tigersooner

My WS6 is lowered almost 2". Will the bolt-in SLP SFC be an issue with clearance. At this point, I don't have any issues scrapping my air dam, but I would hate to loose much clearance. How much would I loose you think?

I currently have SLP LT headers (anyone interested?) I am planning on taking these off and doing either 1 3/4 or 1 7/8 Kooks LTs with a true dual exhaust setup. This won't happen for about a year or so. Will these subframe connectors interfere with the Kooks LT? I know I see many people list that they have both items on their cars, but I don't know if any custom work was involved.

I've heard that the SLP SFC are heavy. How heavy are we talking? How much do the other SFC weigh? I know chrome moly is ligher, but I don't plan on breaking quarter mile records. I want a fast car, and I enjoy doing mods because I enjoy working on the car.

I know it is a matter of opinion, and I spent an hour reading everyone's thoughts on UMI, BMR, and MWC last night. I haven't bought a single mod for the car yet. I just bought it, and it only has 10k on it. I plan on keeping it for many years. So my goal is to buy the best product, whenever I do modify it. My goal is a very streetable, comfortable suspension. Is there a better SFC?

I will eventually be talking to Sam Strano to get his opinion on the rest of the suspension stuff. The car is lowered, and I was given the stock springs in QA1 boxes. The previous owner did not know what brand of spring he had put on the car. I didn't think QA1s only had lowering springs, I thought they were all drag springs. The car is currently very streetable.

Thanks for the help.

UMI Performance

iTrader: (77)

Hello,

The SLP 3-Point subframe connectors (SFCs) are very nice, however they do tend to had down below the pinch weld quite a bit. If you are worried about clearance they could cause an issue in certain areas.

If you are interested in the 3-Point design please check out our set up as well. When we designed them we kept ground clearance in mind so we wouldn't cause any issues. If you look closely at the installation pictures below you will see that we have bent our bracing to follow the contour of the floor... this allows the connectors to tuck up tight and not reduce ground clearance.

www.umiperformance.com/2004

If you have any questions I can help with please ask. Thanks!
Ryan

Fosnot

iTrader: (15)

I have the SLP units on my car, and from what I can tell they are sturdy, but from comparing then to the tubular version, from say UMI for example.. the UMI seems to be superior. LCA connection is complete, whereas the SLP only has one side attached, the tubular design also looks like it would fit closer than the boxed version SLP produced. They also have chrome-moly options for a price. I would probably buy UMI if I were to do it myself (bought car w/ them installed).

Mine was a bolt-in install w/ loctite used, as far as I can tell they haven't come loose (checked with a torque wrench still to spec)

eb110americana

iTrader: (4)

I'm interested in this as well since no one really tests the various brands/types against each other. My current favorite is the SLP weld-ins as they are boxed in and have heavy triangulation. I don't mind if they stick down a bit as I'd rather those scrape the ground than my exhaust. I actually like the idea of a flat jacking point as well. I would never lift a car by a tubular brace as tubes have superior strength along their length, but not perpendicular to it (you can stand on a couple of soda cans, but can crush them from the side with your bare hands).

my_bandit recommended the Midwest Chassis True Subframe Connector since they don't just terminate in the rear at the lower control arm chassis mount, but weld to the rear unibody (there's not really a true "subframe" back there from what I can tell, but there is a reinforced region that the rear axle sits under). I like that idea a lot, but noted that these are not 3 point, thus have no link to the center tunnel or each other, nor do they have triangulation. I'm also not convinced by their claim that all the other subframe connectors are useless. I’d be interested to see what other people think and if there are some out there who have tried more than one type who can compare for us.

JasonLS1noob

To answer the question of clearance issues, my camaro is sitting on stranos and I also have slp 3 point sfc. I'm on my phone, but as soon as I get into a computer I'll post pics of how low the sfc fits. To give u an idea, I can fit EXACTLY a soda can under the sfc, and I believe the stranos dropped my car 1-1.5" you stated urs is almost 2 in" so I can tell u IF u decide to get the boxed 3 point slp sfc, u would have less then a soda can of clearance. Hope that helps with ur decision, didn't mean to ramble on.

tigersooner

thanks for the replies.

I agree that the flat surface and triangulation make sense to me. I do a lot of engineering work, but i'm not a automotive engineer. In my experience a 3 point will almost always out perform a 2 point design when forces are applied in more than one plane. which by defintion is torque (moment arms). this is what happens when we launch our car hard or accelerate thru a turn.

anyone have experience with the kooks long tubes. i agree that i rather the sfc scrape than exhaust. i just want to make sure i could still do a true dual setup with sfc's. this is where the MWC design or a 2 point design may be beneficial.

thanks

UMI Performance

iTrader: (77)

With our 3-Point SFC's there is no exhaust clearance issues, we haven't found a single set up that won't clear. Check out the link below for some pictures of a recent true dual install and our 3-Point SFC's we did here at the shop.

UMI 3-Point SFC Install w/ TSP True Duals

I hope this helps you some. Thanks for looking!
Ryan

MasterTomos

iTrader: (15)

SLP's are super expensive as well, I have yet to see why they would be worth the extra cash.

tigersooner

will there be a problem doing true duals with Kooks headers and SLP subframe connectors? anyone have experience with this? I think it should be fine, but need some clarification.

SparkyJJO

iTrader: (11)

Someone like UMI should do a mix between the Midwest Chassis subframe connectors and the standard 3 point units. Best of both worlds - more rigid front to back, with better jacking points built in, plus the extra strength the 3rd point gives.

But then I'm only an electronic engineer and computer nerd by trade, so I don't know whether that would work or even be useful vs the standard 3 point SFC.

Maybe someone who specializes in that sort of thing can chime in. I guess a big draw to me for the MWC SFCs is basically the "frame" it adds to the bottom of the car to allow for many more (and stronger) jack points. I didn't think the stock was bad at first, but after having my Trailblazer with a full frame it has kind of spoiled me

sweetride98

iTrader: (2)

My T/A has a 2" drop, Kooks Headers and SLP loud mouth cat back, Spohn torque arm and the UMI 3 point subframe connectors, i didnt loose any ground clearance here a pic if that helps