970_dodge_challenger/

I suspect his interior floors are flat and level with the top of the rockers.

Not the case. . you can see that in interior pic of the above link.

Which is fine for an extreme performance car with racing seats and 5-point harness, but not so comfortable or practical with a daily driver / street rod.

His cars look like daily drivers. . .albeit very expensive and VERY well detailed daily drivers. . .but they still look to be completely functional and comfortable for extended use.

silver69camaro

05-03-2007, 12:01 PM

On the note of seat height with a flat floor, keep in mind that some cars have the seat mount area only about 3/4" to 1" below the top rocker height. I know Camaros mount the seats 3/4" below the upper rocker area, so this is all you would lose in regards to headroom. AND, with all the available seat and slider combinations out there, you can easily come up with a very comfortable solution. Heck, my seat sliders are 3" shorter than stock to accomodate my aftermarket seats. Unless if you are very tall, headroom shouldn't be an issue.

John McIntire

05-03-2007, 04:27 PM

Super Rod Magazine is doing a build with one under a mustang

HsvToolFool

05-03-2007, 05:19 PM

I would have to agree with Brian on the fact that you may actually end up with more head room...

Head room is not much of an issue with a convertible. :) But if the seat height is raised then you feel like you're on the car rather than in it. I'd prefer to lower the seat height about an inch to improve my arm-on-door cruisin' position, but that's not a big deal.

I'm concerned about the seat height relative to the bottom of the floor pans. A 66 Mustang seat mount is about 1/2-inch below the top of the rockers. Then there's a drop of about 3 to 4 inches down to the floor pans. The floor pans are about level with the bottom of the rockers. This relationship is probably about the same for all uni-body cars. Although you can't see the rockers in the photo, here's a page showing the drop from the passenger's seat mount to the floor pans...

http://www.mustangmonthly.com/howto/mump_0411_pan_replace/photo_30.html

If possible, I'd like to maintain that seat-mount-to-floor relationship. I imagine this isn't possible with the MaxG frame because the frame and exhaust are where the pans need to be. There's not much room to go below the top of the frame rails.

Not the case. . you can see that in interior pic of the above link.

Actually, the seat belt makes it look very flat and level between the seat mount and the floor pan area. There interior appears to be just below the top of the rockers, but I can't really tell from that angle.

Sitting flat on the floor works fine in a more modern car with racing seat canted back to last Friday. But I plan to use low-back 60's era bucket seats; more like a Cobra or early Vette. I dislike early convertibles with high-back racing seat sticking above the car's profile. It's certainly safer, but it's not kosher for the period and misses the point of a roadster. Tastes differ, of course.

Super Rod Magazine is doing a build with one under a mustang

That's the 69 Woody's Mustang mentioned earlier in this thread.

Krashyman

05-04-2007, 06:49 AM

I'm the owner of the 1965 Mercury Comet that Woody's Hot Rodz is building (2007 5.4L supercharged engine from the GT500, AME Max G chassis, etc.) and the Max G just recently arrived at the shop. Once Woody's finishes the three AME chassis cars and they are tested next week, the Comet should make some quick progress. Link to the Comet project thread is:
https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18856

I know that Craig and others mentioned the Super Rod article on Woody's Max G chassis install on the Mach 1, and I just want to reiterate that it's worth getting the magazine to read the article. The May issue has part 1 and the June issue should have part 2 (not sure if it is out yet). The article has very detailed pics and descriptions of the Max G install.

Thanks,
Josh

CraigMorrison

05-06-2007, 06:49 AM

We are trying to get reprints of that article from SuperRod so we can have that as a handout for the shows......

ProdigyCustoms

05-06-2007, 08:34 AM

[quote=silver69camaro]On the note of seat height with a flat floor, keep in mind that some cars have the seat mount area only about 3/4" to 1" below the top rocker height. I know Camaros mount the seats 3/4" below the upper rocker area, so this is all you would lose in regards to headroom. quote]

Well, as you know I think the Max G chassis is the snaz. However the seat height is a real issue. I talked with Craig about this for a bit last week. The front of the seat pan is indeed only a 1" or so from the top of the rocker, but the rear of the pan is a good few inches below the top of the rocker, almost to the bottom of the rocker so taller people sit lower as the seat goes a back and down. At 6'1", I can not wear a helmet in a factory seat in a factory seat pan without my head sticking up past the roll bar. With a racing seat my head is level using a stock seat pan and almost no padding.

The real solution is to put the seat at the bottom of the rocker and belly pan the car (Ala Corvette) which is what we did with Project Prodigy. But the center bracing in the Max G chassis wil have to be removed to do this. So it seems using a spine / or backbone as it may be called and run the exhaust through the tunnel might be the ultimate answer. I would like to get ahold of a Max G and try this.

Here is a pic I shot for conversation purposes.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

absolom

05-06-2007, 03:53 PM

i know in a mustang seat height is already pretty high

on my 66 coupe, we did floor pans, and we cut out like 1.5 inches out of the pans (i'm 6'3") and it helped a good bit

seat height probably plays a large roll as well, some seats are really high

wiedemab

05-06-2007, 04:44 PM

Frank,

I think the best bet, if you are going to go the route you discussed is to just buy AME's perimeter frame. It's basically the Max-G without the cross bracing.

Anyone from AME can chime in. I'm far from an expert on their product line - although I've spent some time drooling over their catalog. I just keep telling myself - one of these days!

Later,

Brandon

Boulder69

05-06-2007, 04:52 PM

I'm 6'5" and barely fit in my 69 with the brackets that move the seat back (and down) 2 inches. I pretty much gave up on the idea of a Max-G in 3-5 years because of this issue. There has to be a way!

absolom

05-06-2007, 04:55 PM

I'm 6'5" and barely fit in my 69 with the brackets that move the seat back (and down) 2 inches. I pretty much gave up on the idea of a Max-G in 3-5 years because of this issue. There has to be a way!

i think some low profile brackets and some creativity in the seat pan design along with a seat with a pretty thing bottom should be doable

i remade brackets for the seats on the 65 vert we built 3 different times

:lol:

atomicjoe23

05-07-2007, 07:18 AM

I'm with Frank from Prodigy Customs on this one. . .I was thinking along the lines of a Corvette as well. . .I don't see why you couldn't lower the floor pan where the seat will be installed. . .I obviously don't have a Max-G to look at (yet) and I don't know the dimensions but it looks like you should be able to. . .although looking at the chassis in the catalog again maybe not. . .but I would think that with some creativity in the seat mount department the loss in headroom should be able to be made up. . .guess I'll just have to wait and see when I get one for my own project and cross that bridge when I get there.

Krashyman

05-07-2007, 03:04 PM

I found a link to Part 1 of the Super Rod article regarding the Max G install. The article (and the detailed captions that go along with the photos) discuss the headroom issue and what Woody's did to solve the issue. Here is the link:

http://www.superrod.com/Media/PublicationsArticle/SR_0705_BUCKBLDOFF2.pdf

absolom

05-07-2007, 04:32 PM

customcam

05-09-2007, 02:56 PM

Id like to know what price range for the complete install ??
Some shops have different pricing etc but how many hours to do a PRO job to get some sought of idea if someone other than you is installing it
Evan

Krashyman

06-01-2007, 07:16 AM

Evan,

Once the chassis is done on the Comet, I can try to give you some idea of the hours that it took -- although sometimes it is difficult to figure out how many hours go into one part of the project (particularly if other stuff is being worked on). If I'm able to do it, I will, but it won't be for awhile given what's going on with the project.

In the meantime, here is a link to part 2 of the Super Rod article regarding the AME chassis assembly for the Mustang:

http://www.superrod.com/Media/Public..._BUILDOFF2.pdf

Thanks,
Josh