CF Drama/Vendor Drama.....
04-03-2014, 01:31 PM
#23
TECH Fanatic
Its a lateral support that connects the frame to the subframe. If you have seen, or remember 54's pictures, there are two proposed contact points to his current arms. The are just ahead and outboard of the trailing arm contact point. The KARs kit attaches to those and then to the cradle. It also connects to the front of the diff.
04-03-2014, 01:32 PM
#24
TECH Fanatic
If I recall the KARS kit (KARS III?) was/is an anti-wheelhop kit from BMR (not sure if it's actively made anymore).
1) It didn't connect to the rails on the unibody at all like 54's does. It did connect to the rear cradle mounts.
2) I also believe it had a mount on the front of the diff which I don't believe 54's does.
My point is KARS was different and I'm not sure it's made anymore. Not sure what motox's point is other than trying to poo on 54's possible helpful wheelhop/frame stiffening solution and say a competitor makes a similar product. If the mods think he is in violation then let them decide instead of stirring the pot please. Some of us might be interested in getting something that actually stops wheel hop.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...e1396549404190
BMR's solution was a bar that tied one side of the subframe to the other. I've used BMR's stuff on other cars. Its good stuff. But the CTS-V antihop solution seemed to basically just mimic a strut/sway bar intended to just tie one side to the other.
http://www.bmrsuspension.com/?page=p...&productid=424
Last edited by ryridesmotox; 04-03-2014 at 01:40 PM.
04-03-2014, 01:47 PM
#26
TECH Fanatic
04-03-2014, 01:52 PM
#27
It's all a compromise because if it wasn't, my V would be sitting on a 1 piece tubular chassis. Based on the design of our chassis, 54's design seems to be a good overall mix of simplicity, effectiveness and affordability while not transmitting drivetrain noise like the BMR kit was reported to do.
BTW...cradle brace is fine, i don't care what you call it as long as it relatively cheap, gets delivered right to my door and bolts on right out da box...
04-03-2014, 02:16 PM
#28
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear ya motox...and agree on the semantics of the nomenclature "subframe connector" as probably not the best description of what 54 has made.
I guess I was mainly trying to point out the difference between being helpful or trying to let everybody know who's right or smarter or knows everything there is to know about subframe dynamics. Particularly with what the thread title is...
Since the vehicle is a complex mix of many components joined together, sometimes the magic fix for something like wheelhop may just come from something different like this. Having owned my V for 7 years I've yet to see a stand alone hop solution with the stock diff setup. And I've tried the Spectre Werks cradle bushings (removed) and still have the Geforce different diameter axle installed (and still have major hop).
I'd love to see some vids and testimonials of other members with 54's setup when available.
I guess I was mainly trying to point out the difference between being helpful or trying to let everybody know who's right or smarter or knows everything there is to know about subframe dynamics. Particularly with what the thread title is...
Since the vehicle is a complex mix of many components joined together, sometimes the magic fix for something like wheelhop may just come from something different like this. Having owned my V for 7 years I've yet to see a stand alone hop solution with the stock diff setup. And I've tried the Spectre Werks cradle bushings (removed) and still have the Geforce different diameter axle installed (and still have major hop).
I'd love to see some vids and testimonials of other members with 54's setup when available.
04-03-2014, 02:25 PM
#29
TECH Addict
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Where the Navy tells me to go
Posts: 2,403
Received 106 Likes
on
88 Posts
The only pictures I have seen of yours on Facebook and elsewhere have shown the back subframe connect to the back of the unibody. Whereas the ones I have done in the past on weak *** fox bodies, basically you create a frame that connects the front subframe to the rear subframe... Motor to axle is basically one piece.
Expecting SFCs on a modern chassis like the Sigma platform to look like those on a weakass 1970s Fox platform is just setting yourself up to be disappointed. One of the reasons the Fox is weakass is because the front frame rails don't extend back nearly as far as they do on the Sigma, hence SFCs have to tie in farther forward on the car.
I have an '89 Fox body with full-length SFCs sitting in my driveway. I wouldn't expect the V's SFCs to be the same, nor do they need to be.
04-03-2014, 03:42 PM
#30
Yeah, these "sub frame connectors" really serve a different purpose. The car's unibody frame is rigid enough, so all it really needs is a wheel hop fix. So in effect, it's a "subframe" brace that happens to be "connected" to the unibody frame rail.
This thread got outta hand.. hahaha
This thread got outta hand.. hahaha
04-03-2014, 04:50 PM
#32
I haven't spent much time under my V so I was unaware that the front subframe mounts were so far forward. It would be challenging to tie both the front and rear subframes solidly together in this scenario so we may need to depend on the "stamped frame" components to do all of our strengthening.
54, looks like the setup you already have is about the easiest, most affordable way to go. Still don't know if we should expect clearance issues with the CS trailing arms...
And I'm fine with you calling them "subframe connectors"
Thanks for chiming in.....
54, looks like the setup you already have is about the easiest, most affordable way to go. Still don't know if we should expect clearance issues with the CS trailing arms...
And I'm fine with you calling them "subframe connectors"
Thanks for chiming in.....
If I recall the KARS kit (KARS III?) was/is an anti-wheelhop kit from BMR (not sure if it's actively made anymore).
1) It didn't connect to the rails on the unibody at all like 54's does. It did connect to the rear cradle mounts.
2) I also believe it had a mount on the front of the diff which I don't believe 54's does.
My point is KARS was different and I'm not sure it's made anymore. Not sure what motox's point is other than trying to poo on 54's possible helpful wheelhop/frame stiffening solution and say a competitor makes a similar product. If the mods think he is in violation then let them decide instead of stirring the pot please. Some of us might be interested in getting something that actually stops wheel hop.
1) It didn't connect to the rails on the unibody at all like 54's does. It did connect to the rear cradle mounts.
2) I also believe it had a mount on the front of the diff which I don't believe 54's does.
My point is KARS was different and I'm not sure it's made anymore. Not sure what motox's point is other than trying to poo on 54's possible helpful wheelhop/frame stiffening solution and say a competitor makes a similar product. If the mods think he is in violation then let them decide instead of stirring the pot please. Some of us might be interested in getting something that actually stops wheel hop.
Blake had the KARS or BMR kit on his and hated it; it was when hi car was maggied. The latitudinal brace is basically wortless if you keep stock cradle bushings, imho.
Directly connecting to the diff also transmitted a significant amount of noise.
It's all a compromise because if it wasn't, my V would be sitting on a 1 piece tubular chassis. Based on the design of our chassis, 54's design seems to be a good overall mix of simplicity, effectiveness and affordability while not transmitting drivetrain noise like the BMR kit was reported to do.
BTW...cradle brace is fine, i don't care what you call it as long as it relatively cheap, gets delivered right to my door and bolts on right out da box...
It's all a compromise because if it wasn't, my V would be sitting on a 1 piece tubular chassis. Based on the design of our chassis, 54's design seems to be a good overall mix of simplicity, effectiveness and affordability while not transmitting drivetrain noise like the BMR kit was reported to do.
BTW...cradle brace is fine, i don't care what you call it as long as it relatively cheap, gets delivered right to my door and bolts on right out da box...
I don't notice any additional noise, but I am about to install some very hard cradle bushings, so that might change.
I hear ya motox...and agree on the semantics of the nomenclature "subframe connector" as probably not the best description of what 54 has made.
I guess I was mainly trying to point out the difference between being helpful or trying to let everybody know who's right or smarter or knows everything there is to know about subframe dynamics. Particularly with what the thread title is...
Since the vehicle is a complex mix of many components joined together, sometimes the magic fix for something like wheelhop may just come from something different like this. Having owned my V for 7 years I've yet to see a stand alone hop solution with the stock diff setup. And I've tried the Spectre Werks cradle bushings (removed) and still have the Geforce different diameter axle installed (and still have major hop).
I'd love to see some vids and testimonials of other members with 54's setup when available.
I guess I was mainly trying to point out the difference between being helpful or trying to let everybody know who's right or smarter or knows everything there is to know about subframe dynamics. Particularly with what the thread title is...
Since the vehicle is a complex mix of many components joined together, sometimes the magic fix for something like wheelhop may just come from something different like this. Having owned my V for 7 years I've yet to see a stand alone hop solution with the stock diff setup. And I've tried the Spectre Werks cradle bushings (removed) and still have the Geforce different diameter axle installed (and still have major hop).
I'd love to see some vids and testimonials of other members with 54's setup when available.
We keep meaning to take a video so you can see everything still moving, but limited movement do to these bars, but we keep forgetting.
Are you saying that to be "real" subframe connectors they should go all the way forward and connect to the front cross-member? Or where are you saying they should go?
Expecting SFCs on a modern chassis like the Sigma platform to look like those on a weakass 1970s Fox platform is just setting yourself up to be disappointed. One of the reasons the Fox is weakass is because the front frame rails don't extend back nearly as far as they do on the Sigma, hence SFCs have to tie in farther forward on the car.
I have an '89 Fox body with full-length SFCs sitting in my driveway. I wouldn't expect the V's SFCs to be the same, nor do they need to be.
Expecting SFCs on a modern chassis like the Sigma platform to look like those on a weakass 1970s Fox platform is just setting yourself up to be disappointed. One of the reasons the Fox is weakass is because the front frame rails don't extend back nearly as far as they do on the Sigma, hence SFCs have to tie in farther forward on the car.
I have an '89 Fox body with full-length SFCs sitting in my driveway. I wouldn't expect the V's SFCs to be the same, nor do they need to be.
Yeah, these "sub frame connectors" really serve a different purpose. The car's unibody frame is rigid enough, so all it really needs is a wheel hop fix. So in effect, it's a "subframe" brace that happens to be "connected" to the unibody frame rail.
This thread got outta hand.. hahaha
This thread got outta hand.. hahaha
04-04-2014, 08:13 AM
#35
On The Tree
That's how I considered them too.
Any thoughts on if these will help reduce/mask rear subframe squirm? Not sure if it's tired bushings (70K '05), (semi)sticky 275s, freshly rain-cleaned streets, or what, but when I get on it in first and second I really feel the rear end crawling around.
Kinda cool, since it feels like it's got so much power that it's unstable. But it does feel unstable.
Any thoughts on if these will help reduce/mask rear subframe squirm? Not sure if it's tired bushings (70K '05), (semi)sticky 275s, freshly rain-cleaned streets, or what, but when I get on it in first and second I really feel the rear end crawling around.
Kinda cool, since it feels like it's got so much power that it's unstable. But it does feel unstable.
04-04-2014, 08:39 AM
#36
04-04-2014, 09:20 AM
#37
That's how I considered them too.
Any thoughts on if these will help reduce/mask rear subframe squirm? Not sure if it's tired bushings (70K '05), (semi)sticky 275s, freshly rain-cleaned streets, or what, but when I get on it in first and second I really feel the rear end crawling around.
Kinda cool, since it feels like it's got so much power that it's unstable. But it does feel unstable.
Any thoughts on if these will help reduce/mask rear subframe squirm? Not sure if it's tired bushings (70K '05), (semi)sticky 275s, freshly rain-cleaned streets, or what, but when I get on it in first and second I really feel the rear end crawling around.
Kinda cool, since it feels like it's got so much power that it's unstable. But it does feel unstable.
