NewOrleansLT1

Are subframe connectors worth it on a hard top Camaro?

bigdaddybones30

iTrader: (2)

Can never be to stiff if you ask me. MWC has them for like $160 shipped last I checked. Its a might as well do it type thing. Look at race cars from Formula 1 to NACRAP, you thing they would be against stiffness? Just my $.02

SS#1531

iTrader: (4)

Absolutely worth it. I have a hard top and felt the difference as I was driving out of the parking lot.

ssvert99

iTrader: (26)

Best thing is to realize what your ultimate goal is here when connecting the subframes... connecting the subframes.

Please be aware that most of the connectors sold by vendors here DO NOT connect the true subframes of the 4th gen f-body car. Most are connected by a bolt that holds the rear LCA to the car, and the LCA mounting point is no where near the actual rear subframe. Some models don't even connect to the front subframe, and just terminate at the floor cross brace that is behind the front subframe!

You will hear that some have installed this type of connector and felt the difference immediately... I call BS... prove it then.

To make matters worse these "connectors" most often run along side the rocker pinch weld- already the strongest point of a uni-body car. These type of extra weight additions are nothing more than a "jacking rail" that prevent damage to the rocker and I will bet on having absolutely no effect on the chassis rigidity.

MWC manufactures a weld-in only true subframe connector that is high quality, fits well, and is very affordable. Most important it does the job it is intended to and sold as- a true subframe connector.

BMR Tech2

iTrader: (5)

Well, that is an... interesting concept.
So I will just leave this as food for thought; what part of the car see more stress under load the "true actual subframe" or the boss that the control arm mounts in and pushes against the body? There is a reason we and many others connect them there. A very good reason.


To the OP, yes, they are beneficial on any car. The idea is they help tie the front and rear of the car together to eliminate torsional flex between them. For acceleration, it allows the lower controls arms to basically push directly against the front subframe and k-member area instead of relying on the sheetmetal floor pan to absorb this force.

ssvert99

iTrader: (26)

The LCA mount has been proven many times over to be plenty strong to withstand any amount abuse... this is not a Mustang. The Mustang torque box has been known to have issues and is one of the first focus points of that chassis to address with upgrades.

We have several cars running close to and well over 200mph at 3200-3300 pounds with completely STOCK LCA mounts, and heim jointed arms. The LCA mount of the f-body is tied to both the rocker panel and the subframe... it doesn't need any more help.

Most F-body cars still have LCA's with some type of rubber or poly bushing as well so that lessens the stress induced into the chassis at that point.

BMR Tech2

iTrader: (5)

If so, then what do you benefit from tying from point over the other?

high n dry

iTrader: (18)

Im wide ear open on this debate!

Chris25

iTrader: (1)

I noticed a huge improvement in how stiff the car felt when I installed my SBFC's well worth the small investment.

SuperSport01

MWC has a point these cars do not need the lca pockets reinforced. MWC is the only true underbody subframe connector for these cars that can be bought off the shelf.
If things are getting more serious you can step up to Wolfe through the floor connectors.

LFSADRG

iTrader: (1)

MWC SFC's here, except on a T-Top car. The TA is now more solid and they make for a good grab point to slide out from under the car while working on it.

99Bluz28

iTrader: (35)

IMO, yes they're worth it, but weld them in.

IMO, I know MWC makes a quality product, but I have a very hard time believing that MWC is the only company to build SFCs for the 93-2002 F-body and do it, right/correctly!

IMO, more tech members, to include moderators and sponsors need to get in the habit to emphasize what they are saying isn't always fact (IMO), but just opinions, with some carrying more weight them others.

SoFla01SSLookinstok

When I installed my solid motor mounts I received lots of new interior creaks/rattles from the extra vibration. Installing UMI 3pt bolt in "sfc's" definitely made the car stiffer. Took care of maybe 85% of the rattles.

NewOrleansLT1

I'm going to take a look at the MWC's. I just wanted to know if it was worth it because I hate adding weight to the car lol

brigade24

depends what you're doing with the car...

I've got UMI 3 point bolt ins and i only notice a difference when lapping. for autox or street driving, not much difference.

the money would be better served on shocks/springs, sways, differential, or a watts link...assuming you haven't already done those. Again, it really depends what you do with the car.

ssvert99

iTrader: (26)

Bolt-in SFC = placebo

RevGTO

iTrader: (12)

My UMI two point weld-ins definitely helped with chassis flex when launching at the track. On the street, they caused much more harshness from road irregularities to be transmitted into the cabin.

I tried bolt-ins on m6 car to see if they'd help with my creaking T-tops. No noticeable effect on anything whatsoever.

My conclusion: for a strictly street car I would not bother with them.

SuperSport01

^ They cause more harshness because they hook to the the rear lower control arm mount, instead of the front frame to the rear frame.

JD_AMG

Im not defending either type of SFC as I think both do little to nothing, but can you disprove it? Better yet can you prove yours work better?
Im not talking about posting lame strait line drag strip times, or being able to jack up the at the corner either, so don't bother with those.
PLENTY of people have gone fast in a strait line with no SFC's at all.


And how does this change the ride quality?

SteveC

Another vote for the sub frame connectors.