When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The original question was why are 4th gen convertibles harder to sell than T-top/HT cars?
Could be a generational thing, maybe? I don't even take the t-tops out - not ever. I know fewer people that like convertibles today, than my father's generation. I'm gen x. A lot of the people who bought ls1 equipped f-bodies new, were in the generation that liked convertibles to begin with. Younger generations probably grew up in SUV's and cars with sunroofs, if they had any kind of open top at all.
A few other things that come to mind:
perceiving performance cars as associated with hard tops.
As @Spamfritter said, if you're looking at f-bodies and going to race the car, you're probably going to prefer the hard top or t-top car
the already mentioned perception of convertible cars as being squeaky (whether true or not)
As these cars fall to the subsequent generations those preferences are being applied. If you didn't grow up with convertibles, you probably aren't going to be all that interested in them.
Could be a generational thing, maybe? I don't even take the t-tops out - not ever. I know fewer people that like convertibles today, than my father's generation. I'm gen x. A lot of the people who bought ls1 equipped f-bodies new, were in the generation that liked convertibles to begin with. Younger generations probably grew up in SUV's and cars with sunroofs, if they had any kind of open top at all.
A few other things that come to mind:
perceiving performance cars as associated with hard tops.
As @Spamfritter said, if you're looking at f-bodies and going to race the car, you're probably going to prefer the hard top or t-top car
the already mentioned perception of convertible cars as being squeaky (whether true or not)
As these cars fall to the subsequent generations those preferences are being applied. If you didn't grow up with convertibles, you probably aren't going to be all that interested in them.
I don't know if its generational or not. I do think its somewhat regional at least. I've spent the bulk of my life in Arizona and Texas. Neither of those states are great for convertibles. There are very few days I'd be comfortable with the windows down or the T-tops out of the car. I do have some fond memories of riding around in my T-top cars here and there with the tops out but its something I find enjoyable only a handful of days a year. Those days are just before the winter fully sets in or after it just barely starts to warm up again. I like the glass roof for the view and mostly only take my tops out to make working on the car easier. Where I live AC deletes and convertibles are almost a total no go out side of purpose built race cars or people who just have to have a convertible. They are a niche thing for sure. They appeal to a small subset of people but I think a convertible is more appealing in those parts of the country where you can actually drive around during the summer with the windows down and arrive to work soaked in sweat and smelling like you just got back from the gym.
Convertibles have their issues with tops leaking and needing replacement. A lot of people find the novelty just isn't worth it. My Ex loved convertibles until she had one. It started leaking after awhile and didn't like the expense of having to replace the top. She wasn't aware that was even a thing until she had one. I'd have told her but she bought it early in our relationship without consulting me. I drove that car quite a bit and almost never put the top down. While moving it was fine some of the time but stuck in traffic it was miserable. The only days I didn't feel it was awful were pretty close to winter time. Anything above about 75F or so and I have to have the windows up and the AC blasting. They aren't for me.
I don't know if its generational or not. I do think its somewhat regional at least. I've spent the bulk of my life in Arizona and Texas. Neither of those states are great for convertibles. There are very few days I'd be comfortable with the windows down or the T-tops out of the car. I do have some fond memories of riding around in my T-top cars here and there with the tops out but its something I find enjoyable only a handful of days a year. Those days are just before the winter fully sets in or after it just barely starts to warm up again. I like the glass roof for the view and mostly only take my tops out to make working on the car easier. Where I live AC deletes and convertibles are almost a total no go out side of purpose built race cars or people who just have to have a convertible. They are a niche thing for sure. They appeal to a small subset of people but I think a convertible is more appealing in those parts of the country where you can actually drive around during the summer with the windows down and arrive to work soaked in sweat and smelling like you just got back from the gym.
Convertibles have their issues with tops leaking and needing replacement. A lot of people find the novelty just isn't worth it. My Ex loved convertibles until she had one. It started leaking after awhile and didn't like the expense of having to replace the top. She wasn't aware that was even a thing until she had one. I'd have told her but she bought it early in our relationship without consulting me. I drove that car quite a bit and almost never put the top down. While moving it was fine some of the time but stuck in traffic it was miserable. The only days I didn't feel it was awful were pretty close to winter time. Anything above about 75F or so and I have to have the windows up and the AC blasting. They aren't for me.
AZ is perfect for a vert, as long as it's November thru May LOL.
I have a Vert WS6. It seems I land on many vert sports cars. And I enjoy them. I had a Terminator Cobra vert and a GT500. I enjoyed those cars a lot.
The main thing is, I am a motorcycle rider. In fact, riders call cars "cagers". So, for some of us, the Vert is a huge bonus for driving a car.
I never wake up that early if I don't have to. But your right. Early enough in the morning (in Arizona) you could enjoy a ride with the windows down, tops out or top down if you had a convertible.
perceiving performance cars as associated with hard tops.
As @Spamfritter said, if you're looking at f-bodies and going to race the car, you're probably going to prefer the hard top or t-top car/QUOTE]
Perception myths notwithstanding, those performance oriented or racers would be better served by a convertible. Its more rigid chassis improves all the elements of performance. I own a 98 Z/28 HT and 01 SS vert, so I'm not emotionally committed to the benefits of verts. My attitude is based on both. OEM the vert handled better. Why? Because all suspensions are diminished in their function by how flexible their attachment points are to the chassis. One reason a McLaren handles so well is its ultra-stiff CF chassis. The suspension leverages against an almost immovable chassis. Any OEM F body leverages against a flexible chassis, verts less than HT/T-Top. Mod that chassis making it more rigid, and the car instantly handles better. Better ride and braking too. This doesn't apply to OEM 1st-3rd gen F bodies, only 4th. Traction? The more rigid car is easier to mod into the one with a better launch. The flex in the chassis is a negative for traction, and everything else performance oriented.
None of the above contradicts your insight into why verts don't sell as easily. It does contradict the popular consensus that HT/T-Top 4th gen cars perform better. They don't.
This doesn't apply to OEM 1st-3rd gen F bodies, only 4th. Traction? The more rigid car is easier to mod into the one with a better launch. The flex in the chassis is a negative for traction, and everything else performance oriented.
What about this doesn't apply to the third gen unibody?
What about this doesn't apply to the third gen unibody?
Fun fact #1 The 3rd gen unibody vert never got any of the chassis bracing welded in at the factory. Only the 4th gen did. #2 The bolt in OEM K-frame braces only were installed on the 4th gen vert. No 3rd gen got those. #3 Those looking for a soon to be race car or just plain high-performance car? You'd do well to avoid all the 3rd gens. Code name "Flexible Flyer". All the 4th gen cars used much more aggressive adhesives when putting that car together at the factory making them much stronger than the 3rds. The 3rd gen cars become rattle traps much sooner and to a greater extent than any 4th gen one. None of the 3rd gen cars were designed to be a convertible, they started as HT/T-Tops and got the roof amputated. Dumb X3. The HT/T-Top 3rd gen cars never benefitted from GM making them strong enough to be a vert. #4 There are fewer radical chassis enhancing aftermarket parts for the 3rd. #5 3rd gen engines never taxed the body like 4th gen engines did so they start disadvantaged.
We liked early May in 2021. Perhaps we got lucky with the weather. AZ is such a wonderful state to visit and Rte 66 is the best!!
It really depends on where you are in the state. The further north you go the nicer the weather generally is during the warmer months. In Flagstaff for example you can enjoy the top down longer than you could in Phoenix or some even worse hellscape like Yuma.
What about this doesn't apply to the third gen unibody?
#6 On the 4th gen inside the pass compartment, the vert has a "welded at the factory" floor brace behind the console that ties into those L-brackets welded under the car at the factory. The rug is even molded to fit it. ALL 3rd gens have nothing there, they are wet noodles compared to a 4th gen vert. So are 4th gen HT/T-top cars, just not as much. I did a search here, no one seems to have ever realized that for a race car, canyon carver or slot car 4th gen, the vert is vastly superior to all other 4th gens. Happy news, huh?
I've seen a lot of people are shocked to learn this, or just refuse to believe it. I have not been on this site for 20 years and had no idea EVERYONE didn't know this.
-unfair and inaccurate to ask." Did IQ's drop drastically since I've been away". This has nothing to do with intelligence, only arcane knowledge. Very smart people often won't know what the B.F. in Goodrich means. Arcane knowledge. Like the chassis of the 4th gen vert.
Strano knew, his SRS racing educated him a long time ago. Yes, in Showroom Stock where mods are almost completely illegal, the 4th verts handle better than any other 4ths. Just dropping the roof even lowers the center of gravity of the car (tiny bit better, but better).
In SRS, handling potential is everything. The 4th verts have the most. If you fabricate as on my 98 (photos abound), then your car would be an order of magnitude more rigid than a vert. Until you do the same on your vert, then that car will be the most rigid.
What about this doesn't apply to the third gen unibody?
Basically none of it does. The third generation cars may appear to be a similar design given their parts compatibility and general shape. However, the adhesives used on the panels and design changes to them resulting in a much stronger and less flexible chassis. A third generation car with its T-tops out and its doors open is SCARY flexible.
Originally Posted by LSX Thunder
Fun fact #1 The 3rd gen unibody vert never got any of the chassis bracing welded in at the factory. Only the 4th gen did. #2 The bolt in OEM K-frame braces only were installed on the 4th gen vert. No 3rd gen got those.
Its important to note that third generation convertibles were not built any differently than hard top or T-top cars. This is because factory convertibles do not exist. All "factory" convertibles were sent to ASC for conversion. I don't recall if this was specifically a dealer thing like the aftermarket T-tops or if it was something that if ordered from the factory was sent to ASC for conversion the way ASC did the WS6 Ram Air fourth gens or SLP did the Firehawks. Third generation convertibles are tragically awful.
Originally Posted by LSX Thunder
#3 Those looking for a soon to be race car or just plain high-performance car? You'd do well to avoid all the 3rd gens. Code name "Flexible Flyer".
This is a hyperbolic statement if I have ever seen one. There are plenty of fast and powerful third generation cars out there. The Banks Trans Am is an example of this. I would agree that it takes more work to shore them up than it does a fourth gen, but compared to more modern cars our fourth gen cars aren't fantastic either. They suffer from drawbacks in a number of areas. Their drivelines are weak as are the chassis. Even your vaunted convertibles pale in comparison to modern cars. With SFC's, etc. you can get close but again you are having to compensate and heavily modify an ancient design to compete with modern cars. The point being, you can do this with third generation cars. People have been using SFC's, wonder bars, strut tower braces and full cages to this for decades. Telling people to avoid the third generation cars for performance applications is nonsense. It may not be the best starting point, but neither is your convertible.
Originally Posted by LSX Thunder
All the 4th gen cars used much more aggressive adhesives when putting that car together at the factory making them much stronger than the 3rds. The 3rd gen cars become rattle traps much sooner and to a greater extent than any 4th gen one. None of the 3rd gen cars were designed to be a convertible, they started as HT/T-Tops and got the roof amputated. Dumb X3. The HT/T-Top 3rd gen cars never benefitted from GM making them strong enough to be a vert. #4 There are fewer radical chassis enhancing aftermarket parts for the 3rd. #5 3rd gen engines never taxed the body like 4th gen engines did so they start disadvantaged.
I'll agree with you here. Third generation cars were never designed to be convertibles. (I don't believe fourth generation cars were either but more on that in a minute.) The conversions by ASC were done haphazardly to say the least. As for your comments about third gen cars and chassis enhancement, I don't think that's true. The same kinds of SFC's exist for both cars as do multi-point strut tower braces. They also have wonder bars which are basically strut tower braces for the bottom of the front end. Granted, fourth generation cars do not need those as they start out a lot stronger. But cages, SFC's, etc. all exist for both cars. They do start disadvantaged for sure, but you can do all the same stuff. Again, there are plenty of high horsepower third gens out there.
Lastly, I don't think fourth generation cars were designed as convertibles. Speaking generally, most cars aren't. There is a big difference between designing a car from the ground up as a convertible and designing a car to be a hard top and then creating a convertible version of it. Had it been the former, all the cars would likely be exactly the same aside from their roofs. The chassis reinforcement added to the convertibles shows the convertible was an afterthought. Further evidence proving this point is that there was no convertible Camaro model in 1993. That doesn't mean the convertible version didn't turn out well, it obviously did but it wasn't designed to be a convertible. The convertible variant is a modification of the original design.
Originally Posted by LSX Thunder
#6 On the 4th gen inside the pass compartment, the vert has a "welded at the factory" floor brace behind the console that ties into those L-brackets welded under the car at the factory. The rug is even molded to fit it. ALL 3rd gens have nothing there, they are wet noodles compared to a 4th gen vert.
On this we can agree. 3rd generation cars from the factory are wet noodles when it comes to structural rigidity.
Originally Posted by LSX Thunder
So are 4th gen HT/T-top cars, just not as much. I did a search here, no one seems to have ever realized that for a race car, canyon carver or slot car 4th gen, the vert is vastly superior to all other 4th gens. Happy news, huh?
Since you have established a pattern of hyperbolic statements, I have a hard time believing fourth generation convertibles are "vastly" superior to other models when it comes to handling or rigidity. Let's just say, "citation needed." They may be stiffer, I don't know for sure. Earlier in the thread you said Sam Strano said they were more rigid than other models, but appeals to authority aren't evidence. I'd take his word for it sure, but I don't know how much "vast" is supposed to be. 10%, 20%, I doubt its as big a margin as you act like it is.
Originally Posted by LSX Thunder
I've seen a lot of people are shocked to learn this, or just refuse to believe it.
People have a hard time believing it because its not true for basically any other muscle car in history. In the best cases where a car was designed to be a convertible first, the hard top variants and convertibles are equal. This mostly happens in exotic cars. I think the Corvette is another example of this.
Originally Posted by LSX Thunder
The 4th verts have the most. If you fabricate as on my 98 (photos abound), then your car would be an order of magnitude more rigid than a vert. Until you do the same on your vert, then that car will be the most rigid.
I'm sorry, but this statement just doesn't pass the smell test. With multipoint SFC's on both, is the convertible bracing really doing all that much compared to the SFC's? I kind of doubt it. You discount the roof from doing anything but if you cut the roof of a T-top or hard top fourth gen off its going to flop around like a thirdgen convertible. Having all your bracing on one side of an object versus top and bottom doesn't seem like it would be as effective and it isn't on any other car I know of. You keep bringing up Sam Strano and I know he makes parts for these cars including SFC's, brake booster braces, etc. I have some of these parts. It's good stuff. But is the man a structural engineer? If not, his opinion only means so much. I'm not saying he doesn't know his **** but its possible to make an accurate statement based on the wrong conclusion.
For example, if the fourth generation convertibles handle better, might that be due to lower center of gravity rather than structural rigidity? I don't know. I'm not a structural engineer either. The reason people have a hard time believing that the convertible could be all that you say it is simply comes down to the fact that it flies in the face of conventional wisdom regarding just about every other muscle car that has ever existed. Even if I believe that the vert handled better, I wouldn't think its because its more rigid. Nor does it make any sense that the same parts wouldn't make the hard top stronger than a convertible.
That just sounds like bullshit. It also wasn't ever common knowledge anywhere I can remember. I've been on various car forums and message boards for F-bodies for two decades and finding this thread a few days ago is literally the first time I've heard of the idea that fourth generation verts are more rigid or handle better than their hard top counterparts.
Last edited by Spamfritter; 08-25-2023 at 01:48 PM.
Basically none of it does. The third generation cars may appear to be a similar design given their parts compatibility and general shape. However, the adhesives used on the panels and design changes to them resulting in a much stronger and less flexible chassis. A third generation car with its T-tops out and its doors open is SCARY flexible.
Its important to note that third generation convertibles were not built any differently than hard top or T-top cars. This is because factory convertibles do not exist. All "factory" convertibles were sent to ASC for conversion. I don't recall if this was specifically a dealer thing like the aftermarket T-tops or if it was something that if ordered from the factory was sent to ASC for conversion the way ASC did the WS6 Ram Air fourth gens or SLP did the Firehawks. Third generation convertibles are tragically awful.
This is a hyperbolic statement if I have ever seen one. There are plenty of fast and powerful third generation cars out there. The Banks Trans Am is an example of this. I would agree that it takes more work to shore them up than it does a fourth gen, but compared to more modern cars our fourth gen cars aren't fantastic either. They suffer from drawbacks in a number of areas. Their drivelines are weak as are the chassis. Even your vaunted convertibles pale in comparison to modern cars. With SFC's, etc. you can get close but again you are having to compensate and heavily modify an ancient design to compete with modern cars. The point being, you can do this with third generation cars. People have been using SFC's, wonder bars, strut tower braces and full cages to this for decades. Telling people to avoid the third generation cars for performance applications is nonsense. It may not be the best starting point, but neither is your convertible.
The 4th gen vert is a much better starting point than any 3rd gen. One reason from this: In it is the absolute assertion that unlike the 3rd gen vert, this new 4th gen vert was designed to be a factory convertible with considerable reinforcements welded in at the factory.
I'll agree with you here. Third generation cars were never designed to be convertibles. (I don't believe fourth generation cars were either but more on that in a minute.)
That is 100% wrong. Go online and read what GM wrote in that brochure above.
The conversions by ASC were done haphazardly to say the least. As for your comments about third gen cars and chassis enhancement, I don't think that's true. The same kinds of SFC's exist for both cars as do multi-point strut tower braces. They also have wonder bars which are basically strut tower braces for the bottom of the front end.
No, they are not. They are K-frame braces like what was OEM on the 4th vert. Only. STB only keep the towers from moving. (A little).
Granted, fourth generation cars do not need those as they start out a lot stronger. But cages, SFC's, etc. all exist for both cars. They do start disadvantaged for sure, but you can do all the same stuff. Again, there are plenty of high horsepower third gens out there.
"They do start disadvantaged for sure" My point.
Lastly, I don't think fourth generation cars were designed as convertibles.
In the brochure it literally contradicts you.
Speaking generally, most cars aren't. There is a big difference between designing a car from the ground up as a convertible and designing a car to be a hard top and then creating a convertible version of it. Had it been the former, all the cars would likely be exactly the same aside from their roofs.
Which my photos prove conclusively they are not.
The chassis reinforcement added to the convertibles shows the convertible was an afterthought.
Wrong.
Further evidence proving this point is that there was no convertible Camaro model in 1993. That doesn't mean the convertible version didn't turn out well, it obviously did but it wasn't designed to be a convertible first, so lets get that straight.
Read the brochure to get straight.
Read the brochure and learn how amazingly wrong you are. Or, call Sam. Or, believe me (painful but worthwhile) I know, it's not your fault, everything you've read for the last 30 years has misled you. The tidal wave of BS on the forums about 3rd and 4th F bodies on their chassis' is propaganda or raw ignorance. as Sam has been on these forums that whole time I don't know why he has not enlightened them.
On this we can agree. 3rd generation cars from the factory are wet noodles when it comes to structural rigidity.
Since you have established a pattern of hyperbolic statements, I have a hard time believing fourth generation convertibles are "vastly" superior to other models when it comes to handling or rigidity. Let's just say, "citation needed." They may be stiffer, I don't know for sure. Earlier in the thread you said Sam Strano said they were more rigid than other models, but appeals to authority aren't evidence. I'd take his word for it sure, but I don't know how much "vast" is supposed to be. 10%, 20%, I doubt its as big a margin as you act like it is.
Showroom Stock racing is Sam's forte. He's driven the Hell out of all the B body variants we've been referencing here. Please call or email him for the citations you want.
People have a hard time believing it because its not true for basically any other muscle car in history. In the best cases where a car was designed to be a convertible first, the hard top variants and convertibles are equal. This mostly happens in exotic cars. I think the Corvette is another example of this.
Before you again accuse me of writing something not true, research what I've written. You are dead wrong in your premise about 4th gen verts being like other, not designed from the get-go verts. A ontological certainty you can easily prove to yourself just by accessing the sources I've provided you.
I'm sorry, but this statement just doesn't pass the smell test. With multipoint SFC's on both, is the convertible bracing really doing all that much compared to the SFC's? I kind of doubt it. You discount the roof from doing anything but if you cut the roof of a T-top or hard top fourth gen off its going to flop around like a thirdgen convertible. Having all your bracing on one side of an object versus top and bottom doesn't seem like it would be as effective and it isn't on any other car I know of. You keep bringing up Sam Strano and I know he makes parts for these cars including SFC's, brake booster braces, etc. I have some of these parts. It's good stuff. But is the man a structural engineer? If not, his opinion only means so much. I'm not saying he doesn't know his **** but its possible to make an accurate statement based on the wrong conclusion.
For example, if the fourth generation convertibles handle better, might that be due to lower center of gravity rather than structural rigidity? I don't know. I'm not a structural engineer either. The reason people have a hard time believing that the convertible could be all that you say it is simply comes down to the fact that it flies in the face of conventional wisdom regarding just about every other muscle car that has ever existed. Even if I believe that the vert handled better, I wouldn't think its because its more rigid. Nor does it make any sense that the same parts wouldn't make the hard top stronger than a convertible.
That just sounds like bullshit. It also wasn't ever common knowledge anywhere I can remember. I've been on various car forums and message boards for F-bodies for two decades and finding this thread a few days ago is literally the first time I've heard of the idea that fourth generation verts are more rigid or handle better than their hard top counterparts.
WOW! That was some assertion.
Prepare to be publicly embarrassed.
PS
You wrote: You keep bringing up Sam Strano and I know he makes parts for these cars including SFC's, brake booster braces, etc. I have some of these parts. It's good stuff. But is the man a structural engineer? If not, his opinion only means so much. I'm not saying he doesn't know his **** but its possible to make an accurate statement based on the wrong conclusion."
WOW! That was some assertion.
Prepare to be publicly embarrassed.
PS
You wrote: You keep bringing up Sam Strano and I know he makes parts for these cars including SFC's, brake booster braces, etc. I have some of these parts. It's good stuff. But is the man a structural engineer? If not, his opinion only means so much. I'm not saying he doesn't know his **** but its possible to make an accurate statement based on the wrong conclusion."
No where does that say Sam Strano is a structural engineer. He didn't invent SFC's for F-bodies either. Being a race car driver is not the same thing as being an engineer. Lap times have nothing to do with understanding structural engineering.
Bolt on braces and welded in supports after the fact shows the car was not designed to be a convertible as a base. Again, there is no 1993 model. Had all the cars been designed as convertibles first, why exclude it from the lineup in 1993?
As for the brochure, are you ******* kidding me? It literally says: "This stunning drop top was designed from the outset to be a convertible." Another way to put it is: "The convertible was designed from the outset to be a convertible." No kidding? That does not state, nor remotely imply all fourth generation F-bodies were designed as convertibles first. You should check your own sources before using them as evidence. Secondly, a brochure is from the marketing department which does not consist of engineers and here is a news flash for you: Marketing agencies and departments bend, stretch and distort the truth to manipulate people into believing whatever they want to sell product and cover their asses in court. You are literally choosing to believe what you want to believe despite evidence to the contrary. IE, no 1993 convertible. Braces are not integral to the design, etc.
Last edited by Spamfritter; 08-25-2023 at 03:32 PM.
No where does that say Sam Strano is a structural engineer. He didn't invent SFC's for F-bodies either. Being a race car driver is not the same thing as being an engineer.
His racing record means nothing to you. I understand.
Bolt on braces and welded in supports after the fact shows the car was not designed to be a convertible as a base. Again, no 1993 model.
As for the brochure, are you ******* kidding me? It literally says the Camaro convertible was designed from the outset to be a convertible. That's from the marketing department which does not consist of engineers and here is a news flash for you: Marketing agencies and departments bend, stretch and distort the truth to manipulate people into believing whatever they want to sell product and cover their asses in court. You are literally choosing to believe what you want to believe despite evidence to the contrary. IE, no 1993 convertible. Braces are not integral to the design, etc.
I will leave you to your own devices. Perhaps someone else will have more success in clarifying all this. Have fun storming the castle.
DefaultFor anyone but Spamfritter:
Repost: All 4th gen photos
2001 Camaro convertible OEM, with K-frame OEM braces that NEVER appeared on any 4th gen HT or T Top. For those insisting there is no difference between the convertible (above) and the T-Top/HT cars (below left) which all have no welded in extensions nor the 4 point tunnel brace, nor the L brace attaching the sub frames to the floor on both sides opposite the tunnel braces. On Left: The welded in at the factory extensions from the tunnel brace that stop most SFC's from fitting the convertible. On right. 98-2002 T-Top F body. Many differences like both sides of the very different tunnel braces, vert has an L shape welded brace on both sides, the T-top does not. So those SFC's (BMR - web site says WILLNOT FIT CONVERIBLE) The photos show why.
3rd gen vs 4th gen verts
The mention of the 3rd gen Wonderbar reminded me that unlike the 4th, the 3rd has no support between the L+R frame rails in the front. Obvious one reason why it's so much more flexible than the 4th. That's why the Wonderbar (AKA Steering Brace) is really a sub frame brace, needed on the 3rd, not on the 4th, because the 4th has a much stronger design connecting L+R OEM frame rails. Just like the old Caprice it was based on. The Wonderbar installs using three OEM bolts of different length under the sway bar mount. Important to keep the short bolt where it comes from. The Wonderbar is a side-to-side sub frame connector. It gets called a Steering Brace because the OEM structure is so weak it makes the steering imprecise. Once bolted in, and then welded in, the front end is still more flexible than any 4th gen. A roll cage doesn't help, nor SFC's. All the design failure is at the front sub frame. Compare the 3rd mounting points for the F sway bar to the 4th. Immediately obvious. Any 1 1/4" or larger front sway bar will bend the sub frame, reducing the roll resistance of the bar. Another reason 3rd gens don't ever handle as well as 4th gens, especially the 4th verts.
08-24-2023, 07:44 PM
In it is the absolute assertion that unlike the 3rd gen vert, this new 4th gen vert was designed to be a factory convertible with considerable reinforcements welded in at the factory.
