View Full Version : pros/cons of solid body mounts?
skeevay
05-19-2005, 02:00 PM
Looking for opinions/experiences with solid body mounts. The search option didnt come up with enough good info to really sway me either way. I am considering putting them on my 65 Impala project in hopes of making the car a little more rigid. Would it make much of a difference in handling or ride quality?
vanzuuk1
05-19-2005, 02:22 PM
In my opinion it made a big difference in handling. when i did my last 69 camaro i did the body mounts one saturday and the difference was noticable.The car was more predictable, especially on the brakes over uneven pavement. Also lowered the body 1/2 inch over the front subframe.Note - this raises your engine in relation to the hood so dont slam the hood until you check the clearance!
Tom Welch
05-19-2005, 04:08 PM
I dont believe that there is an advantage to solid bushings in a full frame car. I would use poly or original rubber replacements unless the advantage is like that for an F-body.
nancejd
05-19-2005, 04:27 PM
I don't know that it would make as much of a difference on a full frame car like an Impala as it does on a Camaro. I can see the body adding some stiffness if it was solidly mounted to the frame, but I don't know that it would be enough of an improvement to justify the additional transmitted road noise or vibration.
wally8
05-19-2005, 06:38 PM
Anybody who's had the frame off of their A-body will tell you how flexible they are. Anything you can do to make a stiffer connection and use the body as a structural member will help overall.
I'll be doing it on mine. It all depends on how serious you want to get.
Wally
do a search noobie :) plenty of info
Jagarang
05-20-2005, 04:35 AM
ouch...He allready did YODY!
airrj1
05-20-2005, 08:38 AM
Ditto to what Wally said. I have them on my Chevelle.
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif
vanzuuk1
05-20-2005, 01:56 PM
I was of course referring to my camaro which does not have a full frame, I forgot impalas are full frame cars. I don't get out much.
skeevay
05-20-2005, 09:18 PM
RJ, Did you notice any improvements or any added noise or harshness to the ride quality? I am also wondering if doing this would stress other parts of the car since you would be taking out some of the flex that was designed into the frame. Maybe it wouldnt be enough to matter.
dennis68
05-20-2005, 09:20 PM
RJ, Did you notice any improvements or any added noise or harshness to the ride quality? I am also wondering if doing this would stress other parts of the car since you would be taking out some of the flex that was designed into the frame. Maybe it wouldnt be enough to matter.
I do not believe for a moment that flex was "designed" into the frame. I believe it inherently has some as a result of the cost savings done during construction however.
skeevay
05-20-2005, 09:38 PM
I do not believe for a moment that flex was "designed" into the frame. I believe it inherently has some as a result of the cost savings done during construction however.
I agree, maybe I should reword that as saying that other things are built/designed around the fact that there will be some areas that flex or "give". Maybe I am thinking too hard on this one....having nightmares of cracked windshields, chipped paint at door seams, stress cracks on frame...etc..etc. :scared:
dennis68
05-20-2005, 10:02 PM
I would think removing a major source of flex in the chassis would prevent said items from occurring. Am I missing something or a convertibles much more susceptible to door alignment issues, chipping paint at jams and glass fitment issues?
skeevay
05-21-2005, 06:05 AM
Denny, Thanks for your help. Are you thinking maybe that using solid mounts would get rid of most of the chassis flex? The car has quite a bit right now. The Impala is pretty long, wide, and heavy, and I'm thinking that even with solid body mounts the car would still flex considerably. Especially from the firewall forward (?maybe not?). Im wondering if you tied the frame to the body that the flex would move from the frame rails to other parts of the body/chassis. Again, maybe its nothing to be concerned about. Just want to make sure.
nancejd
05-22-2005, 07:34 AM
If you are looking to reduce flex in the chassis, boxing the frame rails would be a good place to start if you haven't already done it.
Derek69SS
05-23-2005, 12:34 PM
If you are looking to reduce flex in the chassis, boxing the frame rails would be a good place to start if you haven't already done it.
It's an impala... they already are! :)
skeevay
05-23-2005, 08:14 PM
It's an impala... they already are! :)
Fortunately, they came that way from the factory, otherwise I would have to dub my project "wet noodle"
airrj1
05-24-2005, 11:19 AM
Skip,
I actually didn't drive the car much before I did the solid body bushings. So I can't really offer a A-B comparison. The reason I did it was just as suggested above. The stock Chevelle frame is quite flexable. I did box my frame and honestly it didn't remove nearly as much flex as I had hoped. But stiffening the frame with the body surely must help to some degree without a large expense.
And you are correct the major flex point now is at the firewall. If you juck the front end up you can still see the flex in that area.
Long story short I like my solid mounts. $35 of 6/6 Nylon rod and a few hours in front of the lathe.
Powered by vBulletin®