Structural Question
11-25-2007, 10:40 PM
#1
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Structural Question I currently own a 98 T/A automatic. I would like to convert it to a stick this summer, but I had one major question. Would a 93-97 non t-top T/A be more structurally stable than a 98-02 where t-top was standard? Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
11-26-2007, 09:46 AM
#4
Copy & Paste Moderator
Yes, it was designed to have T-Tops, but the Corvette was also designed to be a convertible. Designing the car with that in mind is a good idea since the structure of the car will already be designed to minimize the effect of removing the roof.
That being said, the hard-top version of the f-body is still structurally stronger than the T-top version because on the hard top version, the sides of the roof above the doors are all one piece with the A-pillar and B-pillar. Its not a removable item like the T-top. When people do a T-Top conversion, they have to cut this section off.
Here is what the roof structure looks like with the top roof panel removed:
You can see in those pictures how the A-pillar, side roof bar, and B-pillar are one piece (looks welded together instead of actually extruded as a solid piece though).
Here is a site about t-top conversion if you want to see more pics of the roof's structure and how the hard-top and t-top differ:
http://www.dw-zone.com/t-tops/t-top.asp
These cars aren't as floppy as people think. I'm just pointing out the difference between the hard-top and t-top versions. If you are concerned about structural integrity, get sub-frame connectors (SFC). I have SLP bolt-in SFC in my t-top equipped 2001 Formula. Bolt-in vs. weld-in SFC is a different argument. I bought the bolt-in for ease of installation (weld-in would be stronger and more permanent). I like the SLP SFC because they are box tubing and mount to three points under the car instead of just two. UMI also has some good designs that tuck up under the car better. The SLP boxed 3-point SFC that I have hang a bit lower than some others. The Y-pipe hangs a bit lower though so I'm not concerned. They make a great jacking point too. I can put the jack in the middle of their main bar and lift the entire side of the car at once.
That being said, the hard-top version of the f-body is still structurally stronger than the T-top version because on the hard top version, the sides of the roof above the doors are all one piece with the A-pillar and B-pillar. Its not a removable item like the T-top. When people do a T-Top conversion, they have to cut this section off.
Here is what the roof structure looks like with the top roof panel removed:
You can see in those pictures how the A-pillar, side roof bar, and B-pillar are one piece (looks welded together instead of actually extruded as a solid piece though).
Here is a site about t-top conversion if you want to see more pics of the roof's structure and how the hard-top and t-top differ:
http://www.dw-zone.com/t-tops/t-top.asp
These cars aren't as floppy as people think. I'm just pointing out the difference between the hard-top and t-top versions. If you are concerned about structural integrity, get sub-frame connectors (SFC). I have SLP bolt-in SFC in my t-top equipped 2001 Formula. Bolt-in vs. weld-in SFC is a different argument. I bought the bolt-in for ease of installation (weld-in would be stronger and more permanent). I like the SLP SFC because they are box tubing and mount to three points under the car instead of just two. UMI also has some good designs that tuck up under the car better. The SLP boxed 3-point SFC that I have hang a bit lower than some others. The Y-pipe hangs a bit lower though so I'm not concerned. They make a great jacking point too. I can put the jack in the middle of their main bar and lift the entire side of the car at once.
Last edited by VIP1; 11-26-2007 at 10:01 AM.
