Q ship
04-07-2005, 10:28 AM
I didn't want to hijack the Morrison frame conversation, but something that came up there got me to thinking.
From the other thread, by Mean 69; Which was exactly the point I made earlier, all of the "sheet metal" becomes very, very effective at increasing stiffness, especially in the shear plane. While this alone won't address torsional rigidity (which I completely agree with Norm as the hardest part to nail, this is well documented in the literature), it will go leaps and bounds towards improving rigidity overall. Hence my previous post regarding full frame versus SFC'd unit body cars, and this is completely independent of the "Jungle Jim" cage. Now, a contiguous full frame, sunk into the sheet metal and welded directly to it, ala II Much, is terrific, but I'd take my through floor SFC'd Camaro with the front subframe (welded securely to the SFC's), and the rear frame rails welded directly to rear of the car as it came from the factory, over a full frame that is bolted in a handful of locations to the body. Any day, and twice on Sunday. And on this one, your mileage "won't" vary.
Mark End quote
I used to have a '71 Camaro that used the GW solid subframe mounts and SFC's. I didn't notice any problems and enjoyed the "directly coupled" feel of the car. So what is the feasibility of using solid mounts on a full (stock) frame car, aka Chevelle/80's G-body/80's B-body(my interest here)? The stock mounts are rubber, and there are Poly mounts available. Would solid aluminum mounts tying the body to the frame impart too much stress for the stock design? Or to take it one step further, would it be possible to weld the frame to the sheetmetal of the body, spreading the stress over a greater area than the mounts alone? All thoughts welcome!!
From the other thread, by Mean 69; Which was exactly the point I made earlier, all of the "sheet metal" becomes very, very effective at increasing stiffness, especially in the shear plane. While this alone won't address torsional rigidity (which I completely agree with Norm as the hardest part to nail, this is well documented in the literature), it will go leaps and bounds towards improving rigidity overall. Hence my previous post regarding full frame versus SFC'd unit body cars, and this is completely independent of the "Jungle Jim" cage. Now, a contiguous full frame, sunk into the sheet metal and welded directly to it, ala II Much, is terrific, but I'd take my through floor SFC'd Camaro with the front subframe (welded securely to the SFC's), and the rear frame rails welded directly to rear of the car as it came from the factory, over a full frame that is bolted in a handful of locations to the body. Any day, and twice on Sunday. And on this one, your mileage "won't" vary.
Mark End quote
I used to have a '71 Camaro that used the GW solid subframe mounts and SFC's. I didn't notice any problems and enjoyed the "directly coupled" feel of the car. So what is the feasibility of using solid mounts on a full (stock) frame car, aka Chevelle/80's G-body/80's B-body(my interest here)? The stock mounts are rubber, and there are Poly mounts available. Would solid aluminum mounts tying the body to the frame impart too much stress for the stock design? Or to take it one step further, would it be possible to weld the frame to the sheetmetal of the body, spreading the stress over a greater area than the mounts alone? All thoughts welcome!!