Art Morrison Max G Chassis under a 1st Gen Camaro

[Nutsy]

Just got this months PHR and read the AD from Art Morrison.

"Simply drop your car's body over the frame and build a new floorboard. Its a project that do-it-yourself home builders can do! Call now on details on giving your Camaro, Challenger, Chevelle, Dart, Demon, GTO, Nova (or ???) contemporary chassis technology performance."

Ok. Time for some discussion. Questions:

1. Realistically how much work is this?

2. Is this a better all around solution (performance wise) for a 700hp+ Camaro than an aftermarket front clip (WD, DSE, AM, etc.), frame connectors, and a well designed rear suspension?



3. How much would this be in comparison to a completely built DSE or WD front clip and custom rear setup such as a 3 link or IRS?

4. Has anybody actually looked into this at all? If so, please post your findings.

5. If you were planning a ground up build on your car, what would you do?

Talk amoungst yourselves!!

[Marcus SC&C]

I talked with Don from the Art Morrison booth at a recent trade show about the MaxG chassis. Since on one else has said anything yet and I do this kind of thing for a living I`ll take a quick stab at your questions. ;)
1) Let`s not kid anyone,it`s a huge amount of work.
2) Better is a tricky word. The front suspension and R&P look to have pretty good geometry. The rear suspension they recoment for ProTouring use is their triangulated 4 link. That has it`s geometry problems but they`ve done some work to correct them by lowering the roll center and reducing torsional binding to at least some extent. I`d rather see it with a road race style 3 link with watts linkage or panhard but for a tri4link it looks decent. The one BIG advantage would be chassis rigidity and overall strength. Not only would you have a full box section frame but the method of installation welds the unibody/floor right to the frame throughout the car.
3) Just an educated guess but probably more than a custom front clip and 3 link,less than custom front and *good* IRS. That is if you`re paying someone to do it.
4) Just looking at pics and talking to Don.
5) I`d build my own chassis and suspension from scratch. But then as I said,I do this stuff for a living. YYMV Marcus SC&C

[ViperBlue68]

I had posted this earlier under the new 69 Camaro Body thread and asked what kinda ballpark figure am I lookin at for the max g under a new 69 minitubbed body?? Prodigy there you go it is designed for the Camaro should make it somewhat easier

[ProdigyCustoms]

I'll have to scope it out. Have not seen the issue yet. As stated above, I bet it is some work as I have built some full chassis in these cars. Where it seems best suited could very well be in rotted undercarriage cars. I have a Michigan 69 coupe that fits the bill nice, I was looking at doing a full tube chassis in it, this AM chassis might be an interesting solution.

[Steve Chryssos]

One big advantage to a full frame is that it becomes easier to channel the body over the frame for an extremely lowered look without giving up suspension travel.

I think the fundamental Max-G chassis was designed by our Katz Tsubai. Also it is the only aftermarket design that has been tested and published. I'm sure it works just fine for all except the snooty rocket scientist types.

As far as the ad's statement is concerned--Ibelieve that is how JP started out. "I'll just drop the body over the new chassis and build a new floor............................................. ................................... .................................................. ...........................................
.................................................. ...........................................
.................................................. ...........................................
.................................................. ..........................................."

[Mean 69]

Snooty?! Now, who would you be referring to with that statement?

Mark

[Salt Racer]

Snooty?! Now, who would you be referring to with that statement?

Mark

You, Marcus, me, among few others.

LOL.


Seriously, this chassis would be a good way to go if you...
1) would be happy with performance similar to Morrison's 55 Chev (see video clip on their website) - and don't kid yourself on your intended use of your car. You wouldn't need much better performance if you never go to road courses.
2) can cough up $10K+ for a rolling chassis
3) are willing to do TONS of work or can pay someone else to do the job

[BRIAN]

If you are building full tilt car it is in some ways easier to do full frame. Most Camaro's of that vintage have rear rail damages, rusted floors, etc. Most guys hear swear by the front clips. You will need subframe connectors anyway. Art Morrison stuff is usually pretty close to orig pan demensions so I do not see the huge additional work. Actually in some ways it is easier as you are not dealing with old parts. Simply build inner supports and cut floor off at rockers from firewall back. The frame is in one piece, fit to body at height you want. Buy floor pieces as you would have anyway and fit to new frame. I have done both and if you are building full frame off type deal I would go the full frame route. As for the suspension dynamics I am no engineer but their 55 probably has laid down some of the best numbers I ever seen in a magazine from a drivable car. There will always be somebody that disagrees with the suspension setup but it works, plain and simple. Good luck and add up parts seperate, then place your order for the frame. By the way they have made those rails for years they are just now advertising for different Pro Touring set ups. GOOD LUCK!!

[jeffandre]

Some nut is going to place a 2nd Gen fiberglass body on one of these frames a have a 2000# car...wish it was me!

[Marcus SC&C]

Snooty rocket scientist types?
Hey I resemble that remark! Nyuk,nyuk,nyuk. Marcus SC&C

[1976SR71]

Some nut is going to place a 2nd Gen fiberglass body on one of these frames a have a 2000# car...wish it was me!

Now thats what i'm talkin about!!!

[Mean 69]

A 2nd Gen glass body? Where would someone get one of those? THAT! could be a very interesting car.

M

[parsonsj]

Yep, that's exactly what I was gonna do.

It is a LOT of work. Years of it if you do it as a hobby. Would I do it again? You bet. Morrison's stuff is top quality for street use, but it may be a bit wanting if you are one of them snooty types.

jp

[ProdigyCustoms]

I will be talking to them Monday. I am very interested in doing something with AM a project I have waiting. One of the issues with full framing a Camaro and channeling the body very much is the frame rails running through the floor. Even if the floor is rebuilt, the seating and flooring ends up too high for anyone over 5' tall.
A perimeter frame can solve this problem, but usually needs a pair of inner rails for additional support. With a perimeter base frame and properly located inner rails (Ala Prodigy), you can get a channeled lowered body, proper seating and floor height. I do not see this in the frames in the catalog. but possibly they do not have the Camaro frame pictured.
One thing is for certain. A full frame will easily outperform a subframe / frame connector / unibody any day assuming both are properly tuned. Making the body one with a rigid frame removes most, if not all deflection.
If Morrison has a frame for a Camaro,I would like to work with them as I have the perfect 69 coupe for it. it could make a cool project that might very well save some of these rusty undercarriage cars, and ultimately make a better car.

[Marcus SC&C]

They make them for just about all the popular muscle cars. I love the glass body idea! I just wish there were some glass bodys with street car fit and finish and provisions for proper glass,weather seals etc. Those are pretty hard to come by. I had the chance some years ago to buy an SCCA GT1 C4 Corvette we did all of the aluminum work on. I had plans to turn it into a street car,it would have been awesome since the car had already seen close to 200mph. But when I started looking at all the details it turned out that it would have amounted to practically building a whole new car. Doh. Marcus

[parsonsj]

Frank,
My frame is a ProFile version, which means it bends out and is welded to the car at the rockers. I don't have frame rails running through the middle of the car, resulting in lots of foot room. Katz can probably give you better information, but Kevin at AME told me that they didn't make that version of the frame anymore. Perhaps Art changed his mind?

jp

[ProdigyCustoms]

I will be curious to see what they say about the frame with no center rails. If is strong enough to hold some power it will be killer.
On Prodigy, Michael did welded rails to the rockers and also ran a center set of rails, basically framed the trans tunnel, for additional support. Right now out only compromise so far is foot well space is a bit narrow, but tolerable, as he made the tunnel wide enough for the 3" exhaust to go through.
I am siked about the possibility of using the frame without center rails. Sticking one under a new convertible shell would make for a badass roller. If it welds to the rockers only, the floor modifications would be minimal. Or at least what guy's like us would call minimal.

[ProdigyCustoms]

I talked with Art Morrison today. Basically the frame will require x bracing and center rails, especially in a convertible. I am intriged with the possibilities, and am going to share my bracing I did on Prodigy, including the roll bar, and let them have a look at it. I think it would be OK. If it will work, it would solve the floor height issues, and prevent having to build a seat pocket with a high funny feeling floor. I would like to do one and be able to offer it as a roller. If it looks like it will work, I will probably use my coupe body first instead of cutting up a $10k+ new body.
Stay tuned.

[parsonsj]

Frank,

I'm not sure I agree you need center bracing. That bracing is in the same plane as the framerails, right? I'm not an ME, but additional bracing in the same plane is not very efficient at increasing torsional stability.

I think all you need is a rigid crossmember for the transmission, and properly placed tubes for the seat. A center brace is just gonna make tranny and exhaust packaging harder: it's just extra weight without a corresponding increase in strength.

jp

[Mean 69]

One thing is for certain. A full frame will easily outperform a subframe / frame connector / unibody any day assuming both are properly tuned. Making the body one with a rigid frame removes most, if not all deflection.

Snooty Rocket Scientist Voice ON:

I have to disagree with you on this one. It is really going to depend upon how the subframe connectors are integrated into the overall car. While I don't discount the ease of a full frame deal for a project, one can't make the blanket statement that the car will be "better." In particular, either a full frame car, or a subframed unit body (tub) car will suffer from the same thing: torsional rigidity. As JP hinted at, the way the frame rail are oriented makes ALL the difference in establishing a torsionally rigid structure. Unfortunately, it isn't a really easy nut to crack without doing a really well executed cage. You need to distinguish between what "type" of deflection you are talking about.

In and of themselves, I would guess that a full frame car has better longitudinal bending resistance, and certainly a lot more torsional rigidity, than a non-SFC'd unit body car. However, a well done set of SFC's, specifically a through floor type such as the DSE first gen units, probably exceed the bending resistance (in both aspects), because they take advantage of the floor sheet metal as a psuedo-sheer plate. Still not good enough for full tilt performance applications, but something to consider.

Consider this, an I Beam has really, really good longitudinal bending resistance, this is why they are used on huge load bearing structures, like a sky scraper. But, they have horrible torsional rigidity, if you made a frame out of them, it would flex torsionally like mad. Certain applications take advantage of this, most specifically to our hobby, the truck arm suspension system basically wouldn't work if the T/A's couldn't bend torsionally.

I think if the AM chassis deal was a bolt in affair, such as it basically is for the tri-fives (which it clearly works very well with), it would be a great option. Otherwise, I don't see the benefit of using one on a unit body car, especially due some of the compromises in the overall approach. Damn great setup, no doubt, but the "best?"

Snooty OFF.
Mark